The URL can be used to link to this page

1981/11/09 City Council MinutesCall to Order Roll Call Approval of Minutes Approval of Bills ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL MINUTES November 9, 1981 :The Council of the City of Rohnert. Park met this date in regular session commencing at 7:00 p.m. in the City Offices, 6750 Commerce Boulevard, Rohnert Park, with Mayor Cavalli presiding. The regular session was preceded by an executive session which commenced at 7':60 p.m. and at which four (4) Councilmen, all except Councilman Stewart, City Manager Callinan and City Attorney Flitner were present and which was held to discuss personnel and litigation matters. Mayor.Cavalli called the regular session to order at approx- imately 7:33 p.m.- and 'led the pledge of allegiance. Present: (4) Councilmen Hollingsworth, Hopkins, Roberts and Cavalli Absent (1)" Councilman' Stewart Staff present for all or "part''of - the meeting: City Engineer Brust, City Manager Callinan`City'Attorney Flitner, and Planning Director Skanchy. Upon motion of Councilman Hollingsworth, seconded by Councilman Hopkins, and approved by the following vote, the minutes of October 26, 1981 were approved as submitted. AYES: (a) Ci' c lman,Hollingsworth, Hopkins, Roberts NOES: `(0) ABSTAIN: (1) Councilman Cavalli ABSENT: (1) Councilman Stewart. Upon motion of'COuncilmari'Hopkins, seconded by Councilman Hollingsworth, and unanimously approved, the bills presented per Ithe attached list in the amount of $301,251.78 were approved. Resolution No. 81 -169 RESOLUTION APPROVING EASEMENT TO PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY .(THROUGH PARK SITE FOR SERVICE TO WATER STORAGE TANK IN ROHNERT FOOTHILLS'SUBDIVISION) City Manager Callinan referred to his Council Meeting Memo dated November 4, :1981 and explained the resolution. Upon motion of Councilman Hopkins, seconded by Councilman Roberts, and unanimously approved, reading of Resolution No..81 -169 was waived and said resolution was adopted. Resolution No. 81 -170 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING COMPLETION AND DIRECTING ENGINEER TO FILE NOTICE OF ,COMPLETION, CORPORATION YARD ADDITION, PROJECT N06 1980 -13 City Manager Callinan explained the resolution. Upon motion of Councilman Roberts, seconded by Councilman Hopkins, and unanimously approved, reading of Resolution No. 81- 170,..was;waived.and said.resolution was adopted. Page 2 November 9, 1981 Ordinance No. 392 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING POSTING PLACES FOR CITY ORDINANCES AND NOTICES City Manager Callinan referred to his Council Meeting Memo dated November 4, 1981 for explanatiou of the ordinance. Upon motion of Councilman Hopkins, seconded by Councilman Hollingsworth, and unanimously approved, reading of Ordinance No. 392 was waived and said ordinance was introduced. Ordinance No. 393 AN ORDINANCE SETTING MUNICIPAL ELECTION DATE (THE FIRST TUESDAY AFTER IHE FIRST MONDAY IN JUNE OF EVEN- NUMBERED YEARS) City - Manager Callinan.explained the ordinance. Discussion followed. Upon motion of Councilman Hopkins, seconded by Councilman Roberts, and unanimously approved, reading of Ordinance No 393 was waived and said ordinance was introduced. File 0762 - Hewlett City Manager Callinan briefly updated the Council on the Packard project- Hewlett Packard project and stated that the Council had Public.Hearing previously been provided with staff's recommended conditions of approval for the project. He advised that Hewlett Packard had, as requested by the Council, presented suggested changes on the conditions, all`of' which were non - substantive and that a written report from Planning Director Skanchy had been provided to the Council concerning Hewlett Packard's suggestions. Planning Director Skanchy, using maps on display, reviewed the project in detail. Mr. Skanchy then introduced Mr. Brad Blandin of CH2M Hill, the consulting firm engaged by the City to prepare the EIR for the Hewlett Packard project, As Mr. Blandin was.setting up for his presentation, Mayor Cavalli advised the audience that he and the Council were pleased at the large turnout for the hearing. Mr. Brad Blandin noted that handouts of the charts he would be explaining had been provided to the Council to follow as he spoke. He also stated that the mitigation matters con- tained in the charts did not include all of those made by staff. Mr. Blandin pointed out the items on several of the charts and explained that Mr. Michael Fajans of Le Blanc & Company would be explaining some of the charts also. A reduced copy of the charts presented is attached to the original set of these minutes. Discussion was held between the consultants and the Council. City Manager Callinan noted that Councilman Stewart had issued a statement regarding the Hewlett Packard project and wished to have it.read. Mr. Callinan said that he would present the statement later in the proceedings on the matter after the public hearing and when the matter was before the Council for decision. Page 3 November 9, 1981 City Manager Callinan advised that the scheduled public hearing had been duly noticed by the publication of legal notices and by mailing of the-notices. He also reported that the notice specifically requested that written state- ments were invited: to`be submitted by November 4th so that copies of same could have been distributed to the Council for review prior to'the Council meeting. Mayor Cavalli opened the public hearing,stating that Council was prepared and hoping to hear new statements and ideas regarding the Hewlett Packard Project and requested that the speakers address items not already covered by previously submitted written statements'or durin&.prior public hearings. The Mayor also stated that the- public_ :hearing will cover the Environmental`Impact`Report, General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Pre- zoning for the Hewlett'Packard:Project. City Manager Callinan stated that the Council had received copies of communications and'writ`ren comments pertaining to the Hewlett Packard project that had been submitted for this meeting and'hearing :Hey read: the. names of those submittin written comments or :letters as= -fol:l.ows'V George G. Henley, Gerry Lombardi; Pauline-Bregante, Anne Loehr of Rohnett Park Chamber of Commerce, Merilee Brown, Carl,Moore of Rohnert Park Auto Parts,'Citizens for Community Choice, Howard Boggs of Imanco, Inc., Rachel Carter of the League of Women Voters of Sonoma County, S.W. Betts of First Interstate Bank, Matt Metzler, Laura Belle Zelmachild, Danny Weil, M.C. Cavanaugh and Carol Utecht, and Steven Wisbaum. Mr..Callinan also noted that a letter petition containing 46'-signatures indicating approval of the project had been presented before the meeting commenced and that another letter was submitted by Mattison Enterprises, Inc. and that these letters along with those previously mentioned would be attaches to the original set of these minutes and become a part of the record. Mayor Cavalli stated that there were some scheduled speakers and proceeded to call upon them to speak. Mrs. Dale McCarty, 579 Anson Ave., Rohnert Park, representing the Citizens for Community Choice, stated that that group had - reviewed the 36 conditions'- placed.lon the Hewlett Packard proj6c and thanked the Council for their serious study of the project and offered sympathy for the pressure brought to bear on the Council as a result. Mrs. McCarty said that the 36 conditions do not adequately address or protect the interests of the residents of Rohnert Park and stated that she did not understar why Hewlett Packard- still:,needs the 314 acre parcel if the project has been scaled down. She stated they were concerned that Hewlett Packard could change its mind and later request more land. Mrs. McCarty suggested that HP locate on the 77 acre parcel located on the west side of U.S. 101 which is already zoned for industrial use. She said the Council should "call Hewlett Packard's bluff" and that they would be happy to take that parcel