Loading...
1981/08/10 City Council Minutest - .;', ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL MINUTES :7 a August 10, 1981 The Council of the City of Rohnert Park met this date in regular' ssion commenesng at 7:00 p.m. -in the City. Offices, 6"750 Commerce; boulevard, Rohnert Park, with Mayor` -Cava 1' presiding: Call tb Order Mayor' CavaXli called the;; meefiing of the regular' 'sessfon to order at approximately 7x06 p.m. and led the pledge of alle- giance. Roll Call'' Present: (4)° Councilmen Hollingsworth, Hopkins, Roberts and Mayor'Cavalli Absent ::, (1) Councilman, Stewart City'Manager.Callinan noted that Councilman Stewart was on vacation. Staff present for all or part. of the meeting:''City` ngineer - Brust, City Manager Callinan, Director of Public Safety Dennett, 'City 'Attorney.Flitner' and Planning Director Skanchy. Approval ofMinutes Upon motion of Councilman,Hollingsworth, seconded by Councilman Hopkins, and'unanimously approved, the minutes of July 27, 1981 were approved as'submitted. Approval of Bills Upon`,tiotion`of Councilman - ,Hollingsworth, seconded by Councilman Roberts;'and unanimously at�proved, the bills presented per the attached list in the amount'of $747,152.78 were approved. Non- agendaed items City' Mariag6r '- Callinan!.requested..that time be allotted under ''the`City Manager.'s,'Report - section of the agenda to discuss the Golden Gate $ridge Distr et,and Supervisoral Redistricting. Pllanning'Commission Mayor Cavalli explained the reasons for deferring the Planning Appointment "' Ccmmission appoint'inent -at the last Council meeting on July 27, 1981 and also noted that one of the applicants, William Jacobi, had :withdrawn. from) the list' due,.-b personal- reasons, Mayor Cavalli'''recognized,;Michael Bryan to give him an oppor- tunity to introduce himself and express his views since he was not in attendance at the meeting of July 27, 1981. . Upon recognition from the Mayor Mr. Michael Bryan spoke briefly of his background and interests', after which it was agreed by all-the' Council members that'the matter would be discussed further at the end of "the meeting. a'.a:..ca °a:eti ° ^^ }s'e °BaG }n a } °i °Jn °re GS a°:' e° n'° eiaa' a° Ceisn' ae° e° C}° {a °n'er2�r'::ia�: °aea°6eCa °i'4� ��iita°a'na °Cal a° Ca° Ci:ai':i }:a °6}°e'i6ai9 °5,ii }iiC 'C•O,N.SENT CALENDAR City Manager CallInan referred the Council to his Council Meeting; Memorandum dated August 6, 1981 for explanation of all ' the matters onithe Consent Calendar. Page 2 August 10, 1981 Resolution No. 81 -131 A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR PERPENDICULAR PARKING AT THE SOUTHERLY.END OF LAMONT COURT Resolution No. 81 -132 RESOLUTION ACCEPTITJ,G PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF BONDS FOR COLEGIO VISTA SUBDIVISION NO. 5B Resolution No., 81 -133 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING COMPLETION AND DIRECTING ENGINEER TO FILE NOTICE OF Cg1,jPLETION,'ROHNERT PARK STADIUM SEATING, PROJECT NO. 1980-12 Resolution No. 81 -134 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT FOR CITY EMPLOYEES Resolution No. 81 -135 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK CONCERNING .PAYMENT OF PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RETIREMENT SYSTEM COSTS (R.P.P.O.A. MEMBERS) Amended Final Map._ Approval of amended final map for the Camino Colegio Estates Subdivision Mayor Cavalli noted that a letter had been sent out to resident regarding.Resolut:ion No. 81 -131 stating that they were invited to appear'before the Council..if they so desired to give their views on .the issue. Susan Coppock, 530 Lamont Court, Rohnert.Park, was recognize( and spoke in favor of the resolution. There being no'one else desiring to, speak on the resolution regarding perpendicular parking, the issue was closed. Upon motion of Councilman. Hopkins, seconded by Councilman Hollingsworth, and unanimously approved, reading of Resol- utions Nos. 81 -131 through 81 -135 was waived and said resolu- tions.were.adopted and the amended final map was approved. 00011�'I row OS'Ie e�'li e•e��w Ow ele ..s asp.. swan s� �.e �e �eto.�en sro .lse�e4.w.�. wewwa.t o o�weo•w.•w oan.c�ww .w.�.a✓ s w•w.�o.' �.w.se�w•a.�s..oc aro nero 7.rroeroa. as aC 9ro aro aro9C ra aro aro ero a »ae aro +ron r. es eron ae aro aC 4ro +roe.+ro aro 3ro re aro rro 8ro .ro ero en aC +ro +. ero 9ron as +ro aron nne Ordinance No. 385 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK REPEALING SECTION 9.28.050 OF THE ROHNERT PARK MUNICIPAL CODE (MECHANICAL PLAY DEVICE- LICENSE FEES) Referring to his Council Meeting Memorandum dated August 6, 1981, City Manager Callinan explained the ordinance. Upon motion of Councilman Hollingsworth, seconded by Councilman Hopkins, and unanimous approval, Ordinance No. 385 was adopted. Ordinance.No. 386 AN ORDINANCE.REPEALING CHAPTER 2.36 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE (YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION) City Manager Callinan referred to his Council Meeting Memoran- dum for explanation of the ordinance and briefly commented of same. Discussion.followed. Upon motion by Councilman Hopkins, seconded by Councilman Roberts, and unanimously approved, Ordinance No. 386 was adopted. Page 3 August 10, 1981 The Council directed that the minutes reflect its intention to establish a Youth Advisory Commission by resolutiori.each school year. Planning and Zoning City Manager Callinan informed that copies of planning.staff Matters reports, plans, Planning Commission minutes, communications and other pertinent information relating to the Planning and Zoning Matters section of the agenda had previously been sup - plied to the Council and that the matters had been duly set .for public hearings by m,}cing the required mailings or pub- lishing the required legal notices. File 0803 - Dennis Parmer Planning Director.Skanchy explained the drawings on display Office /Warehouse Bldg. and explained the proposed project and the recommended condi- Public Hearing tions to the Council. Discussion followed. It was noted that the agenda was in error and should have stated 1114,0001' sq. feet instead of the }120,000" square feet. Mayor Cavalli opened the Public Hearing on the precise devel- opment plan and architectural review of the proposed 14,100 sq. ft. office /warehouse building to be located on Lot 56 of the Laguna Verde Industrial Subdivision. There being no response from the audience and no written communications regarding the matter, the Public Hearing was closed. Upon motion of Councilman Hollingsworth, seconded by Councilman Hopkins and unanimously approved, architectural and site plan approval was given for -he application of Dennis R. Parmer, File No. Q803 subject to conditions as outlined in the planning .staff report and with an additional condition that the aggregate stone to be used on the building be brought before the Council for the final approval before installation. Councilman- Hollings At this point.in the meeting, the time being approximately worth leaves 7:27 p.m.., Councilman,'Hollingsworth left the chambers. File 0805 - Scandia Co. Planning Director Skanchy explained the drawings on display 6,600 sq. ft. and the recommended conditions and explained the project. warehouse - Public Discussion followed. Hearing Mayor Cavalli opened the Public Hearing on the precise Bevel opment plan and architectural review for the proposed 6,600 square foot warehouse /manufacturing facility to be developed on Classic Court, File No. 0805. There being no responses from the audience and no written communications received regarding the matter, the Public Hearing was closed. Upon motion of Councilman Roberts, seconded by Councilman Hopkins, and unanimously approved, architectural and site plan approval was given for'the application of Scandia Co., Ltd., File No. 0805.subject to the conditions listed in the planning staff report. .. (> . Page 4 August 10, 1981 i,.: Councilman-Holi ce ngsworth Councilman Hollingsworth returned to the chambers at this returns point in the meeting, the time being approximately 7:32 p.m. File. 0802 - Codding Planning Director Skanchy explained the project by referring Enterprises= Ross Dept. 'to the revised drawings for same which were `ori.:display. Store Discussion followed. File .0162- Casa'Califia Board of Appeals Upon motion of Councilman Roberts, seconded by Councilman Hopkins, and unanimously approved, the architectural and site plan approval was given for the proposed Ross Department Store and related complex to be developed at the southern end of the Towne Centre Shopping Center subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Staff City Manager Callinan explained and reviewed the background information regarding the proposed abatement of the buildings at 781 East Cotati Avenue (referred to as the Casa Califia Boarding House) and the reasons for the hearing. City Engineer Brust was introduced and spoke briefly, ex- plaining the history of the matter. Mr. Brust explained that all required notices were sent to the property owner and pointed out photographs of the property which were on display and which indicated the property's condition. Planning Director'Skanchy also pointed out the photographs citing specific unsafe conditions in the building. City Manager Callinan also noted that some of the letters received by the City of Rohnert Park concerning the Hewlett Packard matter which was to be discussed later in the meeting had contained statements expressing concern over the City not doing anything about the property at 781 E. Cotati Ave. City Attorney Flitner explained the Uniform Cody: for the fkatement of Dangerous Buildings to the Council and advised that the City Council should adjourn and conven'e' as the Board of Appeals to hear the abatement matter. Discussion followed. Mayor Cavalli adjourned the City Council meeting at approximat 7:48 p.m. and called the Board of Appeals to order with mem- bers Hollingworth, Hopkins, Roberts and Caval°li present. Councilman Hopkins At this point in the meeting, the time being approximately leaves 7:48 p.m., Board member Hopkins left the chambers. Mr. Charles Duck Mr. Charles Duck, Bankruptcy Trustee for the Casa Califia property located at 781 E. Cotati Avenue, was recognized and explained steps that had been taken to try and sell the property. He informed the Board of a pending sale to a buyer who was willing to purchase the property and restore it to an acceptable condition. Mr. Duck read a letter from a Richard Dutton dated July 31, 1981 stating he would like to purchase-Cas'a" Califia. Mr. Duck then requested an extension on the abatem& fit proceedings, however, he did stipulate to the property conditions and expressed appreciation for past extensions granted by the City. Discussion followed. Page 5 August 10, 1981 City Attorney Flitner advised the Board of Appeals that sworn testimony was required of anyone wishing to testify in the abatement matter and that cross- examination of those testifying was allowed. Fire Services Commander Jerry Bick was recognized and sworn in by Deputy City Clerk Roberts. Mr. Bick stated that the property in question was a fire hazard and a source of danger, and felt that the buildings were irreparable and should be abated. Mr. Duck declined an offer to cross - examine Mr. Bick. Public Safety Director Robert Dennett was sworn in by Deputy City Clerk Roberts and testified that there were a number of hazards contained in the buildings, citing safety hazards, health hazards, juvenile hazards, and describing the'property as an attractive nuisance which should be abated. Mr. Duck declined an offer to cross - examine Mr. Dennett. Planning Director Paul Skanchy was sworn in by the Deputy City Clerk Roberts and described the poor condition of the buildings and the property, citing in particular the extreme water seep- age in same. Mr. Skanchy pointed'to photographs which were on