Loading...
1964/03/16 City Council MinutesROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL 16 March 1964 The Council of the City of Rohnert Park met this date in regular session at 8:00 p.m. at the City`Office 435 Southwest Blvd., Rohnert Park with Mayor Smith presiding. This regular session was preceded by a work session which commenced at 7:30 p.m. but at which no official action was taken. Roll Call Present: (5) Mayor Smith, Councilmen Bell, Buchanan, Foust, Rogers. Absent: (0) Minutes Discussion was held on the minutes for March 2, 1964. it was felt that the motion on top of Page 3 should read: "The Council authorized the hiring of a Recreation Director at a salary of $600 per month, for the summer season" Upon motion by Councilman Rogers, seconded by Councilman Foust and unanimously approved, the minutes of March 2, 1964, were approved as corrected. Bills Upon motion by Councilman Bell, seconded by Councilman Rogers and unanimously approved, the bills per attached copy dated March 16, 1964, were approved for payment. Rose Parade entry A letter from the Rohnert Park Chamber of Commerce was read requesting the City allocate $750 for an entry in this years Rose Parade in Santa Rosa. Mayor Smith suggested that the Council ask the Chamber of Commerce to meet with the Council to discuss the matter brought up in their letters He also indicat <. ed that he would like a report from the Chamber of Commerce on the Chamber's plans for Founders Days„ Rec_i_anation A letter was received from Robert Ryan, Chief of the Volunteer Fire Department offering his resignation as Fire Chief. The Council acknowledged the resignation and requested City Manager Callinan to draft a letter to Mr. Ryan thanking him for his efforts in the past, and in the performance of his duties as the Volunteer Fire Chief„ City of Cotati A copy of a letter sent by the City of Cotati to the Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission was read. Mr. Maxwells City Attorney, was requested to draft a reply for the Mayor's signature, Other Communica- Other communications presented to the Council are listed on the tions attached list dated March 16, 1964, entitled " Rohnert Parr City Council - Communications ". Uniform Traffic Mr. Maxwell, City Attorney, stated that he has contacted the 0:u�djmance League of California Cities for copies of the Uniform Traffic Ordinance. As soon as they are received he suggested that the City Manager and Police Chief review it and mare suggested changes, after which he will prepare the necessary ordinance for Council consideration. The Council requested Mr. Maxwell to do all he can to expedite this matter. Ordinance #43 Page 2 16 March 1964 Upon motion by Councilman Bell, seconded by Councilman Buchanan and unanimously approved, reading of Ordinance No, 42 was waived. Qrdinance Nod 42 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE N0, 18, CHANGING THE TIMt FOR LICENSING DOGS AND PROVIDING FOR CONFINE- MENT OF CERTAIN DOGS' was introduced upon motion by Councilman Bell, seconded by Councilman Buchanan, and unanimously approved. Upon motion by Councilman Buchanan, seconded by Councilman Fous-, and unanimously approved, reading of Ordinance No. 43 was waived. Ordinance No. 43 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 13 (ROHNERT PARK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT), was introduced upon motion by Councilman Buchanan, seconded by Councilman Foust anc-1 . unanimously approved. Ordinance #44 Upon motion by Councilman Buchanan, seconded by Councilman Fou,s'� and unanimously approved, reading of Ordinance No. 44 was waived. Ordinance No. 44 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 24. (UNI- FORM FIRE PREVENTION CODE), was introduced upon motion by Councilman Buchanan, seconded by Councilman Foust and unani- mously approved. April Election City Attorney, Richard Maxwell, stated that there was nothing left for the Council to do for the April Elections except canvas the votes after the election. All ballots, sample ballots, and necessary mailing, etc., will be taken care of by the County Election.Department. Lease /Option for Fire Engine Discussion was held on the proposed Lease and Option p Agreement with the Bank of America and Industrial Steel Tank & Body Works, Inc., for the new fire engine 4144) recently delivered. City Manager Callinan. suggested that the Council authorize the Mayor to execute this agreement on behalf of the City. Upon motion by Councilman Buchanan, seconded by Councilman Bell and unanimously approved the Mayor was authorized to Pxamif-p i-1,o _ ,. .uease�vption on behalf of the City of Rohnert Park. .. Loaning of City monies to Non- Councilman Buchanan asked City Attorney Maxwell if it was legal Profit Corps. for the City to loan money to a non - profit corporation for recreation equipment. Attorney Maxwell stated that the City could purchase the equipment and'then loan it to the corporation, but could not loan money. Wilfred Crossing City Manager Callinan reminded the Council of the Public