instead if it were offered. Mrs. McCarty Page 4 November 9, 1981 also stated concerns with housing problems, sewage disposal, and the water supply. Mrs. McCarty stated that Hewlett Packard should finance construction of housing units. She submitted a written statement which is a part of the record. Once again Mrs. McCarty commended the Council on the many hours spent to study the project. Mr. Dan Hlebakos, 821`Holly Ave., Rohnert Park, said his neighbors would welcome the Hewlett Packard project and said that there would actually be less air pollution than there is now with people having to commute great distances to get to work. He felt that Hewlett Packard's providing local jobs would be a great asset to the community and the County. Mr. Hlebakos also'noted that Hewlett Packard has given a lot of assistance to youth organizations and urged the Council to give immediate approval of the project, Caroline Remberg, 1431A Town and Country Dr., Santa Rosa, representing Rachel Carter and the League of Women Voters of Sonoma County, was recognized and spoke against the project. She submitted a statement for the record. Following the scheduled speakers Mayor Cavalli indicated that he would call on speakers from the audience row by row. Mike Sweeney, 3335 Primrose Ave., Santa Rosa, spoke against the project, stating that the EIR did not address the require- ments of`CEQA law. "He also stated that the earlier presentation by the HP consultants still did not answer the traffic issue, water problems, housing, sewage. He said that the Hewlett Packard representatives misread the law. Mayor Cavalli asked for a show of hands from the audience of all those wishing to speak. Noting the large number desiring to speak he stated there would be a brief recess during which cards would be handed out for all speakers to fill out so that they would be called on in an orderly` manner. Mayor Cavalli also stated that the Council was willing to listen to as many people as possible but would like to hear new ideas and not a repeat of previous information. Recess At this point in the meeting, the being approximately 9:10 p.m., Mayor Cavalli called a recess. Reconvene The meeting was reconvened by Mayor Cavalli at approximately 9:24 P.M. Using the cards submitted by those desiring to speak, Mayor Cavalli called the name of each speaker. Mr. bon Patterson, a Sonoma State University professor, stated that 43 faculty and staff members at the university were definite` in favor of the Hewlett Packard project and he also pointed out that Hewlett Packard has been responsible "for the funding of millions of dollars to worthwhile foundations. Don Dow, 1175 Elvera, Rohnert Park, spoke in favor of the project, citing the increase in jobs in the area. Page 5 November 9, 1981 Jim Redding'; 7147 B,arbi Lane,' Rohnert Park, said he was a 16 year resident and commented on the quality of the opposition to the project and stated that the majority of the opposition were no- growth advocates. He also..,said that virtually all arguments they use would'have:been.used by the same group when the City of Rohnert Park was first developed and if they had their way there would be no.Rohnert Park.. Richard Van Gieson, 4385.Panorama.Dr., Santa Rosa, said he's a long time res'id'ent of the..County and a Sonoma State University professor: He said many, of the university's faculty support the project and that the. City.staff':s.recommended conditions seem to be a very reasonable approach. He said that many people are worried about the housing:, shortage !'downstream." He requested that Hewlett Packard consider assisting in the development of on- campus housing and make a commitment to work with the faculty and staff 'on same. Mr. Walter Johnson, 960 San Francisco Way, Rohnert Park, said he looked around before settling in Rohnert Park and chose Rohnert Park because of its orderly growth. He spoke in favor of the`Hewlett Packard project, and urged the Council to support it, . . Bruce. Ramsay, 610 W: :Sierra Ave., Cotati, supports the project and said it is a'good project and that the project area is not agriculturally useful as others have stated. Mike Metzler, 8414 Park'Aye.,.Cotati, read from a statement 'he had submitted to the Council prior,to the meeting and which is part of the record:, He stated his concerns with the annexaticr. of County land and suggested that Hewlett Packard consider alternative modes of transportation to the plant site, flex -time, and possibly provide a subsidy to local transportation companies. Mike- Fitzpatrick; 1221 Eva, Santa Rosa, stated that he used to work for Hewlett Packard and.reviewed his past experiences with them. He is against the project and the Hewlett Packard Company and stated he felt HP ran its company like the military. ,Martha Bentley, speaking for the Madrone Audobon Society, said they -were concerned with the inadequacy of the EIR in the areas of water and sewage. She said the mitigation measures proposed are a farce. David_.Eck, 7075 Adele Ave.,,Rohnert Park, stated he felt that people outside of the community should be, given an equal opportunity to speak and commended the Council for giving everyone the opportunity to speak. He said that the proposed reduction in the size of the project is noteworthy but that there were 3 points on the staff report which disturbed him, those being (1) the second paragraph on page 1 should be deleted, (2) in condition #2 the years 1998, 1999 and 2000 and the related employee figures and all items denoted with "c's" should be deleted, and (3) on page 2 under condition #6 delete the reference to County impact and do not Page 6 November 9, 1981 annex as requested by LAFCO, and condition #7 should be noted that a vote for the staff report is a vote for the condition and perhaps a separate resolution should cover that point. Laura Diamond, 1380 Ludwig Ave., Santa Rosa, expressed concern with the industrialization of Southwest Santa Rosa area and said she felt the Council should really listen to what's being said and feared Rohnert Park would turn into another San Jose. She asked the Council if they were ready for that. Joe Militello, 147 Fescue Way, Rohnert Park, stated that "nothing would be accomplished if every conceivable objection must first be overcome. 11 Robert Carpenter, 5742 Dexter Circle, Rohnert Park, welcomed Mayor Cavalli back and thanked Planning Director Skanchy for consideration of the 36 points. He said he felt that the Council had already decided on the project before the public hearing. He said that if the project is passed there would be a referendum enacted. Tula Jaffee, 655 Duer Road, Sebastopol, spoke about an article which appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle regarding nuclear war and cited the connection of Hewlett Packard to the nuclear weapons industry. She stated that one of the members of the Board of Supervisors was requesting a "nuclear freeze," and hoped the Council was aware of it. Allison Hall, 3625 Hoen Ave., Santa Rosa, said she questioned how many people who are now commuting would be willing to give up their present jobs and come to work for Hewlett Packard. She also stated that the large amount of land which would be used for the parking lot for the project was an inefficient land use and cited other problems such as drainage, noise from construction for the next 20 years while the plant is being completed, and the hazardous spills. She said the sewage matter was just laughed off. She also said HP should provide the infra- structure needed and that she felt the 36 mitigation efforts are all "cosmetic." Eve O'Rourke, Councilwoman for the City of Cotati, 8160 Arthur Street, Cotati, said she felt that the development of small companies should be supported and that the support for Hewlett Packard is strictly coming from greed and asked if the Council could balance the profit with the effects on the environment. She said if the Council wanted to live in San Jose they should move there. Under questioning from Mayor Cavalli, Miss O'Rourke indicated that she