display and which are to be a permanent record in these pro- ceedings. He also.recommended abatement of the buildings. Mr. Duck declined an offer to cross - examine Mr. Skanchy but did express agreement that the premises are as described by those testifying. City Engineer Brust was sworn in and further described the deteriorated condition of the buildings. He stated that the buildings were structurally sound and probably would not fall down., but they are a hazard in their present condition and in violation of many codes. Councilman Roberts expressed concern over the electrical wiring conditions in the buildings and potential problems involving same. Councilman Hollingsworth inquired about the period of time required in getting the plans ready for the rework of the buildings to be presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Brust explained that once plans were approved by the Planning Commission, a permit could be issued within one (1) week. Mr. Duck declined an offer to cross - examine Mr. Brust. Ben Collins, 7919 Santa Barbara Drive, was recognized and sworn in by Deputy City Clerk Roberts. Mr. Collins stated he felt the- .buildings were a hiding place for people at night, had extreme water leakage., were infested with rats, and had been in poor condition for at least three (3) years. Mr. Collins submitted snapshots of the building which are a per- manent part of the record. He urged the Board of Appeals to abate the buildings. Page 6 August 10, 1981 r Mr. Duck declined an offer to cross- examine Mr. Collins. Mr< Carl Moore, 1355 Airport Rd., Cotati, was recognized and sworn in.,by the Deputy.:City ;Clerk. Mr, Moore stated that the poor condition of the build:i.ngs had gone on too long and if plans,to rework the buildings were not presented in a timely !.,,,manner he felt the buildings should be torn down. He stated that had the buildings been'on Commerce Blvd. rather than E.. Cotati Avenue, that they would have been abated a long time ago. Mr. Duck declined an offer to cross- examine Mr. Moore. There being no one further desiring to speak, Mayor- Cavalli closed the :hearing. Resolution No. 81: =136 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ROHPdERT PARK DETERMINING THAT THE BUI:LDINGS'LOCATED AT 781 EAST COTATI AVENUE ARE A PUBLIC NUISANCE ADD SHOULD BE ABATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS, .1979'.EDITION, AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO INSTITUTE ABATEMENT PROCEEDINGS Upon.motion..1y Councilman Roberts, seconded by Councilman Hollingsworth,, and unanimously approved, Resolution No. 81 -136 was adopted,, Mr. :,Charles,Wck was again recognized, thanked the Council for its patience, and stated that he would be submitting plans to refurbish the building. The Board of Appeals Hearing was adjourned and the City Council reconvened in the regularly scheduled Council meeting at 8:39 rp.m. Councilman Hopkins., At this point -:in the meeting, the'time being approximately returns .8:40 p.m., Councilman Hopkins returned to the chambers. Hewlett Packard Mayor Cavalli expressed his opinion that the scheduled public Public Hearings hearings for the proposed Hewlett Packard project might be combined into one public hearing °` Discussion followed. City Attorney Flitner. advised that all phases of the proposed project are�shown.on the agenda and should be considered in separate public hearings but the.hearings could be combined and held at the same-time and: -those appearing given an oppor- tunity to speak on whatever+_issue' they desired related to the proposed project. Point of Order Mr. Rob Carpenter, 5742 Dexter Circle, Rohnert Park, was recog- ni2ed and expressed his opinion that the hearings be considered separately. Recess Mayor Cavalli called a recess in the.rcetlrg at approximately 8.42.p.m., explaining that .cards for the writing of names and addresses•would be distributed to'those persons interested in e • speaking t the t.4,C a speaking a� c��e p'�z.u�..�c: hearings. Page 7 August 10, 1981 Reconvene The meeting was reconvened at approximately 9;00 p.m. with all Councilmen present. Hewlett Packard, Planning Director Skanchy explained the proposed Hewlett Packard File 0762 , project, File 0762, referring to the site drawings on display, the EIR, the Planning Staff report, and the Planning Commission minutes. He stated that complete copies of the EIR had been previously provided to the Council for their study and perusal along with all copies of the Planning Commission resolutions and minutes, the staff report and communications received re- garding the project. Mr. Skanchy advised that all the public hearings for the pro - posed Hewlett Packard project had been duly noticed by required mailing and publication of notices. Rob Carpenter, 5742 Dexter Circle, Rohnert Park, was recognized and asked that Planning Director Skanchy read the conditions for the project which were established in the Planning Staff report. It was pointed out that the Planning Staff report to the Planning Commission had been presented to and read,by the Council and was made available at the entrances to this meeting to all who desired a copy and that, in the interest of time, it need not be read verbatim. Mayor Cavalli read a brief statement to the audience, a copy of which -is attached to the original set of these minutes. In view of the number of persons who submitted cards to speak, Mayor Cavalli set a 3- minute time limit for each speaker to afford the opportunity for as many people to speak as possible. Bill Helmer, 9407 Old Redwood Hwy., Penngrove, requested that the public hearing be solely on the final EIR and that subse- quent hearings be held on the zoning and other matters. Mr. Helmer felt that due to the gravity of the subject that more .time should be taken to discuss same. In response to an inquiry from the Mayor, City Attorney Flitner gave his legal opinion that the Council could combine the hearings insasmuch as they related to the same project. Incoming Correspon- City Manager Callinan stated that the Council had already dence re; Hewlett received several letters pertaining to the EIR and read the Packard names of the correspondents as follows: Andy Plumb, James Clark, Marianne Gibson, Sonoma County Planning Department, William Reynolds., Wayne Gibb, Tiava Matzlin, Steve Thatcher, Thomas Newell, Tamara Boutbee, and Roseanne and Robert Kuiper< He also advised that tonight he had been presented with a letter from the Cotati - Rohnert Park Unified School District. Mr. Callinan noted that all the letters would be made part of the record. Using the cards submitted, Mayor Cavalli proceeded to call upon persons wishing to speak and who submitted cards to do so. Page 8 August 10, 1981 Robert.L.: Carpenteri'5742 Dexter Circle, Rohnert:Park, cited Article I of the Constitution of the U.S. and expressed his concerns over the generalities of the EIR, the hazardous materials, evasiveiaess:ofthe EIR, threat: to the water supply and requested a vote against the EIR due to its inadequacy. Mr. Carpenter:grossly..exceeded the 3- minute time limit in his Tresentat.ion and would not.honor the Mayor's request to halt. He was allowed to: finish; Inasmuch as Mr. Carpenter talked for well beyond three (3) minutes, Councilman.Hopkins explained the "cinderella" ruling used in Council meetings, and explained that adjournment of the could. not exceed:11:00 p.m. without a four - fifths vote.of-he Council, Shelley Green, 579 Anson Ave., Rohnert Park, spoke regarding the •resultant threat,.to the water table if Hewlett Packard were to came into.Rohnert,Park and the lack of housing for the em- ployees. She felt that admitting this plant to the area would set a.precedent and that soon the existing small amount of open space would be swallowed up.'. -Paul Hudson, 95 George, Cotati, stated that the EIR does not define the housing needs.of -the future and felt that the other City Councils in the County should be given an opportunity to give their.input on the project. Mr. Hudson said he feared the housing.;requirements resulting from the project could result ' a i° municipal anarchy." He submitted a written statement for the record. Tamara Davis., Mayor of Cotati, presented a letter from the Cotati City Council requesting the certification of the final :E.IR.be. continued and .,that the City of Cotati be part of the decision making process since the project will have a heavy impact on.Cotati. She advised that the Cotati City Council was meeting tomorrow and would again discuss the matters. She submitted a letter from the-:'City of Cotati upon conclusion of her remarks. Bill Finn, 8111 Santa Barbara. Dr., Rohnert Park, cited the thousands of commuters and the pollution that would be caused and the resulting increase in the cost of transportation ser- vices which would result. Mr. Finn also expressed fear that the employment at the plant would most likely go to newcomers to the area. .He submitted a letter with his views. Jim Orr, 7486 Boris Court, Rohnert Park, expressed support for the Hewlett.Packard project but said his main concern is the annexation and placing of = industrial plants in that part of town. Mr-:Orr stated he felt that changing the location of the industrial area will change the face of the town. Mr. Orr stated the EIR was inadequate. Louis Korn, 579 Anson Ave., Rohnert Park, said he felt the Hewlett�Packard plant would kill the land, the trees, will die and so will the people. Page 9 August 10, 1981 David Eck, 7075 Adele Ave., Rohnert Park, contested the 3- minute time limit stating that the limit placed on a project of this type was ridiculous. Mr. Eck felt that a public debate should be held and that the hearing on the rezoning should be held at a.different time. Mr. Eck said he had a list of 6 items he wished to discuss but only commented on two of them which were wastewater and sewage treatment and hazardous wastes. He questioned the City's sewage treatment capacity deficiency, suggested that HP treat its own sewage, and that HP have an acceptable hazardous waste program. Mayor. Cavalli said that due to the difficulty in enforcing the three minute limit and the speakers ignoring it that it would be relaxed. He offered Mr. Eck additional time but Mr. Eck declined and said he would speak again after everyone else had an opportunity to speak. Jim Groom, Santa Rosa resident and representative of the Sonoma County Taxpayers Association stated that the Association had reviewed the EIR and felt it was adequate. He cited the revenue which would be generated and the jobs that would be created. Ken Davenport, Industrial Engineer, 4940 Montecito Ave., praised Santa Rosa, urged the City Council to accept the EIR and p_. ,w the Hewlett Packard Company. Art Pierce, President of the Sonoma County Taxpayers Assor',ation, 1554 Manzanita, Santa Rosa, stated that Hewlett Packard would provide a number of jobs to people already located in the area and spoke in favor of the project. Gordon Scott Davis, 8157 Arthur St., Cotati, read and presented a statement that since the EIR was not considered by a full 5 -man Planning Commission that he recommended that the EIR be returned to the Commission for reconsideration. Myron Ort, 9407 Old Redwood Hwy., Penngrove, spoke against the project stating that it was not in agreement with his life- style and that he lived less than a mile away from the site. John Jackson, 1855 Petaluma Hill Rd., Santa Rosa, and P. 0. Box 102, Cotati, representing the Madrone Audubon Society, Inc., read a letter which he submitted and which says the So- ciety feels the EIR should not be approved. Laura Zelmachild, 22 Anne, Rohnert Park, described the project as ' ?monstrous" and is against the growth it would bring. She also cited health issues, chemicals, female labor force abuses, and read a news report on Third World Women. Miss Zelmachild also cited traffic congestion problems, pollution and smog as resulting factors