Utili- Cties Commission Public Hearing on March 25th in the City Council hambers at 10:00 a.m. concerning the proposed Grade Crossing near the Wilfred Overpass. Page 3 16 March 1964 Insurance City Manager Callinan stated that at the last meeting, discus- sion was held on liability insurance for the City. At that time the Council asked the insurance agent for the City, Mr. Feeney, to check into different policies. Mr. Feeney was present and discussion was held on his letter dated March 61 1964, re: Liability Insurance - recommending that the City purchase the Broad form "LP" Liability Policy with the Pacific Indemnity Co. Mr. Feeney presented Mr. Maxwell, City Attorney, with a sample policy of this for his study. Mr. Maxwell indicated to the Council that he could not see any great advantage to the City in the broad -form policy. Upon motioW by Councilma% Buchanan, seconded by Councilman Bell and unanirnous"ly approved, the City Counca decided to purchase the standard liability policy 'rather than .broad -form Liability Policy,... Mr. Callinan .City Manager; stated that the City had received another proposal from Mr. Feeney'covering the machinery at the sewer plant. Mr. Callinan stated that he felt that the premium appeared to be quite high for the coverages provided and that he didn't feel that there was a need for this type of policy at this time, but that he`Vould like this. matter to receive further study and - ,:possibly be discussed at the next Council meeting. Recess At this point the meeting was adjourned for a 5 minute recess. Annexation #3 Mayor.Smiath stated that in view of the Sonoma County Local Agency Formation.Commi.esion's recent decision on proposed Rohnert Park:.,Annexation No. 3, the Council felt that it should make public its feelings in the form of a statement. The Mayor then read a prepared statement on behalf of the City Council. A copy of the statement is attached to and by reference made a part,of these minutes. Sanitary Sewerage City Manager Callinan stated that Phili:p.Assaf of Wilson, Harz - Project 1964 -1. feld, Jones & Morton had worked up the Resolutions etc. neces- (Sewer Trunk{ sary to initiate this project and had sent ";.them up with Mr. to College) Holtom. Mr. Holtom presented all resolutions and papers neces- sary-to start proceedings on this project. Dr. Nichols, Pres. At this point, Dr. Nichols, President of Sonoma State College, Sonoma State who was present, was requested to express the College's feelings College toward Annexation No. 3 and about annexi,ng,:to Rohnert Park. Dr. Nichols stated that he was sorry if that at,.this point in the relationship with the City, the College has created any diffi- culty because he thought it is obvious that.Sonoma State College`,'' and the City of Rohnert Park will have more and more to do with each other in the years to come. In regards to Annexation No. 3''. which had been discussed, the College personnel felt that this was an issue which was out of their hands and into which it would not be proper to interject themselves. He further stated that it appears that Rohnert Park is moving in the direction of the College and that annexation of the College to the City will arise at the appropriate time: Now, however, seems to be a pre- mature time for this, and actually the decision for the College Page 4 16 March 1964 lies in the -,hands of the State Board of Trustees. All the _ college .staff .could do would be to "recommend annexation to the Trustee. Dr. Nichols further stated that it appears more anc more rely; as indicated by the growth in this area, that the City of Rohnert Park and Sonoma,State College will be brought closer together" and at such .a `time, this matter of annexation 'of.Rohnert - to the Cit y -Park will bo'brought to the Trustees' attention. He also stated that the College is grateful for th, services extended thus far by the City to the College and hope_, that the current matter will be cleared up and that a strong relationship between the College and the City oan be had. Councilman Buchanan expressed concern over violation of the Council's policy of "providing Clay Services for City area." Councilman.Rogers. asked Dr..Nich is if he folt that it would be`wise`'ior the Board pf Trustees'to be asked to come into the Ci at thZS_.time. =- Dr. fl chats stated that he couldn't speak i fbr the'Trus"teesq - He, also stated that he felt the Council should' give thought of discussing general services to the College 64'4n4ex4tion is a broad committment with many implica- tions. City Manager Callinan stated that he felt the Council should conszder�ypu�t.ting a stipulation in the agreement being negotiated for sewer service for the .College that if the College annexes to any Gity,, then,,that City could- •only be Rohnert Park. Asked for an' opinion on- this by Mr. Callinan, City Attorney Maxtielh` stated that. he felt it would be legal to include such a clause J.n the .contract . ; Mayor; Smith stated that in looking ahead, the Council would not want to place_ the.:City.,in: the position of providing sewer serer Vice ;,,Ao areas. -that are not in the City'limits that. or -end -up in spa, other, ., .,;City.. Sanitary.Sewer Project 1964 -1 Mr.