was speaking for herself and not expressing the official position of the City of Cotati. Barry Barnett, 8639 Old Redwood Hwy., Cotati, spoke against the project and read from .,a statement he had prepared and submitted as a part of the record. Mr. Barnett said he would like to see the formation of an unbiased citizens advisory commission to consider the project. Councilman Hollings- worth leaves and returns Mayor Cavalli leaves and returns Page 7 November 9, 1981 Shirley Peeters, 616 Santa Alicia Dr., Rohnert Park, said she feels the housing in Rohnert Park is already not good, and that the noise is already excessive. She has been burglarized 3 times in the last month and had her windows shot out and she feels there is already inadequate police protection in the area and that the police advised her to get a gun. She said she thought it would be a good idea if Hewlett Packard paid for the con- struction of homes. She also stated that the water in Rohnert Park is aging her quicker than anything. Mrs. Peeters finished her comments by saying the Hewlett Packard project makes her want to vomit Marty Roberts, 5041 Sonoma Hwy., Santa Rosa, and a member of the Sonoma County Farmlands Group, said the EIR is still grossly inadequate in that it has not addressed the impact on agriculture. She said the Croup recommends that the Hewlett Packard project be scaled down and located in the industrial area and that Rohnert Park should set up a fund supporting farm groups. Miss Roberts stated that her group has a slide presentation they would like to make to the Council sometime in the future. At this point in the meeting Councilman Hollingsworth left the chambers, the time being approximately 10:25 p.m. and returned at approximately 10:29 p.m. Judi Bari, 3335 Primrose Ave., Santa Rosa, said she has a problem with the staff report regarding employee limits and said that she did not understand the EIR where it states that the water issue is an .insignificant impact and requested that the Council wait for one more month to receive the report from the State regarding the water table before making its decision. Miss Bari also said she doubted if the Council read the EIR because there were statements contained in same that were so inadequate. She said she felt the location of Hewlett Packard in Rohnert Park would have no significant effect on unemployment in Sonoma County and that it would not provide a lot of jobs to those living in the County. She feared it would bring a lot more people into the County to cause more crowding. Miss Bari expressed her concerns with the increased traffic, especially on U.S. 101 and Petaluma Hill Road, and noise that would result from the plant location. She also said that the political climate in Rohnert Park is "riper" than other cities in Sonoma County and that is why Hewlett Packard chose it so it can have political advantages,..-.She said the EIR does not have any comments on the projectfs impact on the College and its liberal arts program nor on Cotati. She said HP must mitigate significant adverse impacts. At this point in the meeting Mayor Cavalli left the Chambers, the time being approximately 10:42 p.m. and returned at approximately 10:46 p.m. Monty Walters, 8639 01d Redwood Hwy., Cotati, stated that he is a proverbial outside agitator and has been in jail 2 times for other protests. He demanded that Hewlett Packard not produce nuclear weapons:or defense related equipment and said Page 8 November 9, 1981 he would 'cause trouble and disturbances at the plant if it gets approved: Elizabeth Bock, 1444 Ditty Ave., Santa Rosa;: questioned if there was really adequate mitigation for all previous items that had come up.and asked just what''is 19adequate." She said she felt 'the -EIR ,should be sent back and that a new contract should be made or'an addendum to the contract should be made. She said that on pages.4 -1 through 4--,4 in the final edition there' contained no analysis or comparisorf of alternatives. Darlene Grace Comingore, 47 Hampton Road; Camp Meeker, formerly of 8639 Old Redwood Hwy., Cotati, said she.used to live in Cotati "and feels the Cotati residents were betrayed. She said the Council should think about recalls and referendums. She said we don't want war jobs that 'should be converted to peace jobs. Milo Priestley, 3625 Hoen Ave., Santa Rosa,.stated that he is` not against planned growth, but'feels Hewlett Packard should stick to the industrial area. Louis Korn, 579 Anson Ave., Rohnert Park, suggested the Council apppnt a citizens oversight committee to study the project and said this project has aroused the'whole County. He said he feels the EIR is flawed since HP'is paying for it and it only serves Hewlett Packard's interests and not Rohnert Park's. Mr. Korn questioned the transport of hazardous chemicals and the disposal of toxic wastes and feared Leakage of same. He stated he feels that public office is the fast lane to private wealth. At approximately 11 :10 p.m. Mayor Cavalli interrupted the public- hearing to poll the Council for a decision as to whether or not they unshed to continue the hearing or adjourn, citing "the City Code which states Council meetings adjournment time is 11:00 p.m. unless voted otherwise by the Council. Upon motion by Councilman Hollingsworth, seconded by Councilman Roberts, and approved by the following vote, the Council agreed to continue the Council meeting long enough to hear all those desiring to speak on the Hewlett Packard project: AYES: (3) Councilmen.Hollingsworth, Roberts, Cavalli NOES: (0) ABSTAIN: (1) Councilman Hopkins ABSENT: (1) Councilman Stewart Councilman Hopkins stated that he did not want his abstention vote to be considered as a "no" vote. The Council continued the hearing on Hewlett Packard. Bill Fraser, 4019 Finley Ave., between Sebastopol and Sonoma, urged rejection of the project with an anti -war statement and stated that Hewlett Packard should locate in Detroit. Page 9 November 9, 1981 Jeri Lyn Bouguereau, Old Redwood Hwy., Penngrove, spoke of the insanity of nuclear power and read a statement of support of Diablo Canyon made by Hewlett Packard. Bill Helmer, 9407 Old Redwood Hwy., Penngrove, thanked the Council for giving everyone the opportunity to speak and noted a statement he had submitted to the Council previously. Mr. Helmer said he felt that cities are keeping out small firms which provide most of the jobs to make room for larger corpora- tions and that "polarization" is developing. He stated that he feels the EIR still is not adequate. Adrienne Swenson, speaking for the Environmental Forum of Sonoma County, noted some of their concerns with the EIR. A few of those are air quality, no fiscal analysis of the impacts to the County, traffic on Petaluma Hill Road and the resultant noise level, what about the effect on our area's roads. She stated that the Forum is neither for or against Hewlett Packard but are puzzled as to how they can make it work. Some suggestions are they could scale down the project to 3 -4,000 employees, analyze just how many jobs will be needed for this plant, if scaled down they could locate in the industrial section on the west side of the freeway and make it more compact and the City should require that Hewlett Packard should get rid of the large parking areas and provide the transportation for its employees, and also provide housing for their workers and conservation easements. Mrs. Swenson's personal opinion is that she will be greatly effected by the location of Hewlett Packard since she is a neighbor and will be sharing the same air, water and roads. She won't like paying for the project and its traffic will impact her life because she lives on Railroad Avenue. Laura Zelmachild, 22 Anne, Sonoma Grove, Rohnert Park, read from a statement previously provided to the Council and which is a part of the record. She also suggested moving the podium in the chambers to the side to enable speakers to address both the Council and the audience. Ms. Zelmachild urged rejection of the Hewlett Packard project. Anna