if Hewlett Packard came to Rohnert Park. Jo Ann L. Jackson, 1229 Eleanor Ave., Rohnert Park, of the Coalition for Abortion and Women's Freedoms expressed concern over the effect of toxic chemicals on women, cited cases of acid burns in Silicon Valley, and said HP wanter he to work without pay for forty hours to be trained and said she's against the project. Page 10 August 10, 1981 Linda Steingold`, 8111 Santa Barbara Dr., Rohnert Park, suggea.' coordinating the planning efforts of this project with other projects, i.e. the Frates Ranch and Fountain Grove projects, and felt there should be alternatives to the proposed high density housing for low cost; housing. Barry Barnett; 8639 Old Redwood Hwy., Cotati, speaking for I)evorah Lackner and submitting a. written letter from same for the record, stated that Ms. Lackner was against the HP project. Mr. Barnett, then speaking for himself, also spoke against the project, citing the heavy influx,of people and the increased traffic, rent increases, pollution, and ground water problems. He opined that the final EIR does not provide mitigation. Bill Helmer, 94,017 Old Redwood Hwy., Penngrove, presented a written report for the record and pointed out a few points from same. Mr, Helmer feels there are inadequacies in the EIR Wand that the impact of.Hewlett Packard has not been analyzed :enough. Donna Stegman, 288 Lincoln Ave., Cotati, said she loves Sonoma County and was an artist and.teacher and was against the re- sulting urban sprawl which,would'be caused by the HP locat "on and said i would affect the quality of life in the area. :he urged the Council to consider what was said tonight. Jim Sullivan, .Bodega, and President of the Western Sonoma Rural Alliance, stated that.he was not against HP itself, I -At is,concerned' about the agricultural land loss and feels the project is poorly sited. He recommended that the project be coordinated with the other big projects, i.e. Frates Ranch and Fountain Grove. He.said the HP plant should be located some- where along.the U.S. 101 .corridor rather than along Petaluma Hill Rd. Richard. Zeichik, 579 Anson Ave., Rohnert Park, felt that al- though-there is a need for jobs and housing that the EIR does not address enough concerns of the people and a study of the mitigations should be made. Mr. Zeichik also said he was unhappy with the Pla -ning Commission's handling of the EIR. Steven Michael Gerstle, 8196 El Rancho Dr., Cotati, cited the housing mitigation matters in the EIR are ina&quate and com- merited on the current housing shortage already in the area. `Dennis Zerbo, 7380 Adrian Dr., Rohnert Park, representative of the Cotati Food Co -op, suggested a poll be taken of the adja- cent communities to see what they want. He said he feared the loss of agricultural land in the area and tLat the sits doesn't provide an ecological balance with Cotati, Penngrove and Rohner - Park. He suggested alternative energy types of industry. Meimei Ullrich,-Vice President of the Sonoma County Board of Realtors, praised Hewlett Packard and the proposed project and the benefits of same. She said the project would not bring the Page 11 August 10, 1981 feared growth and that Hewlett Packard would employ people from within the area. She expressed strong support for the project. Adjournment Mayor Cavalli noted that it was shortly after 11:00 p.m. and polled the Council to determine if the hearing should be continued. Due to a 2 -2 split on the poll, the hearings on the proposed Hewlett Packard project, File 0672, were con- tinued to August 17, 1981 at 7:00 p.m.. The Council meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:04 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., August 17, 1981. / .-- APPROVED l-✓ ` Mayor Cavalli Deputy City Clerk ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL MEETING RE: H.P. PROJECT August 10, 1981 LETTERS RECEIVED TO BE MADE PART OF THE PUBLIC HEARING RECORD: DATE NAME ADDRESS JULY 26, 1981 JULY 28, 1981 AUGUST 5, 1981 AUGUST 5, 1981 AUGUST 5, 1981 n it if UNDATED (REC'D, 8/7/81) AUGUST 5, 1981 AUGUST 7, 1981 PI II tt AUGUST 8, 1981 ANDY PLUMB JAMES M. CLARK MARIANNE GIBSON SON. CNTY. DEPT. OF PLANNING (RICHARD LEHTINEN) WILLIAM REYNOLDS WAYNE GIBB TIAVA MATZLIN STEVE THATCHER THOMAS NEWELL TAMARA BOUETBEE ROSEANNE & ROBT. KUIPER 760 E. COTATI AVE., COTATI 80 WALNUT CIRCLE, R.P. ( ?) SONOMA CNTY. RESIDENT 575 ADMINISTRATION DR., S.R. 2035 BLUCHER VALLEY, SEB. 8690 TRENTON RD., FORESTVLE 10959 SUNSET AVE., POB 230, RIO NIDO, CA. 4740 PRESSLEY RD., S.R. 4894 PET. HILL RD., SEB. RECEBJ,T-,,D j U L 2 8 1981 CITy. OF. ljolim.F. PARK art' To the Rohnert Park City Council: 1 do not want Dowlett-Packard to build a plant in Rohnert Park.Meiv connectionn with the defense department cannot be looked at lightly. The trade-M, for JOB & is morally criminal considering what the This workers will produce.Aditf must take a stand and say to- H-A,"We will%do a12 we%cap to stopnyoa frK locating here." also, we do not need more condos ana tract homes and increased traffic. I've left this a2ea twice(in seven years) and have returned mainly for the 2resh air, rural atmasnhere and lack of conge0ion but. looking at the rerent hnphazard groyth(?) on E.Cotati _eve. (where I reside), I haVe less and less hope in our future. Be wletk-Packard will only make mat err worse, Aw 4 Sinc erely, And Plumb 760 E. Cotati Ave. Cotat!(10 feet from R.P.),Ca. P.S. What can be done about the Casa de lalifia apartmenb buliding(across from the Shortsbop) which is waning me away on E. Cotati Ave.(remindin,gAof the Tenderloin area of San franc ks coo) ? Can it be fixed op for low-cost housing or blown up as ap eyesore and a victim of poor pl Baia„ Ug? It is so decrcpit. July 28, 1991, Dear. Mr. Skanchy: Thank you so much for the opportunity of commenting on the above subject. The onlLy co.-ocer:a I had was Highway traffic impacts: This is covered in tables 3-19, 3-20, 3-21, 3-22, 3-23 very much to my satisfaction. 2. HazardouB materials to the environment, both air borne nnd. hydrplpgy. The various comments that are outlined in the final of H. L R. are covered very well. Summary: After giving the necessary thought to the above subject, it, is my opinion that the HEWLETT FACKARD FROJOT ohould be permitted to peoceed. Tf iank y o a James A Clark Retired General Electric employee 80 Walnut Circle Rohnert Parks CK. 94928 ­,cq; Chairman Planning Commission - Rohnert Park Mayor - City of Rohnert Park File -- 5 J]VIC/ac J!Q C,,y In ea, CounAMOO Mr. Paul Skanchy COP, Planning Director,, City of Rohnert Park Rohnert Park, Ca. 94928 R. E,:- Hewlett Packard Environmental Report Notice of Preparation and the final VOL of name. Dear. Mr. Skanchy: Thank you so much for the opportunity of commenting on the above subject. The onlLy co.-ocer:a I had was Highway traffic impacts: This is covered in tables 3-19, 3-20, 3-21, 3-22, 3-23 very much to my satisfaction. 2. HazardouB materials to the environment, both air borne nnd. hydrplpgy. The various comments that are outlined in the final of H. L R. are covered very well. Summary: After giving the necessary thought to the above subject, it, is my opinion that the HEWLETT FACKARD FROJOT ohould be permitted to peoceed. Tf iank y o a James A Clark Retired General Electric employee 80 Walnut Circle Rohnert Parks CK. 94928 ­,cq; Chairman Planning Commission - Rohnert Park Mayor - City of Rohnert Park File -- 5 J]VIC/ac J!Q P,X `, CITY OP /9s1 1 t/7 / / s4i e �? " ,°i ,', ! � r c:`,sS s c e Cri'r�r'lF:. -5 `'� � P G ti�E:Yf /p„ �✓� U d ° z�a�d 3 ! '� -:) ry 9? e s r .5',_S -0 e / cq / v �1c %� C °4Js f�? cl /%/ % ( E✓1(lY 8 /"`c_'a7/p?� All C-7 e -W c rep . / Y / �.. � 1"a y C Vr- r 4l c5V"rf� f i c �J S c r_.� "� J /V Vic: 4(f. pal-le,")f apd W/,S-,L 112 o t� ��-_ �`.��..� � Cdr ;�, � how ra t 'council copy, e co to COuncilrryan dopy to SONOMA COUNTY .iJ`h°-Z�{ DEPARTS/TNT OF P Mme..,. G SY Prima[) Ohakravvarti, Director F August 5, 1981 Mr. Paul Skanchy Planning Director Rohnert Park City Hall L6750 Commerce Boulevard Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Dear Paul: Regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report (FIR) for the Hewlett: Packard Project, one obvious omission has been made. The consultants have not re- sponded to our comment (labelled "Comment #7 ") on Page 6 -B35 of the Final EIR. A response to this concern is required. We would like to refer specifically to a major weakness of the DEIR which we referred to in our letter of June 3, 1981. That weakness is the two assumptions contained on Page 3--1 of the DFIR, that 1) ....the City of Rohnert Park l anni ng area will develop according to the existing General Plan...." , and 2J... "The City of Rohnert Park will not expend beyond the City boundaries shown in the General Plan." These two assumptions severely limit the scope of the EIi; and lurch of the information contained in it useless. rtnj m thank You for notifying our office about the August 10th City Council hearing. Sincerely, PRAHAB CHAKRAWARTI Planning Director Richard Lehti nen Planner IV eo�1 Il( 575 Adminktruion IV, Room 105& N SMAO Irma, (Mhunio 95401 C1 (707) 517.2412 ix. RECEIVED MY OF ROHNEU PARK y . j New fc Copp to ea. coupulman opy to 0 Copy to CN WS, V) y 198 'CITY Pr, er Opy to On C, copy Copy to 4�7 -77 CJ i. U U J-11-3 Opy to On C, copy Copy to 4�7 -77 CJ i. U U RECEIVED AUG7 1981 ql'y OF J�OHNMT PARK �a/'z /46, J C, -z I. -------------- py Youncil Cwespondavriza copy ta on. Caun 'I", copyto j copy tc) LCouncil Corras4p**ndence � Cou � Copy to ea. noilman copy to j Copy tot I< py to V\ 3 AUG 7 198, /zI;,-,/ OF Ro"t"T PARK 45 X 17, /A e T 06 i-i AI LCouncil Corras4p**ndence � Cou � Copy to ea. noilman copy to j Copy tot I< py to V\ MAYOR'S COMMENT RE: HEWLETT PACKARD THE PURPOSE OF THE SCHEDULED HEARINGS BEFORE_ US TONIGHT IS 'TO PROVIDE THE COUNCIL WITH INPUT SO THAT THE COUNCIL CAN REACH A DECISION CONCERNING THE PROPOSED HEWLETT PACKARD PROJECT. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO MAY NOT FEEL_ THE E.I.R. IS ADEQUATE, PLEASE BE SPECIFIC IN YOUR COMMENTS SO THEY CAN BE ADDRESSED BY OUR CONSULTANT. GENERAL EXPRESSIONS OF OPINIONS OR FEELINGS DO NOT HELP US TO REACH A DECISION AS TO THE ADEQUACY OF THE E.I.R. THOSE WHO HAVE WRITTEN MATERIAL. SHOULD SUBMIT IT TO US. YOU NEED NOT READ IT TO US. YOU CAN REST ASSURED THAT THE COUNCIL WILL READ IT AND IT WILL BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD. IN THE INTEREST 01= 'TIME, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK ALL THE_ SPEAKERS NOT TO BE REPETITIVE. IF YOU SUPPORT WHAT A PREVIOUS SPLAKER HAS ALREADY SAID, A SIMPLE STATEMENT -TO THAT EFFECT WILL. SUFFICE. IT WOULD ALSO BE APPRECIATED 117 YOU LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS 1 -0 THE MATTER BEFORE THE COUNCIL. THAT IS, THE PROPOSED I- IEWL.ETT PACKARD PROJECT, TFiE E.I.R. FOR SAME, AND THE ZONING CHANGES. FINALLY, AGAIN IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, IT IS REQUESTED THAT EXPRESSIONS OF APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF ANY PARTICULAR SPEAKER'S REMARKS BE KEPT TO YOURSELF, NO VOCAI... EXPRESSION OR APPLAUDING BY THE AUDIENCE SHOULD BE MADI__. IT SERVES NO USEFUL PURPOSE IN HELPING THE COUNCIL REACH A DECISION. IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENCES OF OPINION IN THE MATTER, HOWEVER, LET'S ALL TRY TO BE COURTEOUS TO ONE ANOTHER DURING THIS HEARING. August 10, 1981 CITY COUNCIL: COMMENTS ON THE HEWLETT-PACKARD FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, REZONING, AND ANNEXATION FOR ITIE PROPOSED PROJECT. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Final FIR and related General Plan amendments for the Hewlett-Packard Project. Unfortunately, my 12 page res- ponse to the Draft FIR was left unanswered in the Final EIR. 