`Hudis• City Engineer, stated that the City should put the (sewer line to project out to'bid as soon as possible in hopes of getting better.b d ""' iege) prices now than. at n llt,�r wZll `have `brdd;ed many jobs for the WHejlrecommendedathats summer. the City start`Jhe necessary proceedings. Mayor Smith stated that as far as the sewer line is concerned, he agreed with Mr. Hudis and Mr. Callinan and that it should be Put, out 'to bid. He_also recommended including the additional statement suggested by Mr..Callin- in the contract. Dr *.Nichols stated that he would be glad to present the su ggest- ed stipulation to the Board of Trustees. He couldn't say what wi11 happen., but suggested it might very well be acceptable to the Trustees. City Manager Callinan stated,that Mr. Maxwell is currently rewriting the contract for sewer service and suggested he'include� the stipulations in the proposed agreement. Page 5 16 March 1964 Upon motion by Councilman Buchanan, seconded by Councilman Foust and unanimously approved, the Council will proceed on the above basis and directed Mr, Maxwell to include in the proposed agreement for sewer services for the College the stipulation that the College will not annex to any City other than Rohnert Park. Sanitary Sewerage The Clerk reported that there has been filed with her a petition Project 1964 -1 for improvements to be made pursuant to special assessment and Resolutions assessment bond acts, together with the Engineer's certificate No. 149 -156 as to the adequacy of the petition. Resolution No. 149 - A RESOLUTION DETERMINING TO UNDERTAKE PRO- CEEDINGS PURSUANT TO SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AND ASSESSMENT BOND ACTS FOR THE ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS WITHOUT PROCEEDINGS UNDER DIVISION 4 OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE, was read. On motion of Councilman Buchanan, seconded by Councilman Rogers, and unanimously carried, said Resolution was adopted. Resolution No. 150 - A RESOLUTION APPOINTING ENGINEER AND ATTORNEYS, was read. On motion of Councilman Buchanan, seconded by Councilman Rogers, and unanimously carried, said Resolution was adopted. Resolution No. 151 - A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ACQUIRE AND CONSTRUCT IMPROVEMENTS, was read. On motion of Councilman Buchanan, seconded by Councilman Rogers, and unanimously carried; said Resolution was adopted. The Engineer presented his report pursuant to said Resolution of Intention and the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913. The report contained plans and specifications, estimate of costs, maps and descriptions, assessment and diagram. After discussion by the Council, the report was ordered filed. Resolution No. 152 - A RESOLUTION OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF ENGINEER'S REPORT, was read. On motion of Councilman Buchanan, seconded by Councilman Rogers, and unanimously carried, said Resolution was adopted. Resolution No. 153 - A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PREVAILING WAGE SCALE, was read. On motion of Councilman Buchanan, seconded by Councilman Rogers, and unanimously carried, said Resolution was adopted. Resolution No. 154 - A RESOLUTION APPOINTING TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING PROTESTS IN RELATION TO PROPOSED ACQUISITIONS AND IM- PROVEMENTS, AND DIRECTING NOTICE, was read. On motion of Councilman Buchanan, seconded by Councilman Rogers, and unani- mously carried, said Resolution was adopted. Resolution No. 155 - A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR SEALED PROPOSALS, was read. On motion by Councilman Buchanan, seconded by Council- man Rogers, and unanimously carried, said Resolution was adopted. Page 6. 16 March 1964 Resolution Now 156 - A.RESOLUT -ION DESCRIBING PROPOSEp BOUNDARIFc Was read,, On motion of Councilman Buchanan, seconded by Council man Rogers, and unanimously carxied, said Resolution was adopted Delinquencies on Mra Callinan� City Managery introduced Mr. Harry Sime of 1915 -1911 Crowell, Weedon & Co; and Mr. John Holtom of Wilson, Harzfeld, Act Bonds Jones; & Morton. .,Discussion was held on the delinquencies on the 1915 act bonds, A letter,- dated ,March.12, 19649 from Gillettey Johnson & associates was read into the record by the acting City Clerk. A general discussion was held concerning the 1915 and 1911 act bond delinquencies. It was indicated by the City Manager and the City Council that rather than levying a City wide property tax to cover the delinquencies that another program will be worked out. Mr. Callinan, City Manager, suggested to the Council that there are several other possibilities for solving the delinquency problem and that he will recommend a program in th.e.. near future, He• did; however., recommend adoption of the resolution necessary to initiate foreclosure proceedings on those