Greenleaf, 897 W. Railroad Ave., Cotati, said she supports the Employment Commission suggested by Ms. Zelmachild and urged the Council to wait for the groundwater study to come in before making its decision. She said she would be in favor of HP locating on the other side of the freeway only if they agree not to further the arms race by the production of weapons. There being no one else desiring to speak, Mayor Cavalli closed the public hearing. After a brief discussion, the Council decided that due to the lateness of the hour that it would put off its deliberation, discussion and decisions on the Hewlett Packard Project until the next regularly sc4eduled Council meeting on November 23, 1981. Mayor Cavalli adjourned the meeting at approximately 12.05,�.m., `f �1 Novepber 10, 1981. APPROVED; Deputy City Clerk Mayor Cavalli I S I GN IF ICA 1,41 T AND ME C 0 hi E 1-4 D E D 114 EIR I.F.IPACTS t.,ilTIGATION SIG��IFICANT IMPACTS RECD "IM ENDED jM1TI GAT 1ON 1. vATER QUALITY 1985 (1,200) 1990 (3,000) 1995 (6,000) 2000 (12,000) -- -- Increased pollutant loading Increased pollutant loading -- -- regular street cleaning Regular street cleaning & repair; catch basin & repair; catch basin cleaning (Applicant & cleaning (Applicant & City) City) ,d 5I GN IFICANT Ii.1PACTS RE COMMIE NDED ��i1TI GAT ION 2. COUNTY POPULATION' 1985 (1,200) 1990J3,000) 1995 (6,000) +7,100 - Above County Forecast -- - Comprehensive planning & capital improvement programming; implement (County & Cities) 2000 (12,000) +14,100 - Above County Forecast Comprehensive planning., & capital improvement programming; implement .' (County & Cities) 3. HOUSING 1985 (1,200) 1990 (3,000) 1995 (6,000) 2000 (12,000) SIGNIFICANT Small increase in No new housing Significant drain in units Significant regional IMPACTS demand; 650 unit available in City & constraint on choice shortage decrease in Plan- in region ned City supply RECD %1110ENDED - MI T IGAT1ON -------------------------------- Rea uire rental housing on site (Applicant) Update & imple -- Update & implement Update & implement ment City housing housing programs housing programs program (City) (County & Cities) (County & Cities) -------------- - - - - -OPTIONS ------------------------- ___----------------- - - - - -- Construct additional Restrict housing student housing at on site to H.P. SSU (State) employees (Applicant) Increase density on site (City) Increase residential densities citywide (City) Rezone industriai,' commercial sites elsewhere for housing (City) Adopt inclusionary housing,: policies (City) Participate in governmental housing assist- ance program (City) Annex land N. and E. of site for mixed income housing (City) 1985 (1,200) SIGNIFICANT Leavy pressure; IMPACTS significant GP re- visons needed for housing & growth =CO ^,,.iENVED Revise GP, focus ITIGATlOid on mousing & infrastructure (City) 4. ROHNERT PARK GENERAL PLAN 1990 (3,000) 1995 (6,000) -- Heavy pressure; significant revisions needed for housing & growth -- Revise GP, focus on housing & infrastructure (City) 2000 (12,000) 1985 (1 , 200) SIGNIFICANT 11.1 PACT REC0 MM' ENDED M-1 iGATION 5. OTHER GENERAL PLAINS 1990 (3,000) 1995 (6,0001, -- Pressure on Cotati and County to amend plans -- Comprehensive planning & capital improvement programming in Cotati & County 2000 (12,000) O' 1985 (1,200) SIC NIFICANT -- IMPACTS RE COWEN DEED 1%11 TI CAT1ON 1990 (3,000) 6. ti'vATER SUPPLE' 1995 (6,000) 2000 (12,000) 560 a. f. /yr from aqueduct; County water supply uncertain Increase ground -water pumping or acquire increased aqueduct allocation (City) Reduce regional consump- tion; develop new supplies (City, County, & Agency) investigate wastewater reuse on site; implement if feasible (Applicant) -` 1985 (1,200) 7. DRAT RAGE 1990 (3,000) 1995 (6,000) SIGNIFICANT -- -- -_ ih1E'ACTS RECONV1,ENDED -- -- -- MITIGATION 2000 (12,000) Downstream capacity exceeded at R.R. Options: 1, increase drain capacity under railroad (Applicant) 2. Retain stormwater on rooftops for controlled release (Applicant) 3, bold runoff in retention basins or drainage channels (Applicant) 4. Drain southern 55 acres to south (Applicant) 5. Reduce impervious areas (Applicant, City) 1985 (1,200) 1990 (3,000) 8. ROAD SYSTEM 1995 (6,000) SIGNIFICANT -- Service reduction at Service reduction at IMPACTS E. Cotati intersec- E. Cotati & New N -S Lions w /Snyder & Street intersection Petaluma Hill Rd. RECD I.1 IENDED -- Right turn & dual Right- & left -turn -11TIGATION left -turn lanes at lanes (Other Private) E. Cotati /Snyder (City) Signalization, right - turn lane & left -turn lane at E. Cotati/ Petaluma Hill (City) 2000 (12,000) Service reductions on Petaluma Hill and Snyder Service reduction at Petaluma Hill & E. Rail- road intersection Widen Petaluma Hill to 4 lanes N. of Express- way (County) Monitor Snyder & improve when needed (City & County) Signal at Petaluma Hill/ E. Railroad. (County) 1935 (1,200) SIGNIFICANT IIMP.ACTS RECOMMENDED MITIGATION 9. OTHER TRANSPORTATION 1990 (3,000) 1995 (6,000) Inadequate transit service Update countywide trans- portation plans and imple- ment new service (PATC) 2000 (12,000) Inadequate transit service Update countywide transportation plans - r7, . and implement new service (MTC) 10. NOISE 1985 (1,200) 1990 (3,000) 1995 (6,000) SIGNIFICANT _- -- - - I;biPACTS RECOMMENDED -- -- -- `4i1TIGATiON 2000 (12,000) 2 Ldn increase on Old Redwood Hwy south of Penngrove; county stan- dard exceeded Study year 2000 noise levels & land use (County /State) �r OTHER RECOtr MENDATIONS AvKICULTURE POLICE & FIRE PARKS & SCHOOLS WASTEWATER SOLID V ASTE HAZARDOUS WASTES CULTURAL RESOURCES CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS HP maintain site in agricultural production until developed Applicant dedicate public safety station site to city Applicant dedicate parks & school sites to city Applicant work with school district to minimize hazards to children City determine need for RR pedestrian crossing HP continue employment training at schools & cn[ lege City ,lake every effort to obtain necessary capacity County plan to expand existing facilities County provide capacity for project in the Solid Waste Management Plan update Applicant conduct a haul route study with City, Cotati, County City designate haul routes Applicant halt construction & consult archeologist if resources are discovered City regulate routes & schedules for moving equipment to avoid peak traffic e �RGT PARK Counc-I co t® e copy w Cog x to to l t it Council Correspondence Copy to ea. Coun iman Copy to °Opv to r.. to , l A11A ///S,/ 1?l GEORGE G. HENLEY, D.D.S. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ROHNERT PARK MEDICAL VILLAGE 5300 SNYDER LANE ROHNERT PARK, CALIFORNIA 94928 TELEPHONE 584 -9589 November 4, 1981 CITY COUNCIL Nov J 1981 'Cl-Ty, _OR ROMERT PARK Re: Hewlett- Packard plant location - Rohnert Park I have taken a number of hours to interpret the EIR reports and feel CH2M Hill, LeBlank & Co. and Del Davis Associates have studied and interpreted all concerned matters as completely as possible. I do realize that as the plant is built, the Hewlett -Pack- ard organization, as it has done in the past, will help alleviate any problems that may occur. I feel that the facility will have a tremen =k' dous benefit to the city, county and state. We should feel very fortunate to have such a dynamic business choose our city for the development of their complex. Sincerely yours, George G. Henley D.D.S. GGH:; kle [-I Y)C- 02 MATTISON .. INC November 9, 1981 Ton Honorable Members of the Rohnert Park City Council Subjects Hewlett - Packard Environmental Impact Report and Proposal for Rezoning On behalf of the REA (Responsible Energy Advocates) and the Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce, we are pleased to offer the following comments for your consideration. We support this proposed high quality project for the following reasons: OUT-COMMUTING AND EMPLOYMENT Reduce out commuting below the year 2000 level of 47,000 people, per ABAG estimates, thereby keeping workers in the area and consuming considerably less fuel. • Rohnert Park presently has approximately 28.6 %_out- commuting workers. • Sonoma County presently has approximately 24% of all its workers commuting out of the area for jobs. • Increase local employment, reducing the jobless rate to less than the present estimated level of 8 %. • According to the EIR, page 3 -8, para.3, "A decrease of 3 to 4 percent in the number of people commuting to other areas would provide another 1000 to 1400 employees to local employment in the year 2000." • Hewlett - Packard as a quality employer, along with support industries and services, should contribute to reduction of the out- commuting from 47,000 to less than 20,000 by the year 2000. HP has a corporate policy to be one of the world's ten highest paying companies. This strong commit- ment to human resources is important to preserving jobs within the area. • Reduction of out - commuting by 12,000 workers (the proposed capacity of the project) would reduce auto - caused air pollution and conserve 15 to 20 million gallons of fuel annually. continued ........ 