'The Final EIR essent- ially consists of the Draft FIR unchanged, non-answers to detailed public comments, and only 27 pages of supplemental analyses and discussion upon which many of the responses to the public comments were referred to. In other words, specific questions I raised about the DEIR were given a vague general response which did not directly answer the question. This seems to be a violation of CEOA Sec. 15146.(b)#(Contents of Final EIR) which states: "The response of the Lead Agency to comments received may take the form of a revision of the Draft FIR or may be an attachment to the Draft EIR. The response shall describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised (e.g., revisions to the proposed project to mitigate anticipa- ted impacts or objections). In particular, the major 'issues raised when the lead agency's position is at variance with recommendations and object- ions raised in the comments must be addressed in detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions were not accepted." I hope that the frequent "comment acknowledged" given in response to public comments will be propoerly responded to before a decision is made concerning the adequacy of this Final EIR. The following inadequacies of the FIR which I have detailed were insufficiently answered: 1. Inadequate assessment of direct and indirect agricultural destruction. These comments are inadequately answered in subsection F, L_ricultural Land. Under Agricultural Land it is stated: "It is reasonable to assume, however, that the percent of consumption of Sonoma County's remaining agricultural land due to the project will be be- tween 1 and 3 % at the end of the 20-year project development period." p. 6-E7 This figure is arrived at from interpretations of statistics -found in the publication Endangered Harvest: The Future of Bay Area Farmland, People for Open Space, Nov. 1980. A figure of ]3,522 acres of agricultural 'land lost due to the project is arrived at by multiplying the historical factor of 95 by the induced I population growth from the project by the year 2000, which is 14,100 people. This amount of acreage is then calculated to be less than ' 3% of the remaining agricultural lands remaining in Sonoma County in 1974. However, this percentage is meaningless because the amount of acreage taken out of agricultural production inthe year 2000 is irrelevant to the amount of agricultural lands remaining in production in.-1974. According to Bay Area Far I nd Loss projections, _ll7llZOPP,)Technical Memo 4a, People for Open Space) 170,044 acres are projected to be lost in Sonoma County by the year 2000. Thus, 13,522 more project-related acreage is due to be lost by the year 2000, an almost 8% increase above the 170,044 figure without the project. On page 12 of the technical memo it is stated that the historical Sonoma County factor of 95.9 is valid to the year 2000. it may even be conservative since the factor between 1969-1974 was 212.3 acres or 88,524 acres lost in this five year period. Even the 8% increase of projected farmland lost, includes range and pasture land which is usually poorer in soil type and hillier terrain than the Class Ils-5 soil of the project site which is currently cultivated in oat hay. Class I and 11 soils are generally considered prime agricultural land and are the soil types usually best suited for cultivation. Total cultivated acreage in Sonoma County (in 1974) was 90,252 acres, a little more than 17% of the total farmland (1974 Census of Agriculture). Much of the rapid growth stimulated by the project will put extreme pressures for non-agricultural development on the Class I and 11 soils on the flatlands of the Cotati plain-sufrounding the site. These soils are an irreplaceable natural resource whose real value has not yet been translated into today's economic standards. It is stated in AdInyred Harvest:"Ten years from now',! says a Soil Conservation Service official, "Americans could be as concerned over the loss of the nation's prime and important farmlands as they are today over the shortages of oil and gasoline." (p. 9) It is stated in this (=IR that the soils of the project site are "usually more than 60 inches deep..."p.?Q). Related to this, another quote from Endangered Harvest: "Though topsoil forms slowly--as slowly as one inch in 10,000 years--some of our valleys have topsoil 35 feet deep. (We have not been careful with this lavish, irreplaceable resource: these valley lands are the ones we have built over first and fastest)." (p.14). It is also stated on page 2-2 of the Eir that "The site may have previously been planted in onions while part of the Rohnert Seed Farm.'' .�, In• summary, the Agricultural Land analysis in Section E does not answer any specific question I had concerning impacts to agriculture and gives irrelevant and misleading interpretations of statistics for conslusions. 2. Inadequate analysis of groundwater impact. The response to Comment 7 does not explain why the classification "insignificant effect" is given to a year 2000 amount of 900 acre feet a year groundwater use from — 3 the project "which would further reduce ground-water levels in the area and would be 15% more than the City's projected annual pumpage." (p.3-21). These statistics ob- viously show that the proposed project will significantly effect the regional ground- water problem. There is also no analysis or classification of the impact of the year 2000 annual consumption of SCO acre feet of water from the Russian River. Yet it is stated on page 3-00.: "A8.the process and recycled cooling demand increases, however, the City will not be able to rely fully on the Aqueduct as a supply to meet peak summer water demands." 3. Inadequate analysis of toxic waste impact. The response to comment 8 totally ignores my concerns about the toxic waste transport routes being reviewed in the EIR process before the project is approved. This is what we assume an environmental impact report is for. Also, the potential effects of toxic waste contamination into groundwater and near-by wells should be properly analysed and presented for public review. This data should be presented in order to have as much information as possible concerning the impact of large- scale industrial rezoning for this particular site. Comments 9 and 10 question industrial zoning for this site and refer to the City fo Rohnert Park General Plan for substantiation of good r(yasons to keep industry in the industrial-zoned land better suited to this purpose further north near Hwy. 101. These comments were ig- nored and are not responded to in Hazardous Materials, subsection E. Also, this factory may, by the year 2000, be twice as large as the Santa Rosa Facility with 3-4 trucks hauling hazardous wastes every month. 4. No reference to Qantas EIR for the same site which assessed that "industrial uses on the site would create a small pocket inconsistent with surrounding uses." (p. VI 2, Qantas EIR Nov. 1978). The full context of the above quote is the following: "The project site may be used for a projessional, commercial, or industrial use. These uses would, however, be inconsistent with General Plan policies. From a locational standpoint, most projessional uses would be more compatible near the proposed City Center. While it is true that the project provides railroad frontage, all industrial activity is planned further north and industrial uses on the site would create a small pocket inconsistent with surrounding uses." The response to this was "The industrial plant is inrr%nci-zf1nV1f with planned surrounding uses (i.e. residential). That is why the general plan amendment ana-- lyzed by this EIR is proposed," Throughout this EIR the consultants consistently reify general plans Is if they did not pertain to an existing physical and social environment. It is clear from the above quoted passage that the meaning of the 4 phrase "industrial uses on the site would create a small pocket inconsistent with si al reality of the project site--that is why "all ,,_a,rounding uses" pertains to the actual industrial activity is planned further north." This EIR fails to analyse the general plan amendment (i.e. industrial re-zoning) in relation to the environmental impact such large-scale industrial uses will have for this particular site. The City of Rohnert Park had reasons for placing its industH%al activity elsewhere and these reasons are stated in this FIR on page 3-18. 5. Inadequate analysis of the wastewater impact caused by the project. The response to Comment 1 2 i just a summary of what is already stated in the EIR and does riot address the comment. My criticism was the wording of the "unavoid- able adverse impact" stated on page 5-3which fails to mention the adverse impact of increasing the wastewater pollution of the county. The fact that Rohnert Park will reach its capacity allocation in the Laguna Subregional Wastewater Treatment Plant prior to 1985 without the project (assuming current wastewater practices continue along with the present rate of city growth) does not lessen the fact of the pro- posed project's huge impact upon the regional wastewater problem for which there is presently no solution. No response to this point was given. 7. Inadequate microwave radiation impact analysis. In my comment I stated that Hewlett-Packard was hardly an -impartial source, not that it wasnt an expert source. To be obj(-!ctive, an FIR should cite references other than the company which is propos.,q.ng the project. In this way, the public can more reasonably assess potentially controversial data.. The long -term effects of low-level microwave radiation still remain questionable. 8. Analysis for future electronics industry growth potential in Sonoma County is inadequate. The responses to my comments again totally fail to address my questions since I am riot concerned with housing in this instance but with fbture growth of the elec- tronics industry in Sonoma County. The response to comments 16 and 17 concern housing, not the subject I was addressing, so I assume that this was a misprint. The supplemental section on Employment (p.E2) was apparently written to answer these questions, although they ignore the references I cite indicating future growth in Sonoma County. The time frame we are considering is not 1965-1976 or 1972 to the present, but 1981-2000. T f is trun that the ele-+-on4-s 4-dus+ , , 4 +4ev ­+ I.