who are delinquent„ Resolution No, 157 Upon motion by Councilman Buchanan, seconded by Councilman Foust and unanimously approved, reading of Resolution No. 157 was waived. Project 1962 -3 Resolution No. 157- A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT DELINQUENT PROPERTIES BY PLACED ON ADDENDA TAX SALE LIST, upon motion by Councilman Buchanan, seconded by Councilman Foust, was unani- mously adopted. At this point in the meeting, 10:50 p,m., Mayor Smith asked Vice -Mayor Buchanan to take over the chair as he didn't feel well'..and was going home. A general discussion was held concerning the redemption schedule proposed for the 1915 Act Bonds which were printed for this project. Mr. Callinan, City Manager, recommended the Council not accept the new offer to.purchase the bonds unless the redemption schedule was changed. After much discussion, Mr. Spivock representing Coral Homes recommended that to solve the apparent mis- understanding that the project be changed to allow issuance of 1911 Act Bonds and to change the amount of the bonds from $2100 per lot to $1900 per lot. Mr. John Holtom advised that he would have the neces- sary documents to initiate such a change ready for Council con- sideration at their April 6th meeting. The Council expressed approval of such a change in the proceedings to allow issuance of the 1911 Act Bonds. Mr. Harry Sime of Crowell, Weedon & Co. :was present and offerred to purchase the 1911 Act Bonds for 96% of par. The bonds are to be 15 year bonds, bearing interest at 6% per annum and callable at a 5% premium. City/Clerk APPROVED: Y l " Mayor Page 7 16 March 1964 Personal Mr. Arthur Roberts was present and stated that he felt that the Appearances wording on the petition being circulated for a post office here in the City was wrong. He felt that it should be worded not as a post office station, but as a classified station. A classi- fied station would be a unit apart from the Cotati post office. Upon motion by Councilman Rogers, seconded by Councilman Bell and unanimously approved the wording in the City's petitions will be changed to read "to provide for the establishment of a post office ". Subs 10 -11 -12 Mr. Norman Spivock brought up the subject of the drainage ditch from Subs 10- 11 -12. A general discussion was held on this and Mr. Callinan, City Manager, outlined the disagreement for the benefit of the Council. The Council agreed with the stand taken by Mr. Callinan and Mr. Wiggins in not accepting the sub- divisions until the ditch is improved to the City's satisfactions Mr. Spivock was requested to get together with Mr. Callinan and Mr. Wiggins to try to work out a solution. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. City/Clerk APPROVED: Y l " Mayor CITY COUNCIL'S STATEMENT CONCERNING ANNEXATION #3 With reference to the Proposed Annexation #3 and the recent decision of the Local Agency Formation Commission to disapprove this proposed Annexation, some statement from the,City Council would appear to be in order to explain our position in this matter and to make public our feelings concerning the LAFC action. First of all let no one think that the LAFC decision was not a political decision. We feel that it was in every sense of the word a political decision since the LAFC became influenced by -;many factors not associated with good planning and development. The LAFC law was established to provide some definite controls to_ insure proper and orderly development in so far as Annexations, Formation of Special Distrie.,.-_and Cities..,are..concerned,, We can see no justification from a planning standpoint or from the standpoint.of providing orderly development that this annexation request .was turned down by this Commission and indeed they gave us no reasons for their action from. -a planning view point.' 'or :the,.record, it should be pointed >out that the City entered_'the Public Hearing for, this Annexation with the. following: -- 1. A written comment -from the LAFC's Executive Officers office that the -Notice of Intent and accompanying data sheets that the City Manager filed was the most complete that the LAFC had received to date on any proposed annexa- tion. 2. We provided the Commission with reports from two separate Civil Engineers stating that the Annexation was not.only feasible; but appeared advisable from an engineering standpoint giving em phasis on ability to service the area. 3. We also provided the Commission with a report from a separate Planning Consultant:stating that the Annexation appeared advisable and presented no .problems from a planning standpoint. 4. There was also a file, a report from the County Engineering Advisory -Committee stating that they could.see no reason why the Annexation should not take place and that it appeared to be a logical extension of Rohnert Park. 5. We provided planning maps to the Commission showing that this area has been a part-of the Master Plan for Rohnert Park since.1955. 