847 Fifth Street, Santa Rosa, California 95404 (707) 575 -0200 IIA Eau p y _ ' - _ rze 61TYY O�F�ROHN RT PARK G� Council CO to ea. COU"C' "� COPY to Council CorreSpOt OM0 Copy to ell. courtCi!man Copy to f7opy to to GEORGE G. HENLEY, D.D.S. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ROHNERT PARK MEDICAL VILLAGE 5300 SNYDER LANE ROHNERT PARK, CALIFORNIA 94928 TELEPHONE 584 ^9589 November 4, 1981 CITY COUNCIL NOV J 1981 QTY ,0F, ROHNERT PARK Re: Hewlett- Packard plant location - Rohnert Park I have taken a number of hours to interpret the EIR reports and feel CH2M Hill, LeBlank & Co. and Del Davis Associates have studied and interpreted all concerned matters as completely as possible. I do realize that as the plant is built, the Hewlett -Pack- ard organization, as it has done in the past, will help alleviate any problems that may occur. I feel that the facility will have a tremen_C dous benefit to the city, county and state. We should feel very fortunate to have such a dynamic business choose our city for the development of their complex. Sincerely yours, George G. Henley D.D.S. GGH.; kle 55A Executive Avenue Rohnert Park, CA 94928 (707) 585-2333 October 302 1981 City Council of the City of Rohnert Park 6750 Commerce Blvd. Rohnert Parkp CA 94928 Re: Hewlett-Packard Plant Council Members: As a member of the business community of Rohnert Park, I feel it,is essential that you continue to support light industrial companies, such as Hewlett-Packard. I feel the positive impact of this plant far outdoes any negative impact- L__,'C`EJVT3'D CITY of., R0't1fu_t7'r I hope you will favorably consider their plant in Rohnert Park. Since, e Pauline A. Bregante., Owner o OHNERT PARK Chamber Of Commerce 6050- A COMMERCE BLVD. ROHNERT PARK, CALIFORNIA 94928 November 25 1981 , :Ouncii Correspond9nce Copy to ea. C€ UM11 n Copy to �J,44FOA Mayor Wm. L. Cavalli and City Council Members City of Rohnert Park 6750 Commerce Blvd. Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Dear Mayor Cavalli and City Council Members: Rk'CEIVII 1, 81 584 -1415 The Board of Directors of the Rohnert Park Chamber of Commerce has reviewed the final Environmental Impact Report Supplement of the Hewlett - Packard Project. The directors believe the report meets the standards for adequacy required by the California Environmental Qual- ity Act which requires agencies to consider, among other things, the possible environmental effects of the pro- posed project, alternatives to the proposal, and measures to lessen the project's effects. At this time industry in California is being affected by an overall recession in the national economy; shifts in product demand or the discontinuance of products; tax incentives involved in moving, purchasing new equip- ment; lower wage costs in different parts of the country, as well as in other nations; changes in machinery, tech- nology and obsolete facilities. These are a few of the factors involved in a recent exodus of industry from our state. Rohnert Park should consider itself very lucky to have the opportunity to provide a site for Hewlett - Packard. This opportunity may not be available to us again, therefore the Board of Directors of the chamber heartily endorse the proposed Hewlett - Packard Project. Sincerely, nne Loehr Executive Director AL:sl November 2 1981] ir r €a� To Rohnert Park City Council Members; I am a resident of Rohnert Park who is very much concerned with the currently proposed Hewlett Packard Plant for our city. The reasons for my concerns can be explained here briefly with further explanation if requested. My main concern of the industry is its enormous impact the plant will have on the environmental, cultural and political climate of Rohnert Park. I enjoy the quality of life here in Sonoma County and after moving from Hayward after 18 years of watching all the open space and much of the hillside devel- oped due to enormous growth I decided that for my own personal sanity I must move to a semi -rural area. Well here I am con- fronted with the' §ame: rprobldm Hayward confronted with years ago and now look what is there - a very unpleasant, conjested high crime rate city. I do not own an automobile so I rely on my bicycle and my good health to get my errands rub, my way to school and back and essentially my main source of transportation in this area. I am already a little frightened when I venture out on' the roads with the many many automobiles while I am on a bike. I hate to even imagine trying to get around through intersections *ith the masses because if Hewlett Packard is to be built everywhere will be heavily impacted by cars, people and housing to name just a few. I am asking that you seriously consider the impact the plant will have and realize that the current site choosen and the proposed employment size needs to be changed and reduced if the quality of life here in Rohnert Park and Sonoma County is to exist and continue through the next generation. Sincerely, Merilee Brown 25 Avram Rohnert Park November 2, 1981 Council Conv9porx1mre Copy to ea. CourmUnien Copy to G copy to r �Y Z1�1 �dti to Mayor Wm. L. Cavalli and City Council Members City of Rohnert Park 6750 Commerce Blvd. Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Dear Mayor Cavalli and City Council Members: I would like to Hewlett - Packard appeared at the due to the amou project many of to speak. R ' a ,, - -: CITY OF F?01'flfYEfT1"' PAM( go on record as supporting the plans of to locate a plant in Rohnert Park. I council meeting to voice my opinion but nt of people present that opposed this us in favor did not have the opportunity I personally believe people opposing Hewlett - Packard do not represent the mainstream of the community. I hope you will enter this letter in the public record as a positive vote in favor of the Hewlett - Packard Pro- ject. CAM: sI f ..:.. ... fr s 3 A 5' Y f r �T • a A GIANT electronics corporation, Hewlett - Packard, wants to transform 314 acres of Rohnert Park farmland into an enormous factory the likes, of which has never before been seen in Sonoma County. The Rohnert Park City Council thinks Hewlett - Packard's plan is just wonderful. But the con- sequences will be disastrous for those of us who value Sonoma County as a place to live, not just as a place to turn a fast buck. THE NEW "SILICON V LLEYk 9? Some years ago, the "Silicon Valley" of Santa Clara County looked a lot like Sonoma County today — with orchards, open space, and a semi -rural environment. Hewlett- Packard was one of the first "high - technology" companies to move in there. Soon Santa Clara County was taken over by large factories, high - density housing, traffic jarns and pollution. Now that the Santa Clara County is no longer a desirable place to live, the electronics industry is look- ing for a new place to expand. With big military con- tracts in the pipeline, Hewlett- Packard sees Rohnert Park as the site of a major factory that would event- ually