- III I,[y Is I a U 111V V -I I I k. I J %JU 0 Illuvin ts production facili of Santa Clara County and into other states and countries, but it is also predicted that this industry will also move into the periphery of Bay Area C6unties that are, currently rapid growth areas-such as Sonoma County. "Sonoma County was the fastest-growing county in the San Francisco Bay Area during the past 10 years and all indications are that trend will continue, according to an Association of Bay Area Governments report." -Press Democrat 2-5-8T. In this same article T quoted Ray Brady, ABAG senior researcher, who predicted that "much of the employment growth (of Sonoma County) should be in the high technology industry"(quoted in my written response p.6-07). I also quote John Young, president of Hewlett-Packard, on the same page. Young also states in the article: "Young's third section of the greater Bay Area is the "Northern Tier," which includes Sonoma, Solano and Napa counties. He said the industrial growth rates there are high, but the population of those 3 counties is so small that industry there has little impact on the rest of the area. Young urged careful indust- rial developtent there, in order to prevent such problems as a jobs/housing imbalance." (Palo Alto Times 11-307'78). Since the population is booming and large-scale fact- ories such as the proposed Hewlett•Packard project seriously impactL the area, the "careful" development urged by Young seems to be merely wishful thinking in practice. Another source predicting future industrial growth in Sonoma County is Richard Carlson, an econoWt of the Stanford Research Institute. He states: "Employers are going to be increasingly interested in moving to fringe areas like this." The article continues:"One reason employers are looking to this area is the pre- vailing wage rate-,gemally much lower than in Santa Clara County." (Rohnert-Park Cotati Times 10-16-80). Also, as I mentioned in my written reponse (p.6417) the proposed Frates Ranch development (7miles southeast of the H-P site) would contain approximately 044 acres of industrial land for electronics-type industry. Another major development 11 miles north of the project, the proposed Fountain Grove >roject, will also contain in- dustrial acreage geared towards electronics-type industry. The growth-inducing impact of the latter project is related In the fo7lowing quote: "There was a temp- tation to move south (of San Francisco) but anticipating some of the activity such as the Fountain Grove project that I was coming to Santa Posa, we docided to move there,"said Dorothe Hutchinson, senior vice president of Wells-Fargo Mortgage Co. ("An office building boom in Sonoma County," Press Democrat 6-21-21). The ground-breaking role of Hewlett-Packard cannot be ignored when analysing its potential to attract other industries. An article in the San Jcso Mercury-News (9-7-80) entitled "Huge industrial parks gobble up old San Jose Farmland" illustrates this: "As Greg Davies sees it, Hewlett-Packard Co.'s decision to expand into North San Jose in 1977 was the turning point for an area that was best known for fruits and vegetables. TO kind of sanctioned the neighborhood,' said Davies, manager of the San Jose office of Coldwell Banker Commercial Brokerage Co, a real estate firm. "H-P crossed )Hwy) 101 and that broke it loose," Davies said. Hewlett-Packard R bought 144 acres at Trimble Road and North First St. Since H-P pioneered with a large facility, bulldozers have replaced farm tractors on several hundred acres north of Hwy. 101." And of course, H-P broke the ground for the Fountain Grove development and whose facilities there are still only 50% complete. In summary, future trends in electronics-type growth for Sonoma County from the various sources ducted should be responded to. Also, the cumulative effects of the proposed Fountain Grove and Frates Ranch developments in relation to the proposed Hewlett-Packard project should be assessed. 9. inadequate analysis of Sonoma County General Plan Violations. The response to General Plan violations once again deems to be rationalizations for the project rather than an impartial view of regional impacts due to the proposed development. The following will state why I feel the responses Mid dealing with the intent of the goals of the Sonoma County General Plan: 1. Utilize a community-centered concept. The conflict is also caused by the growth- inducing impacts inflicted on neighbor- ing communities such as Cotati and Penngrove. It is KAMM this FIR on p.3-18: "Cotati also may feel pressure to increase its residential densities, a policy inconsistent with the stated goal of the community to preserve the rural character and small town atmosphere." The impact upon the community of Penngrove is virtually ignored. Placing a huge industrial complex on Rohnert Park's extreme south-eastern limits very close to the small town, semi-rural communities of Cotati and Penngrove does not s-em to be util- izing a community-centered concept. 2. Promote compact urban growth, The project site is adjacent to a residential area only on its north-western edge, across the Northwestern Pacific Railroad tracks. To the north, east, south, and southwest are agricultural and rural residential lands within the county. It is more accurate to say that the project site is agricultural land nearly, surrounded on all sides by rural land except for a portion of one border which abuts the extreme southeast- ern edge of Rohnert Park's residential development. In the ge.ional Plan Diaqram(1974) of ABAG it is stated: "The siting of industrial and major commercial uses at the fringe of existing developed areas and in unincorporated areas may also contribute to pressures for dispersed residential development." (Reprinted in Addendum, ppl6-17, revised Final EIR, Qantas) In other words, this is precisely the type of location which encourages urban sprawl beyond compact urban centers. Even though most of the project site is within 7 the city limits of Rohnert Park (since 1962), the acreage is geographically closer to the community centers of Cotati and Penngrove, both of vihich greatly predate Rohnert Park as (unincorporated) distinct communities. Although the area is unilaterally "planned" for development by Rohnert Park, urbanization in this area will sprawl into two other communities, foriever ' altering their rural character and surrounding agricultural lands. The County General Plan was adopted so that regional growth could occur without the community destruction characterized by the growth of the Santa Clara County. Neighboring residents opposed the Qantas development and even more oppose the plans for a factory and residential development because of adverse direct impacts. In summary, planned development (by one city), induces urban sprawl and severely impacts surrounding communities is not necessarily the best planning for the affected communities and the region as a whole. 3. (See 1 and 2 above) 4. Accommodate a diversity of life-style opportunities including both urban and rural. Even though the project is scaled over a 20 year period, real estate speculation is surely occuring now even before the project is built or even approved. Rapidly increasing land values, taxes, and urban encroachment will lead to the displacement of rural land and lifestyles long before the project is completed. The rural life- style is eventually destroyed because urban expansion consumes the rural space necessary for this lifestyle. "Undercapitalized" or "underused" rural areas are the raw material for urban development. When this urban development is unrelated to existing or potential agricultural productivity (not necessarily high projitability) then the most valuable soils for food production can be turned into abstract tracts: of real estate. S. Preserve agricultural lands and encourage agriculture. The project site is level /Class Ils-S soil probably around 60 inches deep, which may have been planted in onions when it was the Rohnert Seed r'arill. "The seed farm and the wholesaling of vegetable seeds turned into a successful venture that lasted many years. The seed farm was a major horticultural asset to the County, some say second only to the gardens of Luther Burbank in Santa Rosa." 11; is also stated that Waldo Emerson Rohnert "concentrated on enriching the soils,/" (A History of Rohnert Park 1976.) If this is not prime agricultural land, existing or potential, thcri what is? 8. Plan with respect to Countywide and planning area growth targets,_ However, it is known now that the project is growth--inducing and exceeds the growth projected by the County General Plan. Future general plan amendments whfth conform to growth induced by the project do not alter its -inconsistency with this General Plan which we are using today. F-61 12. Inadequate analysis of Sonoma County Commercial/Industrial Study Violations. The response fails to respond to the project's negative impact according to the criteria quoted as "an important policy" in this EIR (p.3-19). Even though Rohnert Park never approved this study, the County and other communities impacted by the project did approve it. 11. Inadequate analysis of plans reviewed on page 2-10 under "Public Plans and Policies." The response to my comment"...there is no impact to the goals and policies of these plans." is contradicted in two previously cited passages in this EIR.: "Cotati also may feel pressure to increase its residential densities, a pOliciy inconsistent with the stated goal of the community to preserve the rural, character and small town atmosphere," (p.3­18) and "Because of the magnitude of the Hewlett- Packard project and its potential for inducing further development, it is useful to review the various County and City plans and policies." (p.2-10). It is clearly indicated that the proposed project will directly affect the plans and polifles of the surrounding communities and region, a fact which certainly requires an impact analysis for those plans. The above passages also show that the consultants. are riot naive enough to believe that plans and policies of economically and politically weak small towns and rural areas can prevent rapid urban encroachment merely by having a plan My comment also should have a proper response consistent with what is stated or implied in the text of the HR. 12. Inadequate analysis of industrial re-zoning and its impact on the surrounding communities. No analysis of historical precedents (i.e. the Santa Clara Valley). However, nowhere in this EIR has the impact of large-scale industrial re- zoning for the particular geographical area of the project site been analysed in a clear manner. What happens when you put (what is planned to be ) the largest factory in Sonoma County on flat land on the eastern agricultural periphery of a rapid growth- oriented city centrally located between Santa Rosa and Petaluma, the two other growth centers of the County each with their own large-scale, growth-inducing projects in the works? How will the project effect regional commute problems and development 'in the northern Bay Area, especially the rapid growth area of southwestern Solano County? What are the possibilities of Petaluma Hill Road becoming a six lane highway with industrial/commercial zoningq from project site to Lakeville Blvd with high density residential areas filled in to the west? The above possibilities could potentially result from a "simple' industrial rezoning--potential impacts should be thoroughly analysed, not rationalized away as if they cannot happen here. Historical precedents should also be thoroughly analysed in the EIR. By studying and comparing the development of the Santa Clara Valley to Sonoma County of today, we can avoid past mistakes. If a city or county 9 General Plan is not followed for major projects, what good is a General Plan? The following is a description of zoning practices in San Jose during the 50s and 60's: ' "Zoning continued to be a mechanism that resulted in the chaotic development of the city. Although the General Plan indicated different zonings throughout the city, the City Council freely granted monings. In the same manner that the Planning Commission granted variances and exceptions which negated the Gen- eral Plan and .dealt with re} pnings on a one-to0one basis The effect Q a f t ive � CIV 4 too , Ae, - (p. 21 , The Growth and Development of San Jose, CA, Mitchel l" Mandich, M.A. Thesis, San Jose State U., 1975) The pont of Comment 24 is left unanswered in the response. A significant addition to accumulative environmental impacts does not lessen those impacts, even though other developments are causing regional problems, also. 13. Inadequate traffic analysis. The response still leaves unanswered the regional traffic impacts generated by the project. Also, the traffic analysis is anything but clearly and summarily stated. The impacts on Cotati and Penngrove are glossed over. Also, the traffic impact analysis is inadequate because the traffic impact of employee traffic, back- ground traffic, and traffic resulting from the 69-acre residential development is not analysed together. 14. Inadequate noise impact analysis. The response rationalizes the impact of cumulative noise level increases due to the growth-inducing nature of the project. Comment 27 was not answered (response was omitted probably due to a typographical error). An answer is Mill requested. 