6. We advised the Commission Rohnert Park's gram for the capital im- provement financing y to assure growth at the.same time provide the necessary and desired facilities to assure proper growth, that is, sewer, water, parks, roads and drainage, etc. a. We feel that with the co- operation of the Rohnert Park developers that we have worked out a program that is the envy 'of many other Cities. This is borne out by the testimony of many officials, both City, County and consulting officials, with whom the City Council and City staff have discussed this matter with b. The program that we outlined to the LAFC will :allow the City to extend sewer service cost to .the present tax payers. - is the same program that. o Sonoma State College at no Page 2 Annexation Statement March 16, 1864 In addition to the foregoing, we also had the support of the land owners of over 500 = acres. of the .523 ,acres.. involved. In addition to the data presented to the LAFC b the Cat y e y, substantial written data was also presented to them.-by the Rohnert Park Developers prior.to..the hearing. At the.:hea� rind in addition to the presentations and information by Mr. Golfs, Mr; Callinan:and myself, a presentation was made to the LAFC by Mr. Jack Prather, ..Planning Director for Sonoma County, advising the Commission how his .office had worked with and planned for this area as long ago as 1955 with the Rohnert Park developers group. He made no bones about it, he definitely felt that this Annexa- tion was .,a logical.extension of Rohnert Park* From his comments we felt that the only major planning.error involved with Rohnert Park was when the Board of Super- visors and the pep. ple,.of Cotati insisted on projecting the finger of East Cotati Avenue along the.,southern'boundaries of Rohnert -Park. We felt that this was allowed not in the interest of good planning, but rather in the questionable interest called Community Identity or better yet.from the:Superyisor's' posit* apolitical expediency." Sooner or later someone has got to make up .their mind that when .goo'd planning and community identity present a conflict, which will take precedent. The Board of Supervisors by their archon on the East Cotati Avenue question over a year ago precedent y clearly indicated that the felt that community interest and political expediency takes over good lannin E. The LAFC Commission by their action 'in denying our proposed Annexation sort of split the hair on this one and seemed to be torn by ,what.-is. good from a planning standpoint and what is good from the community identity standpoint. Bear in mind that two "members of the,LA.FC.are:also members of the Board of Supervisors. Another item of interest is that contrary to what they had told us persol.a.11y, presentations against this Annexation were made by different officials from the City of Cotati and aiso the Cotati Fire District.. Dramatic. appeals were made not to allow this Annexation even though Cotati representatives presented no ro ram of their,own.,to.show how they could plan for proper development and provide services .,to this area.. The City of Cotati presented a map of their intended future bound- aries that would encircle Rohnert Park to the south and to the west and do to Rohnert Park the same thing that they are presently accusing us of trying to do to them. The big difference is that we have a program to provide sewer and other services and t-o promote orderly development. Cotati as of .this.date does not. Another fact that enters into this picture is Sonoma State C;nllaar- nnri J_+ r balicy.e to the contrary p - - - -o` . "..� ---=- "1 Better than a month ago, at:_:their February meeting., the LAFC made some remarks to the extent that if the proposed Annexation. #3 requested by the City °off Rohnert Park was allowed,.it would cut the College off from Cotati and thus'eliminate'aray changes Cotati has'ofr'annexing Sonoma-State College. The City of Rohnert Park advised, the Sonoma`�State College of this and requested that they make a stand one way or the other. 6n, to�which City they are going to directly affiliate, the City of Cotati or the'City``of Rohnert Park., °The:College officials refused to take a stand and as a consequence, Rohnert Park, the one. community trying to help the college, suffers.. Does it make sense -- we think nobs Legs clear u'the` issue right-,now.:of who is going to provide.servides to the College. Of Cotati and Rohnert Park, $ohnert Park is the only `one providing any Page 3 Annexation Statement March 16, 1964 services presently to the College and the only one that is planning to provide any services to the permanent College site. If anyone thinks this is not so, then they should check into the matter. Also anyone who thinks the sewer committment we've made is a email committment, then we would request that they lift this committment from the shoulders of Rohnert Park and bear it themselves and allow us to devote all of our energies to our own many problems. Incidentally an idea of the amount of dollars involved for the proposed sewer trunk line alone that will extend to Sonoma State College is