employ up to 12,000 workers. This is more than four times as large as any existing factory in Sonoma County. Hewlett- Packard will turn Sonoma County into a new Silicon Valley ... if we let them. RENTS WILL SKYROCKET Hewlett- Packard would bring a stampede of up to 24,000 new residents to Sonoma County, both as employees in the factory and in the service industries needed to support them. Yet the Hewlett- Packard development would provide only a token number of new housing units (about 1,000). This means that there will be a terrific competition among renters for the increasingly scarce housing, and low- income people will be forced out. In the words of the official Environmental Impact Report, "Pressure t.o increase rents is probable." This report also admits, "Hewlett- Packard employees could displace Sonoma State students in rented housing because of increased ability to pay, thus exacerbating the student housing problem of the University." d TRAFFIC IC JAMS EVERYWHERE When fully - developed, the factory would generate at least 20,000 automobile trips per day. This traffic would completely jam East Cotati Avenue, Snyder Lane, Petaluma Hill Road, Rohnert Park Expressway, and the route 101 freeway. SEWAGE IN THE RI'S'ER Presently, Rohnert Park's sewage is treated and then used to irrigate agricultural land. But the capaci- ty of this sewage system is almost exhausted, and federal funds are no longer available for expansion. Yet the Hewlett - Packard plant would generate 1,120,000 gallons of sewage per day and induce other development that would add another 1,200,000 gallons per day. Where will this sewage go? Hewlett - Packard manager George Bodway knows. He signed a resolution on April 20, 1981 urging that the, ban be lifted on dumping sewage in the Russian River. THE WATER SQUEEZE Rohnert Park is already on its way to disaster as it exhausts its groundwater with 18 large wells, with more on the way. Groundwater levels are falling. According to a current study by the State Department of Water Resources, the underground water basin cannot sustain increased pumping. Yet the City Council plans to drill more deep wells just to supply the Hewlett - Packard plant, and in addition hand over to Hewlett- Packard one -half of the city's aqueduct water from the Russian River. The aqueduct water is the city's precious reserve should the wells run dry. But Hewlett - Packard wants the low - silica aqueduct water for the manufacturing pro- cess. CHEMICAL WASTES The Hewlett-Packard factory would generate up to 19,000 gallons per month of dangerous chemical wastes that will have to be carried out by truck on roads in and around Rohnert Park. The many widely-publicized chemical spills in California recently show the risks that this will create for Sonoma County residents. For many years, Sonoma County has enjoyed a balanced and growing economy that features the preservation of agriculture along with small-scale commercial and industrial development. The County's General Plan tries to ensure that uncontroll- ed growth will not overload the area's environment. Now, Hewlett-Packard wants to see our General Plan scrapped and its -own plan substituted. Instead of balanced growth, Sonoma County would become another polluted and overcrowded center of elec- tronics manufacturing. Once established, Hewlett- Packard and other Silicon Valley runaways would swing such political weight that they could dictate other development policies in the county ... after creating a desperate housing shortage, they would demand that our remaining agricultural land be covered with apartment houses. Good-bye Sonoma County; welcome to San Jose. LET'S STOP THEM Any decision of the Rohnert Park City Council can be put before the city's voters in a special election, if a petition bearing 1,065 valid signatures is presented in protest. The Citizens for Community Choice intends to follow this referendum procedure. It will not be an easy task. But we are convinced that if the issues are brought to the attention of Rohnert Park voters, they will act to defend the quality of their lives. We need your help! We must rely on contributions from people like you to finance our effort. We also need people who can volunteer some of their time to help us spread the word. Please contact us. Citizens for Community Choice 579 Anson Avenue Rohnert Park, California 94928 795-0365 \1 I I 'T RESOLUTION NO. 2- ?/ RESOLUTION OF THE AN'' ROSH CHAMBER, O:F' COMMENDING EARLY CERTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT FOR THE REGIONAL WASTEWATER DISPOSAL PLAN AND URGING FURTHER INVESTI_ GATION OF THE PRESENT LIMITATIONS ON DISCHARGE OF TREATED EFFLUENT TO THE RUSSIAN RIVER WHEREAS, the County of Sonoma and the City of Santa Rosa recently enacted General Plans which provide quidelines for growth and development for the next 20 years, and WHEREAS, in order to carry out the development policies established by their General Plans it is necessary that the I County and the City provide additional capacity for wastewater discharge, and i WHEREAS, the County of Sonom. s currently processing an Environmental Impact Report o:, the 6�...`Ii:erent alternatives for the disposal of wastewater effluent, and WHEREAS, the certification of this Environmental Impact Report is required before detailed project studies concerning additional wastewater discharge facilities can be examinedf, and WHEREAS, it appears from the draft of the Environmental Impact Report that a substantial portion of the high cost of pro- viding additional wastewater discharge facilities arises out of the stringent limitations placed by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control'Board on the discharge of highly treated effluent into the Russian River during the winter months. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce that it does hereby recommend that the County of Sonoma certify, at an early date, the Environ- mental Impact Report on the Regional Wastewater Disposal Plan Project. HOWARD A. DOGGS F091n7l, IMANCO INC. P.O. BOX 1033 5430 COMMERCE BOULEVARD ROHNERT PARK, CA 94928 l Copy to Y to Sit" !� C #I-Al Rohnert Park City Council ' c/o Rohnert Park City Office 6750 Commerce Blvd. Rohnert Park, Ca. 94928 Subject: Hewlatt Packard EIR Dear City Councilpersons, RECEIVED "` LJ #C` CITY OF ROHNERT PAR October 30, 1981 TELEPHONE (707) 795 -2509 After listening to the pros and cons expressed in the several public sessions as to whether Hewlatt Packard shall be permitted to develop facilities in Sonoma County and particularly Rohnert Park, I would like to unequivacally go on record in support of the Hewlatt Packard projects. While I share the many concerns expressed by a number of very able speakers to this issue, and having reviewed both the EIR and its amendments. I believe there are several very vital issues that make it imperative that through compromise we make it possible for this corporation to locate its facilities in our community. The most important is employment. In a recent speech, Nelson Riles pointed out that unemployment of the 18 to 25 year old population with less than a college education is as high as 40% in the State of California. Further, despite President Reagan's forecast of an unemployment increase to 7.8% as the cost of solving the nations inflation problems, we find a current unemployment rate in excess of 8% with many independent, learned projections being in excess of 10 %. Rohnert Park is a population with a very substantial percentage of being both young and without college or advanced educations. In my view, for us to avoid the many well established problems that are associated with high unemployment such as crime, civil disobedience, etc., it is imperative that we have a local place for our populous to work. This overrides any conern of auto traffic and many of the real and imagined problems addressed in the EIR. A healthy and industrious community is much closer to solving any of its problems whether they be environmental, social or business than a community raked with