15. Inadqquate mobile and stationary air emmission analysis. The response does not appear to have resulted-in an exhaustive investigation. How were the air emmission standards for the proposed Prates Ranch development pro- jected? IV Inadequate "No Project" and alternatives analysis. The response ignores the content of my question. I specifically state that the "No Project" alternative for the General Plan Amendment is a separate consideration. The General Plan Amendment "No Project" is described on page 4-3. 1 am referring to the inadequate "No Project " alternative describeO on page 4-2. KP's decision of endless growth is irrelevant to a "no project" alternative for this site. No pro- ject is NO PROJECT FOR THE SITE, not the developer. After all, this is an environ- mental impact report. If there is no project, (and no project is still a legal possibility before the City Council ) then the land would remain in agricultural production. On page V1.1 in the Qantas ETR under "Alternatives" it is stated: luff "A "no Project" alternative is available to the City. Under this alternative, the land could be classified as permanent open space with perpetuation of agricultural use." This was the "No Project" alternative for the proposed subdivison, even though the general plan called for the development of agricultural land. The EIR for the H-P project should also have an adequate "No Project" alternative. ON page 6-D40 (Com 2) of my written summarization presented at the hearing, I state that "heavy metals" are unlisted and their potential for ground contamination is unstated. Thdresponse states that over 60 inches of relatiavely impprmeable soil will be trapped during percolation, What effect will excavations during constructi6an have on the depth of this topsoil and what are the "heavy metals'? It would also be interesting to receive responses to Comments 31-33. 1 also felt that responses to other major concerns of the project were not ansered. In particular, Com. I (p. 6-B34) of the Department of Planning Comments received no response at all. This question is central to the premise of the conclu- sions in this EIR and should be adequrtely answered. In conclusion, I hope that the comments that I have made Will be thoroughly and ser66usly ansered this time. I live just a short walk from the site and would like the truth of these impacts clearly stated. My experience growing up in San Jose in the fifties and sixties naturally reflects the views I have on this type of development. Listen to those people who say that their Environment and community has been destroyed--don't let the voices of these ruined areas come back in ten to twenty years as the children of Rohnert Park, Cotatt, and Penngrove ask why did they let it happen? Who wants to live here anymore? Thank you, 11141t hJJ0Qrr- Bill Helmer Penngrove, CA 3335 Primrose Avenue Santa Rosa, California 95401 September 22, 1981 facility would ultimately generate an estimated 1.12 million gallons per day(MGD) of sewage and induce growth that would generate another 1.20 MGD. Neither the treatment nor the disposal capacity is available for this wastewater. The response of the EIR's authors to this dilemma is to throw up their hands and say, "It's not our problem." They argue that since the county will need a larger sewer system anyway in order to grow, some regional sewer expansion project is inevitable, with or without Hewlett - Packard. That expansion project must be big enough to accomodate Hewlett - Packard, the EIR concludes. The only defect to this approach is that no federal, state or local government funds will be available in the foreseeable future for significant expansion of the Laguna Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. For this reason the whole Tolay Lake reclamation plan(cost exceeding $100 million) City Council City of Rohnert Park...v rr lio Rohnert Park, California Dear Council Members There is an important deficiency in the Hewlett- Packard EIR which was riot adequately discussed at the public hearings. This is the issue of sewer capacity. The Hewlett - Packard facility would ultimately generate an estimated 1.12 million gallons per day(MGD) of sewage and induce growth that would generate another 1.20 MGD. Neither the treatment nor the disposal capacity is available for this wastewater. The response of the EIR's authors to this dilemma is to throw up their hands and say, "It's not our problem." They argue that since the county will need a larger sewer system anyway in order to grow, some regional sewer expansion project is inevitable, with or without Hewlett - Packard. That expansion project must be big enough to accomodate Hewlett - Packard, the EIR concludes. The only defect to this approach is that no federal, state or local government funds will be available in the foreseeable future for significant expansion of the Laguna Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. For this reason the whole Tolay Lake reclamation plan(cost exceeding $100 million) City Council, Rohnert Park (2) September 22, 1981 is a dead letter. County and city officials, including those of Rohnert Park, were warned of this situation some months ago by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. This somber reality was acknowledged recently by the county's South Santa Rosa Specific Plan, which statedi Based on discussions with the staff of the North Coast Water Quality Control Board, it appears that financial assistance from the Federal Government and the State Government to expand (sewage) facilities may be unavail- able. Therefore, expansion of this treatment and disposal system may depend on the ability, of local governments to provide 100 percent of the financing." (p. 63) This statement was issued in June, 1981. The Hewlett - Packard EIR came out one month later but it unaccountably ignored this vital information. In recent weeks, the last hopes for outside funding have died with the unprecedented budget squeeze in Washington and the insolvency of the state government. Now officials at the Regional Water Quality Control Board are taxiing the position that no credible planning can be done on the expectation of federal or state sewer funds. Since the capital costs of :Large -scale sewage disposal expansion are obviously beyond the means of the local governrents in the post - Proposition 13 era, there is only one remaining source of the necessary fundst the developers. For the Hewlett- Packard development, there must; be an analysis in the EIR of different plans for the mitigation City Council, Rohnert Park (3) September 22, 1981 of the sewage impact through developer -paid construction of the necessary facilities. There are at least two possible approaches: (1) Hewlett- Packard could build and give to the city a new sewage treatment and disposal system utilizing irrigation on the golf course, Sonoma State University grounds, and nearby agricultural lands. (2) Hewlett - Packard could finance the necessary pumps, reservoirs and trunk lines to expand the disposal capacity of the Laguna Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant plus any necessary additions to the plant's treatment system. In either case, it would be imperative that Hewlett- Packard be required to provide enough additional capacity to meet all its own projected on -site needs plus the full amount required by the induced population growth that this giant factory will cause. The reason for this is two -fold: (1) Sewer capacity must be in place before the induced growth occurs to avoid a possible county -wide freeze on new sewer hook -ups. (2) The sewer system can be expanded only in big pieces at high capital cost. It is not a matter or digging one more holding pond or running a few more yards of irrigation pipe. The agricultural land near the .Laguna facility is almost fully utilized. Expansion of the disposal system will therefore require that the treated effluent be transported to ranches located at a considerable distance from the Laguna facility. Large new reservoirs must be provided. In a sense, this is a piece -by -piece implementation of the full regional wastewater plan. But the pieces are City Council, Rohnert Park () September 22, 1981 big, and expensive. After Hewlett - Packard has funded the necessary facilities, it would be reasonable to levy some kind of assessment on future residential and commercial developers who actually carry out the induced growth. This assessment would reimburse Hewlett- Packard for the induced - growth portion of the total capital expense. But Hewlett - Packard must put yap all the initial funds because no one else is available today to foot the bill. For completeness, the EIR might also explore the possibility of handling Hewlett- Packard's wastewater by renewed dumping in the Russian River. After all, today's strict water quality standards "aren't written in stone," to use an expression that has become increasingly popular in local councils of government. Renewed river disposal would be a bold and tempting solution to a future sewer crisis. Sizable economic losses would be incurred, however, by the resort industry along the Russian River, and all recreational users would suffer. Yet renewed raver disposal isn't so far - fetched. Failure to provide full developer funding today for an expanded irrigation disposal system would make it probable that Russian River disposal would someday be resumed. And the decision could easily be taken out of local hands. Only last week the legislature voted to strip local government of its authority over the development of five new residential towns. I. am aware that you aren't exactly eager to expand the scope of the EIR at this late date. But Hewlett - Packard e City Council, Rohnert Park (5) September 22, 1931 is proposing the largest industrial development in the history of Sonoma County. Full disclosure of environmental impacts is essential. The law requires it, and the public deserves it. Ver truly ,yours, Michael E. Sweeney 7 cc: Cotati City Council Sonoma County Planning Commission North Coast Regional Water Quality Board Citizens Opposed to Hewlett-Packard Expansion League of Women Voters David Eck �J ul Y vale Mc' -Ut it -hy �&,Ve� �«, .,. w. m; me„ w.; f< aii�x• s. L: u�ai.,._„ w.,...;. Maasw. �.; 9: w...; a'. y., �w+. �;.l a::. s�K��.,: ?; m, �i',: s`,"; �e., „ v. �:,=. ur» s.. a:: �. u.;,., c. 7, J�.:« �c. Y, Eu_.,:. oa &::aswb�'`i��F.',�a'.�'ic�we;k' _. t-1, y By Joel Achenlaach whole sports a 20.7 incidence raate, for sypi di., with Staff %Vntrs San I<rarnciso, the state's leading havers for cor inun -, if, as the saying goes, "health is our greatest icast;le disease,, t.oppin;, tfre list with 120 cases per wealth,” Santa Clara County residents, can laugh all 100,000 irshahil:arats. the way to the proverbial bank. Another tidbit from the state report reveals that That conclusion, at toast, can be drawn from file the county has the Rawest rates of accidents, poisonings latest vital statistics drawn up by tine state's Depart- and violf,nee. Per capita fX.Icrrrrencea of birth defoeU la-lent of Health Servicass, which shorn the county to and inf ant mortality are atso lower in the county than have far fewer medical fart }blena s and to rraore pros- the states average, although death rata;s for hispanic perous econorriy than the California average. inpfrarit_s sharply exceed thor.e for nova- lfislaanics. ' Santa Clara County is -.._ simply put. -- rich, young ill Saarrt<a Clara County's vital and hea lthy. sl<atistic as the incidence of o<. al dLsease, / hur cti..tritlale, Santa chn—:a Cotarily residents have Which rekgs ,feitii thf.