approximately a quarter of a million dollars. Rohnert Park can work out a program;t,o:,provide this service and other services to the College. Cotati cannot, unless,.some drastic and miraculous changes. occur quite quickly. The City Council also firmly feels that the Sonoma State College has been guilty in not fulfilling their obligation and responsibility not only to Rohnert Park but also to the City of Cotati and to the County of Sonoma by procrastinating on the one issue of with whom they are going to be directly affiliated in the future. We have met with College officials informally and they led us to believe that Rohnert Park would be the City which they will be. directly associated with in the future, if indeed they are associated with any Cty at'all. We fail to see the .reason as to: -why, what they,can say informally to us, they cannot say publicly since we are all, in one way or another, all public officers and servants since the College is a State institution and we as a City are merely a political subdivision of the State. We felt very bad indeed that Mr. Burford when provided with a golden opportunity at the LAFC to set the record straight did not do so. Instead of laying the facts on the table and telling the Commission what the City offici.als.of Rohnert Park had been told informally, he chose to be coy and'simply.explain that the temporary quarters of Sonoma State College are.in Rohnert Park and that if Rohnert_ Park does not provide them sewer service that they will have to come to Sonoma County for the service. To our way of thinking such comments and actions add only to the state of confusion that exists concerning the College and makes the problem. of Rohnert Park, a new community striving to get political recognition, all the tougher. Sooner or later Sonoma State College; has got`to, iIn.all fai.rness-to everyone, define what their intended relationship will-be with the two.local communities. If they do ' not.want to..-be directly affiliated with Cotati, as they have told us, then they - '`should have the courtesy of telling Cotati. We do.not think they are being fair to the City of Cotati any more than we think the City'of "Cotati was fair to us by the dramatic but empty appeal they made before the LAFC. In essence the LAFC decision was prompted by many factors that did not come out at the public hearing. While the delay is a bitter pill for us to have to swallow, we as a City Council cannot afford to look back, we must pick up the pieces and con- tinue to go ahead, if we are to meet our responsibilities and this we intend to do. Please realize that this denial of this Annexation had a very definite effect on our planning for the long range development of Rohnert Park and a reappraisal of our situation is currently being undertaken. We feel that the City of Rohnert Park, as the one community in Sonoma County that has been able to stand on its own two feet and do its own planning and work out its own capital improvements financing program, was dealt a very serious set -back by the LAFC. But while we disagree with the members of this Commission, we also are Page 4 Annexation Statement 16 March 1964 convinced that their decision was affected by the action or inactions of the City of Cotati and Sonoma State College since as stated above they presented no justifi- cation from:a planning or development view point. Let no one construe this statement by the Council as one of bitterness or- _anger,.,. It is only meant to let'everyone:know. how we as public officials feel', However,. please do not think that we are not - irritated by the unwillingness'of the College;:. to have cleared the record prior to this time, and Cotati's attitude in objecting to our programs while not submitting any of their own. From our standpoint~ we can *take the decision in stride and will continue to spon - sor programs that we feel provide for good planning and orderly development. We can assure you that the City Council was not the only one that was - shocked by the LAFC decision; many have agreed with us, Sonoma State College officials among the many,.that_the LAFC had no justification from a planning or orderly development standpoint:for denying this annexation.. We hope that this statement will provide the citizens of Rohnert Park with a little background "as. to. why the annexation was turned down. Until such time as Rohnert Park develops a politically strong position and makes itself heard on more and more. matters, unjustified defeats like this may continue to be handed to us by persons not associated. with Rohnert Park. in summary, insofar as the -_LAFC .is .concerned while we completely disagreed with. their decision, we, for the moment, accept tit. We can assure everyone that the area under consideration has a definite place in the long term .plans of Rohnert Park and.b.ecause the LAFC for the moment has stalled us," they cannot indefi.nitely`' do so. without justification. This was but the first inning of what appears will develop into ballgame. a very interesting r .