unrest, unemploy- ment and poverty. Additionally, let us look at Hewlatt Packard as a neighbor. If we as a community are seeking private enterprise to help -us solve some of the aforementioned problems, I submit Hewlatt Packard stands among the foremost from which we could select. I have many times visited the area near the facility adjacent to the Stanford University campus as well as a number of their other plant locations. In every case, their physical plants blend well into a residential community. Their neighbors commend them highly; and they very singularly contribute to the social, financial and intellectual strength of the community in which they are located. In no case have I found where this company has ravaged the environment as some would lead us to believe. If the response tb this observation is that Hewlatt Packard is O.K. but that the companies that "must inevitably follow" are not, then I challenge the good government of our community to be as selective int he future as they have in the current careful consideration of thie EIR. Finally, I believe that the EIR and its detailed response to many of the legitimate concerns of our community has indeed mitigated there concerns. That is not to say that we are not still faced with many challenges, but in my view, a rational, unemotional consideration of all the issues can only lead to the support of this project. Sincerely, 4VWA-a Howard A. Boggs Presdient db /HB cc: Mary Stewart Art Roberts William Cavalli Art Hollingsworth Warren Hopkins League of Women Voters of Sonoma County 1431 -A Town and Country Dr. Santa Rosa, CA 95404° 707 - 546- 5943�� Counot -1 corresp on N vember 3, 1981 TO: City Council of Rohnert Pak SUBJECT: Hewlett Packard Project r", es"), The League of Women Voters of Sonoma County has reviewed the "Recoui-ended Con - ditions of Approval" on the Hewlett Packard project. ?,'e relate them below to the five suggested conditions in the League's letter of October 13, 1981. Reduce the project to_a size that would be in compliance with the present Sonoma County General Plan. Although conditions 1,2, & 3 provide a welcome reduction in "maximum size," we question whether 8,000 is consistent with the City and County General Plans. We rea`firm the suggestion that the size be reduced to be in conformance with the General Plans. Once the size is in conformity, we urge that the conditions be definite in regard to the maximum size and that any options be deleted for Hewlett Packard to exceed the maximum or to "master plan" excesses. Redesign _ the plant to be more compact and useless space. for example: multi- level parking with design to encourage small cars and car pools. Conditions 1,20 & 4 fail to call for an.initial redesign that would be more com- pact and take less space.. It is suggested you give serious attention to this, especially since the FEIR fails to offer any adequate consideration of such a scaled -down compact project. It is noted also that since the conditions place no restraint on buildings or acreage, Hewlett Packard could occupy the entire area initially proposed and build all 15 buildings without being in conflict with the conditions. Relocate the prie_ct_to a designated industrial zone of Rohnert Park with direct freeway access. Were the project reduced in size to cohform to the General Plans and redesigned to be compact, the project might be relocated in a designated industrial area. This condition is fundamental to any consideration of the project. Develop a plan to trensport_emplovees which will minimize air pollution. noise and traffic congestion. A number of the conditions relate to transportation of employees. Condition 13 could reasonably include the requirement that the transit program be approved by the City and the County as a condition for approval of the project. Implemen- tation of an effective Hewlett Packard transit plan would substantially reduce acreage needed and facilitate relocation to the existing industrial zone. Develop a plan to nrovide affordable housing for employees. The League commends the references in conditions 15 & 16 to the requirement that residential units be mixed and that rental units be included. We again urge that you require the development of a plan for housing which will insure provision League of Women Voters 11/3/81 - HP project of affordable housin-9 for er-ployees. For clarity, the mix should be specified, the "reasonable percentage" of rentals should be set, and a density bonus,or other incentive for affordable housing should be included. We hope the above specific comments will assist you in refining the conditions for the project. The Lea ue requests the opportunity to speak at the November 9 hearing about our general concerns with the pro�ec . Rachel Carter President 2 First Interstate Sank of California Rmt 250 Rhonert Park Expressway Rhonert Park, CA 94928 Stephen W. Setts IrdetsUte 707 585 -3691 Manager Bank 11 -4 -81 City Council City of Rohnert Park Council COrrespOtndOnce 6750 Commerce Blvd. Copy to ea. CDucil n Rohnert Park, Ca 94928 Copy to Dear City Council, I wish to place my name on the team that favors Hewlett - Packard in the City of Rohnert Park. After reviewing the final EIR, I feel that the report addresses and answers satisfactorily the major concerns that are introduced when such a large industry comes into a com munity. Having lived in Palo Alto, Hewlett- Packard Headquarters, for several years I can honestly say they maintained a most eye pleasing facility. They contributed greatly to the cities tax base and worked closely with the city to provide adequate safety measures for the public. The good quality peripheral business that is attracted by Hewlett - Packard will not only add to the cities tax base, but will also assist in further developing Rohnert Park into the great city that it is, I strongly recommend favorable con- sideration for Hewlett - Packard. Best Regards, i' S.W. Betts Manager Rohnert Park 6750 Commerce Rohnert Park, Dear People, RECEIVED 14 0 V it 1913 i CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, City Council Blvd. CA 94928 8414 Park Ave Cotati,® CA 94928 November 2, 1981 Counco co, CON to So. I Copy to I Copy to Q P Lhnoy t These are comments -that I wish to submit to the public hearing on Hewlett Packard on November 9. 1 would like to begin with some comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report and Supple- ment. for the reasons that I am about to explain, th; responses in the Supplemait on th? subject of agricultural land. are woefully inadequate® On page 3-17 it says "the taking of agricultural land is not the issue here since the General Plan already calls for development of the Parcel". In studying the EIR I discovered a signifigant discreptancy because the southern 25 acres d! the parcel is on unincorporated county la,nd, and is therefore outside of the juristiction of the Rohnert Park General Pla n® These 25 acres are designated for agricultural-resi6ential.use by the Sonoma County General Plan, not for industrial development. The taking W agrilcultural;land on these 25 acres is at issue, and the EIR is incorrect, and should be ruled invalid, for stating otherwise. If this project is approved the taking of agricultural.land,will become an even greater issue in the future, a subject which the EIR totally ignores. It states that the City of Rohnert Park intends to annex the 25 acres in question. It is reasonable to suggest that if the Hewlitt Packard plant is built it will create pressure on the City to annex still more county lan&to provide more housing for H-P employees. Considering the City's intention to possibly annex the se 25 acres, I have serious 6oubts of their ability to resist further pressares for annexation® But I submit that if the City of Rohnert Park does give in to these pressures to annex beyond the proposed boundaries of the project site, it will be in direct defiance of the County General Plants stated goal of preservation of agricultural land. Before the Hewlett Packard Project is approved, I request