� 12th hif ha .t in the ;state. Approxi, tha second -taws t rata-s of both hc�ari. disoatac: and mately l oast. r_af 1,16 worhe.rs ira the county rclxartesb cancrr in the entire state --- 195 and 1t ",7 feat <al caasc,S o<cupaational illrc_r.,es in the year studicd by tile re annually l>ar 1GO,OOt1 fx*ople, rc�sli «1i�6 *ly. port, 1.976. !'list incidence of vuraeraf disaaaase iri ttie eoaarrty is According to slate fiepaar�trileaat of lrielarst -rial Rohl - aL,'o si ,,nifieantly less than the state norm. A mere Lions Spokc•s'oaaiata Sara Behman, the area's elvtr,oaa- 4,870 cases of gkmorrhea are reported each year it) the ics in lusAtry may he rr sportsible for raaaach of the cotanty, almost, 50 fx,reent less than the going state problem. rate. Syphilis, a ktz prevaal,.ait plague, cropix'd up ill Omlpatiwml disease incladu:; such maladies as 6.4 out of 100,000 area residents. laliforniaa on the t:ortiaitcs'd ort Page 713 dc>.rriaatlal.as, circulatory clysfsrctions and "s sterraic Iuai- oninl;, li( larT,'ali S 1itl. r�- � a o l hc:�,c t;E nt rattly fa�Eir«ialF� ,r�tr3t.cs ssi�.x oast,:; - pt rt, aautlaor larafhany C�rcf'ji.a oars. liarta<ally clue. to t'ie A'tanniu 1j. /hi0h lWa.St°a c7l� __ N CALIFORNIA, 1978 TLI NF�CE� PE= IUC Ft +LL - ?T"r vpRaFRS, IND ='STsir At TYPF nF CASE tND LOST WORKDAYS. YAPS_F OCCnPeTIUVa! INCIDENCE RATES ILLN.rSSfS _ - LOST WORKDAYS +` f TOT AI I LOST WORKDAY CASES. CASES i TOTAL DAYS DAYS OF INDUSTRY CASES d CASES w TTTH,WITHOUT i DAYS AWAY RESTRICTED CODE ® TOTAL DAYS AWAY LOST { FROM i WORK -- - -- _ . - FRpM WORK - -- - IWORKDAYS- - j WORK j ACTIVITY -- r- -� 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.4 2.7 2.1 0.5 35 MACHTNFRYr £YCFVT fLFCTR'CAL P 1.2 n.4 0.2 0.9 6.3 4.3 -2.0 i51 �: C0�+5TRIICTTOk af;D uFLaTED tiAC, i E Y O,2 0.2 0.4 6.5 6.5 r ;54 METALWORKING MACHINERY 0.6 0.2 0.1 U.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 355 SPFCTAL TNnUSIPY MACHINERY 0.6 n,1 0.1 0.3 1.5 1.4 0,1 15h GENERAL INDUSTRIAL MACHINERY U.4 0.1 U.1 0.2 2.3 1.6 0.7 357 OFFICE AND COMPUTING MACHINEc 0.4 (!,1 U.1 0.2 2.4 1.7 0.7 . 3573 ELECTRONIC COMPUTING £DuIPHENT 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.5 1.3 1.1 0.2 359 AL MISC. MaCHINFRYr EXCEPT ELFCTRICNEC O.a 0.7 (T.1 0.1 0.6 1.4 1.2 0.2 3509 MACHINFRY, EXCEPT ELECTRICAL, 0,2 U.1 U.4 2.2 1 -4 0.13 - 36 t! ELECTRIC AwD ELECT004IC FQIPMFNT 0.6 0.2 0.1 C1.3 2.1 1.1 1.0 361 ELECTRTC OISTRTBtITTNG EQUIPMENT 0.5 4 0.2 0.4 7.5 1.9 0.6 16% ELECTRICAL IND".ISTRIAL APPARATUS U.7 0.3 0.1 0.4 4,(} 1.9 2.2 364 FLFCTRTC LTGHTTNC AND WIRING EQUIPMENT U.7 n,t U,1 0.3 2.1 2.0 0.1 365 RADIO AND TV RFCEIVING EQUTP #ENT U.4 U.Z 01 U1 . 0.1 1.7 0.7 1.1 3a� COMM!INTCATTON FQUIPMENT . n.1 e 0.1 1.4 0.4 1.0 3662 RADIO AND TV AC EQUIPMENT 0.3 0.2 0.7 2.4 1.8 0.5 367 COMPONENTS AND ELECTRONTC COMPONENTS AND ACCESSORIES 0.1 0.1 o.s 4.9 4.7 0.2 3473 ELECTRON TU8FS, TRANSMITTING �,. 4 U,2 1.0 2.1 1.1 1.0 3676 SEMI`ONDUCTOPS AND PFLATFD DE`dTCFS 1 „7 �.3 0.3 0.5 2.6 2.4 0.2 7x,79 FLECTRONIC COMPONENTS, NFC 0.1 0.1 0.3 1,8 1,2 0.6 37 TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT 0.L 0.2 0.1 0.4 2.6 1.$ 0.9 371 MOTOP VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT 0.6 �.1 0.1 0.3 1.n 1.1 o.s 372 AIRCRAFT AND PARTS 03 . n R U.1 1.6 0.4 1.1 h 1721 AIRCRAFT 0.2 U.7 .1 0.1 0.1 0.5 2.7 2.2 0.5 3725 AIPCDAFT EQUIPMENT, NEC O.7 0.2 0.2 0.5 3.1 2.4 0.2 173 SHIP AND 6, -,AT RUILDING AND RFPAIPING 0.2 U.2 0.5 _ 4.1 3.9 0.2 3731 bHIP BijILDINr ANn REPATRTNG U.'1 k 0.1 O.6 0.4 O.1 176 GUIDED MTSSILES, SPACE VEHICLES, PAR °S U.'. U.} t . 0.1 0.1 : 3761 C,UTDED MISSII.ES aNrn SPACF 'iEHICLFS 0 " ; 0'1 U,1 G.Z 1 -2 1 -1 0.1 3t0 MISCELIiNp�US TRANSPORTATION EDU'P "E i U.3 n.2 U.2 0.2 1.5 1.5 3702 TRAV•FL TDATLFRS ANn CAj°PFRS 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.5 1,z 1.6 0.2 ?8 T M PKnDUCTS NSTPU ENTS AND RELATED 0.7 a S 0,1 0.1 0.3 1.9 1.6 0.3 382 MEaSI+RTNC ANn CONTROLLTNG DE'V'ICES 0 - 1.9 U.1 0.2 1,5 1.3 0.3 3325 i INSTRUMENTS TO FASUPE ELECIp1CITt 0.4 0.4, U.4 1.0 2.4 2.3 0.1 ?kb MEDICAL INSTRUMENTS AND SUPPLIES 1_4 0.4 0. t 0.4 4.6 3.9 0.7 39 MISCELLANEOUS MANUFACT:IKTNG TNnUSTPIES 0.3 0.9 0.5 10.3 9.1 1.3 394 TOYS AND SPORTTNC GOODS 1.9 a 1•, 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.8 4.8 .3.9 0.9 3949 SPORTING AND ATHLETIC GOODSr NEC 0., U.1 0.3 1.3 0.9 0.4 399 MISCELLANEOUS MANUFAC +tiKFS U.t 1.5 1.4 0.1 TRANSPORTATION AND PUtil -IC 11TTLTTIES n.' 0.1 U.2 1.7 1.6 0.1 40 RATLROAD TPANSPOPTATTnN 0.3 0.3 n.t 0.1 0.2 2.i 2.1 ti LOCAL sNn TkTEPURBAN Pa TRANSIT C}.1 U.1 U.3 1.0 1.0 42 TRUCKING AND WARFHOUSING U•` 1 n.1 U.1 01.3 1.0 1.I! p 421 TRISCYjkG, LOC AI AN? 1 (,1NG DIS TANCE L '6 N solvent to women's health perl t SAN JOSE, Ca — Electronic companies here are worried that researchers are preparing to take a close look at chemicals used by women workers in their plants that could be causing reproductive problems. Medical students Beth Horowitz and Maureen Katz of the university of California plait w spend six months investigating charges in the electronics Industry that women in the industry are experiencing unusual numbers of spontaneous abortions, menstrual problems, and a higher rate of stillbirths. The researchers plan to investigate a solvent called Zylene, used in the manufacture of electronics parts. Becky Villones, local representative of the National Filipino Immigrants Rights Organization (NF IRO), attended a special meeting of the United Electrical, Radio and !machine Workers union (UE) last month here where the health related problems of work caused by chemicals was discussed_ "Tens of thousands of recently arrived immigrants employed by the electronics companies are probably ignorant of their rights and don't have an inkling as to the causes of their health problems," said Chris Chambers, a UE member who works at Advanced !Micro Devices Corporation. Villones noted that of the 20,0W Filipino electronics workers in Silicon Valley 3,200 are employed at Advanced micro Devices alone. "Where I work," Pat Sacco, a SATURDAY, I MAY 30, 1981 clerk, said, "five out of nine women miscarried in the second trimester of their pregnancies. Nearly every woman, 40 or over, has had a hysterectomy or is about to have one." Aurelia Veloz, a 25 year old assembler who has been with the company for four years, ElectroniC.'s (Continued from page 4) - complained, I "I want more children but I !can't get pregnant ever since I started working here. I've been to four doctors and they say nothing is wrong with me." ! Another Filipina, Maria, 2s, ;who hails from Ilocos Sur, said !ter eyes are getting worse. "This Is the third time I'm getting 1glasses since I've been working." ;she works with acetones and father chemicals, Villones said the workers linked most of their problems to the widespread use of Zylene, a dangerous chemical used extensively as a solvent, In an article in the September 1980 issue of LaboratGxy Medicine, a health science magazine,- the Geneva -based International labor Organization (..LO) reported that prolonged exposure to Zylene causes irritation of the hemoietic (blood producing) oreans Ai?d Ih. (Continued on page ii) s central nervous system. ..Irritations of the upper respiratory tracts and eyes may also occur. Pregnant women may suffer from toxemia ,?poisoning) and hemorrage in delivery and abortion. lion - pregnant women may be made sterile," wrote Laborarory Medicine. Solvents are widely used in the electronics industry to clean and remove minute specks and dust from integrated circuits. The presence of -a single speck can cause malfunctions in these circuits or prevent them from properly transmitting electronic impulses. Workers say chemical fumes ear; be inhaled or will seep through hands and skirt and one never knows when they are being absorbed. They also charged poor ventilation systems in many factories contribute to the dangerous spread of these } v Michael Eisenscher, a UE organizer in Silicon Valley, said that levying fines on these companies and consistent demands by the balifornia Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal -OSHA) have secured better health protection for the workers. However, said Eisenscher, ..these companies simply pay their fines, and as soon as backs are turned, they pour in as much Zyiene as they want. Electronics corporations hale shown their disregard for the health and safety of their workers. They are only motivated by profit. Only a union can protect and fight for safe working conditions for them. " As the UE steps up its organizing campaign in the electronics industry many of the ,companies have intensified their oven, union- busting campaigns. UE reports that in some places, Filipinos and other immigrant workers are being threatened with deportation and fines up to $500 if they join the union. Co ZY ohnef /rs ac -ID 6�.;e k"O 44, -H) /ne) VI o , 'Zi 6" fi-,"/ /5 /1 o 6 fil f P, 6, /z, ed -b -/W /I C '04 Ot 5CA(:oJ1-* 9( 3 COIJ, holl 'b''i`1 ;tl Y kho Ul/ 6'r, 61, C) 1,V 0, lt6� /16 //I o7 r Od Ava'-ce t&fch 07/7 41 fon 7" ell' z" p k -Mv Sf �,) U, Rohnert Park City Council August 10, 1981 6750 Commerce Blvd. Rohnert Park, CA Dear Chairman and Members, I am John Jackson speaking for the Board of Directors of Madrone Audubon Society. Madrone Audubon Society is a conservation organization of over 1,000 members in Sonoma County. It is a chapter of the National Audubon Society. In considering the final revised Environmental Impact Report on the Hewlett- Packard project, the Board still feels it does not adequately address our con- cerns for the implementation of urban-centered growth as provided for in the Sonoma County General Plan, the provision and costs of housing the thousands of new people that this massive project will generate, nor the impacts to 'the lifestyle and pocketbooks bf the current residents of this community. We are, however, in complete agreement with the EIR in its acknowledgement that there is a lack of coordination in the planning process in Sonoma County" There are still so many unanswered and legitimate concerns that are not ade- quately addressed in this EIR, that the Board of Directors of Madrone Audubon Soc- iety feels that this Environmental Impact Report should not be approved. JJ: j I b Thank, y ,J6hn Jackson NATIONAL AUMMON SOCIFTY CIIAPYVR 05-2) August 10, 1981 TO: Rohnert Park City Council FROM: Gordon Scott Davis, Cotati Resident REGARDING: The Proposed Hewlett-Packard Project and EIR Dear Members of the Rohnert Park City Council, The Council's decision to accept or reject the final Environnental Impact Report and the proposed amendments to the Rohnert Park General Plan is the most important decision this elected body will ever make. The fact that orly three planning commissioners out of five made the decision to approve the final draft EIR for a project of this magnitude is an unconscionable circumvention of the planning process. I implore this council to return this EIR to the Planning Commission when all of its members are present. As to the proposed Hewlett-Packard project, I find that the shear magnitude of this project incompatible with the rural lifestyle that is Sonoma County's greatest asset. If Hewlett-Packard must build a plant in Rohnert Park, let them do so under the guidelines set forth in the General Plan. Most of us who have moved to Sonoma County came here to escape the overpopulation, high crime rate, and poYlution of the big cities. If you accept the proposed de- velopment project of Hewlett-Packard, you will bring the big city to us and destroy the rural agricultural beauty that Is Sonoma County. Sincerely, 17� ordon Scott Davis 8157 Arthur St. Cotati, California CITY OF corxri Post Office Box 428, Cotati, California 9-4928 Telephone (707)795-5478 Rohnert Park City Council Rohnert Park City Hall 6300 Commerce Blvd. Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Dear Councilmembers, It is our understanding that certification of the Final EIR for the Hewlett-Packard project has been agendized for tonight's Council meeting. There have been no intermediate steps (to our knowledge) between the June 25 Planning Commission hearing on the Draft ETR and scheduling of certification. We received our copy of the Final EIR after our last Council meeting; as a result, we have not had an opportunity to review it or adopt a City position to present to you at the hearing. This project is very important to everyone concerned with the Rohnert Park-Cotati area. The City of Cotati would appreciate an opportunity to be part of the decision-making process. We are requesting that you continue certification of the Final EIR until after our Council meeting of August 25, by which time we will be prepared to take part in the discussion. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, A) Tamara Davis Myor. TD: sc vV-) r. Cam' Ly nL 744 vV-) 744 In, An > off! 24 CS 71 CA_ 6x)- a -"0 1 TO: ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING DEPA.R`.1,V1 NT I FROM. PAUL HUDSON 95 George Cotati, Ca. The Hewlett— Packard EIR states, "It is essential... that the long term housing needs of future H--P employees and the projected, population in general be planned for by the County and the affected communities, especially Rohnert Park and Cotati." "It is essential that this planning begin soon." The EIR does not enable that goal to be fulfilled or indicate if it even can be. The EIR does not adequately define the housing problems of the future by specifically predicting, with substantiation, -the problems all affected communities will face in meeting housing needs. Nor, does the EIR fully explain how the problems will be mitigated, that is, how regional planning will occur. There is absolutely no way to determine if housing impacts on the County can be mitigated, unless new, novel measures have in fact been developed, and the measures can't be developed unless the housing problem being faced is clearly defined. EIR Data and Analysis The EIR states, "The regional distribution of future project related population and housing U_owth will depend on a variety of .factors, including land use and development policies, transportation networks and travel cost, and adequate residential amenities." Data and analysis fall way short of dealing with these factors. In a very crude analysis, based on skimpy data, the EIR predicts future housing growth based on the continuance of current general plans. It considers the composition of` housing to carry into the future, except for a rental shortage which is vatgrtiely dealt with. Rohnert Park is expect-.ed to take on meeting housing needs to�Yxtent it can in the short run, with an eventual shift of the burden onto Santa Rosa. Y ostlys r..oss figures for increases in units around the County are matched up to an H--P labor force and population which distributes itself around the County. The- assumptions are questionable, the methods of extrapolation are shaky, and the housi.ni, s i;il 3.ti_on de ninf,r, d i t -; i_nsuffici.F nt, i.n det. ril. Data and Analysis Requested to Correct lnade(Ill"'cies I am requesting comments on the 11lIR from other City Councils, which should be encouraged to hold ;nabl.ic hearings. Only then will underlying; assumptions about each cities development be verifiable. 9..._ (2) I am requesting that the total number of future households, containing basic and /or population -- serving wage earners, be determined for Sonoma County and the individual cities, that the number of households in different size categories be determined, and that the number of low, middle, and upper income household within each different size category be determined. I am requesting the number of units in the future housing stock be determined which will be one, two, three, and four bedroom, by County and by individual cities, and the number of unite in each size category which are affordable to low, middle, and upper income households be determined. am requesting the data to be based on -the economic realities of the housing market. An extrapolation of pasthousing patterns into the future will not work. A full recognition of a housing market, with much more than just interest ratesinvolved, is necessary in any projections. I am requesting ar analysis, utilizing the data, which compares housing supply to housing demand, not only in an aggregate for the County, but demo- graphically. For example, hypothetically consider the following. If it is determined 2,000 low - income household of four will find 1,000 affordable three bedroom units in the County, then a problem has been specifically predicted in detail. Also, consider 750 of those 1,000 units to be in one city, then a further problem exists in the mix of housing. Regional Planning as Mitigation If the Rohnert Park General Plan's Statement of Purpose is any indication, the prevalent attitude in the EIR is one of letting future planning simply follow the lead of the housing market. 1,verythi.ng is expected to work itself out somehow. The market is not working however. To write off housing impacts as "due to external forces" is tantamount to saying let adverse impacts happen. Page 5 -3 states, "`.I'he reduction in housing supply and increased rents (is an) unavoidable adverse impact." The impact has not been quantified or differentiated to indicate the si.,,e and character of the problem. In all probability, it is an adverse impact of such magnitude that it must be mitigated. The only mitigation is for regional planning to direct the economics of the housing market Regional planning must match housing supply to housing demand., and require each city to exercise regional responsibility b, supplying its fair share of housing; in the correct proportions of size and price. 1 am requesting it be determined how drastic of an alteration this is going to force on the General flans and zoning laws of every city. rl-^ - Are all cities going; to be willing anc able to: (1) Find funds from housing assistance programs to supply affordable rentals. (2) To restrict condo-conversions. (3) To annex land. (Q To implement inclusionary zoning. (5) To rezone for more residential land. Above all how are other cities going to supply the infrastructure which the EIR assumes will happen. They don't get H-P revenues. In fact, they may rezone for industry just to provide the infrastructure for housing induced by 11-PO inducing yet more housing, requiring more industrial revenues, and on and on in a vicious cycle. When page 6-E4 says, "It must be recognized that additional housing in Rohnert Park, particularly rental housing, would help alleviate the housing impacts of the project," I'm left wondering how much alleviation' of how big of an impact. Approval of this EIR could well be groundwork for municipal anarchy by Rohnert Park in a display of non-concern for other communities. (,L e' SC? tr A6 c ci C, cl E x tw. j-o C3 td on Ce V- (:l a o T c, c? CA inn (--,c 04 + o L"O �l V(-4 CS S o V1,3 p C(- c c) �-4 'r" 0- cs 3 VlfCj-s Q L., 1. 's 10 cy cl ul cx 11 L. T tj 1 q JA V), (n, c; \f1 hit, 11- c, wl cl V to c; 3 (v 6 CA vi 0, M In! Y- C -f k.'t I is + (I l So (s -T y C:% Y, 6, � LZ cc k90 COTATI-ROHNERT PARK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT P.O. BOX 1609, ROHNERT PARK, CA 94928 (707) 795-2401 City of Rohnert Park 6750 commerce Boulevard Rohnert Park, California 94928 Gentlemen: August 10 1981._ 9 8 1 SUBJECT: Response to Final Environmental Impact Report of Hewlett-Packard The Board of Education appreciates the response to its comments on th.e Draft Environmental Impact Report for subject project. The Board endorses the mitigating measures recommended by the planning staff and adds the following for the Council's consideration: 1. It is understood, though not made completely clear in the Final EIR, that the north-south street, the east-west street, and the extension of Camino Colegio, both on the project site and connecting the site to E. Cotati Avenue, Petaluma Hill Road and Railroad Avenue, will include bicycle paths and appropriate crossing controls. We're concerned about this for several reasons, including the need to utilize La Fiesta School- initially and the necessity for students living in the vicinity of the project to walk or cycle to secondary schools north of E. Cotati Avenue. 2. The school site on the project should be dedicated to the school district at no cost to the district. We gave the reasoning in our letter of June 17 (see pp 6-B23-24 of EIR), i.e., we're convinced there will be great pressure to develop land!-; to the east, with subsequent pressure for elementary school facilities, as a near-term result Of Hewlett- Packard construction. 3. Hewlett-Packard should reimburse the district for costs of processing annexations attributable to its development. ML, yy k90 COTATI-ROHNERT PARK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT P.O. BOX 1609, ROHNERT PARK, CA 94928 (707) 795-2401 City of Rohnert Park 6750 commerce Boulevard Rohnert Park, California 94928 Gentlemen: August 10 1981._ 9 8 1 SUBJECT: Response to Final Environmental Impact Report of Hewlett-Packard The Board of Education appreciates the response to its comments on th.e Draft Environmental Impact Report for subject project. The Board endorses the mitigating measures recommended by the planning staff and adds the following for the Council's consideration: 1. It is understood, though not made completely clear in the Final EIR, that the north-south street, the east-west street, and the extension of Camino Colegio, both on the project site and connecting the site to E. Cotati Avenue, Petaluma Hill Road and Railroad Avenue, will include bicycle paths and appropriate crossing controls. We're concerned about this for several reasons, including the need to utilize La Fiesta School- initially and the necessity for students living in the vicinity of the project to walk or cycle to secondary schools north of E. Cotati Avenue. 2. The school site on the project should be dedicated to the school district at no cost to the district. We gave the reasoning in our letter of June 17 (see pp 6-B23-24 of EIR), i.e., we're convinced there will be great pressure to develop land!-; to the east, with subsequent pressure for elementary school facilities, as a near-term result Of Hewlett- Packard construction. 3. Hewlett-Packard should reimburse the district for costs of processing annexations attributable to its development. City of Rohnert Park August 10, 1981 4. Employee "flex - time" schedules must be coordinated with school schedules in order to reduce traffic hazards. 5. The school district would like to be consulted in development of child care facilities and programs. Sincerely, G R. McConnell Superintendent sld Pr r ri ccl -;f-L�x ri 17 Z' ses o k o /-v C117cl ewa -1-er 0 pi 7 n,� a ve- f, tA-,ei del,) I D r7 t, C- Co e ;,f .5 c u -f 4 0 (1) e '7er bli /9 1k el, b fl C-S C, o s e., 1A q o P ;q c i �f 14 e"I rf- f 1 I tj (7 M� J, f 7 9 C', d t /1 4 1-1 1 If ti T till cry /,"n 1�71 ( IAYTC (Y q p. cl c, 07 OVA e"Y' C�.O t? Y? /I P v /- c, (-7 3­ C6 ry a,,,- ro E'er/`a /vt ell V lie ell '71101 /70 Mo Q f /Q ra xyl W ov w vi a s i _ - c, P1 f7 i C( 1, LIP/- ti s' c X PAIR f l c ic .-S, dY 91 Y cc,7 rx Ad I 11 S_ PTUO 11 T-O in c., -01, z /1 r 0 4 0 ri We by o o o r�z S C ail del fo C-2�1 a c rf V) sovne c. I q 'd jlt le /I C" /Y S" (11 Anq f o' c o 0 n-s- / e y Yrq �-,a tle J-e-s- tAJ A C'o I eq cy ra v o '1 0 r) "A o rea r 4? ol 0 'q W At z� jd di L. oil V�111 ro "I. 1/ro PPI oil V 4 J, c M _0 IM 4i 6G) tj i C irwadc fb1oildi 1)0'f (/"0/ 610top"— Bea G c v o o (I v-0 Y -z oj-y-.\ c C: oy-\ ; �s tlx C, tnS1 C, P �� fie ,,- �— o � _ p -n aryl �C..,t� .�.....� �. L.�1 Y'� C� � C"� ��'.�.� c-�-�R_ Yet_ �. ��,��. r��., - t,,t.,,'� v�...�• -�-� c.Q C o-U '-- ck M Page 7 Ralp .'tch9 Pacific Gas and Electric Company represent.. �, was rerog;n gztl-and briefly addressed the, Counc°JT—, commending the City Council arid- -6 -i.ty Adia. ni.strat'ion for their past ac- coniplishments. Adjournment There b g no further business, Mayor Caval.li, adjourned the meeting at approximtely 9;48 p.m. vrJ (_�i` -'�Q_ lM 1" i C� Lt..� Cam. -�-� �- .�C° ✓'Y`t ��._.,�. -_ -s? -�'1 �.�._ �,- Ci�..r0 �"e�n..��.f? /�� \� e 1 Y e;7 `- �-- '��` --�� "•.._Q_l � ti,�,� l_n�...,_i C.� i W t„_u� ��..��+� � �' �'✓�.,.L..._� � �'1..� Q— a 9 VY-, (3-)—k C4 A