that the City of Rohnert Park state openly am! clearly it's intentions in regard to future annexation. If further annexation beyond the project site is the City?s intention, then it will be in opposition to the County General Plan. Such annexations would run into stiff opposition from many Sonoma County citizens who are strongly opposed to Rohnert Park type development encroaching beyond the present city limits, sprawling up Sonoma Mountain, south to Petaluma, north to Canta Rosa, and west to Sebastopol. If the City intends to limit it's annexation to the 25 acres of the project site, I would like Q know how it intends to enforce this limit against the strong pressure for annexation and development that will be created by 8,000 employees in the year 2000 who will want new housing built near where they work. If it is the City's intent to limit future annexation, this intent can only be expressed in a meaningful way by a solid legal guarantee Prohibiting such annexation as a condition for approval of the project. If a binding legal guarantee in not possible, then this project should not be appro- ved. A second issue that I would like to address is thaL of the con- ditions that have been proposed for Howlett Packard to meet before the project is approved. It would be in the best interests of the people and the environment of Sonoma County if one of these conditions would be Hewlett Packard's commitment to alter- native forms of transportation® It does not make ecological sense for such a huge expanse of agricultural land on the project site to he paved over by parking lots, and for so much to be spent on building and widening roads for all the H-P employees to drive their cars to work. In this age of the energy crisis and gas shortages we need to plan ahead to provide alternatives so that single-occupancy driving does not have to be the primary method. of getting to work. Three conditions should be met by H-P before they are given final approval. First, they should change the plans to reduce the number of parking spaces to be developed on the site® Second, they should develop a plan that would reauire, through bonuses, flexible scheduling, and other incentiveh, 50''j. or more of the employees to carpool, vanpool, bus, bicycle, or use other methods of transportation other than single-occupancy driving, to get to their jobs at Hewlett Packard. The third is that Hewlett Packard should grant a direct subsidy to the area °s beleaugered bus systems, 'olden Cate Transit and Rbnoma County Transit® With the huge numbers of H-P employees needing, to get to the plant, the already overtaxed bus systems will be streched beyond their limit® It has been said that Hewlett Packard is a company that is con- cerned about working with the community and protecting the quality of the environment in the areas where their plants are located. By meeting these conditions of reducing parking spaces, assisting employees in using alternative transnortation to got to work, and subsidizing the bus systems, the company would be showing good faith in living ua to this reputation. If Hewlett Packar6 does not attempt to meet these conditions, they will be showing that they are not concerned about the community and the environment, and that they are a prime mover in the Los Angeli7ation of Sonoma County. I would like to thank the City Council for giving myself and other members of the public the opportunity to comment on this project. I urge you to consider my comments carefully, and take a stand on the auestions I've raised, before making a final decision on the Hewlett Packard Project. Sincerely, Matt Metzler V to Nov. 4, 1981 Bill Cavalli and City Council Rohnert Park p�E Belle Zelmachild jn{ I am writing to urge all of you NOT to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report of the proposed Hewlett Packard project. Neither the FEIR nor the Supplement responsibly begins to address the enormous impacts both to our City and County if this ill - conceived and expedient proposal is allowed to become a reality. As a two year resident of Sonoma Grove, a low income student at SSU and a single mother who is trying to help my daughter finan- cially attend a Jr. College, I know that Sonoma Grove, the last bastion of "relatively" cheap housing in this County, will disap- pear soon after this plant is built. An H. P. executive, whose daughter recently sold a trailer to a Grove resident, asked him, "You don't plan to be living there for more than a year, do you ?" The increased land value at Sonoma Grove should H. P. move next door, will certainly create a huge pressure for the owner to sell. Considering how the FEIR still does not address the critical water issue I believe the City should wait for the final report from the State eater Quality Control Boaru, on December 31st, in order to make a really responsible decision. In light of George Bodway's resolution to the Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce vs a vs suggesting that waste water be dumped into the Russian River, I think it is clear that there is no miti- gation for Hewlett Packard's waste water problem for the proposed factory in Rohnert Park. - 2 - To summarize my many concerns,whether the tremendous impacts relate to traffic, soaring rents not to mention unavailability of affordable housing, a water shortage, sewage in the river, impacts on neighboring communities such as Cotati and Penngrove which is scandously not addressed, loss of valuable farmland, possible effects of groundwater contamination, transport routes of toxic wastes not outlined ad infinitum, the FEIR and the Supplement do NOT have adequate answers or mitigations simply because there are NO answers or mitigations for such a drastic and disastrous night- mare. Had the Planning Commission done its homework back in June this entire issue would have been labeled "Foolhardy and Insane" and dropped at the Commission's Public Hearing. I found it.incredu- lous to read in the local paper two weeks ago that the Planning Commission in its wisdom had the courage to deny the Reverend Argue, permission to set up a temporary church in the industrial area of the City because staff "feared setting a precedent of allowing incompatible uses in industrial areas." What wonderful irony! At the same time this Commission saw nothing incompatible about allowing a multi- national electronics corporation, with all of its millions of dollars and political clout, to build a humungous factory on 300 acres of agricultural land with all of its negative impacts and the ripping to shreds of both the City's and County's General Plans! So much for consistent, conscientious and far sighted decision making! I notice that all of the concerns I raised about women workers in the electronics industry - the dangers to their health - their exploitation both here and in Third World countries - were noted - 3 - in the Supplement to the FEIR and then dismissed with the arrogant phrase "The comments reflect the views of the speaker and require no response." While legally this may be the case I believe Hewlett Packard is morally, ethically and humanely obligated to respond. In this case their silence and defensiveness speaks for itself. In conjunction with the above I would like to point out that there were no potential or currently employed female workers (white or Third World) who came forward to praise Hewlett Packard and /or encourage their expansion. I believe this.is also significant. One of the main problems I see arising out of this whole con- troversy about Hewlett Packard is that the City and its citizens (especially those who are potential employees) have played too passive a role in determing what kind of employment should be located here. No one disputes the idea that more employment is needed in this community. I was misquoted on Page 4 -10 of the Supplement stating that I was "against the growth this plant would bring ". At the time I said I was in favor of wholistic growth and against cancerous growth. Hewlett Packard's proposed project falling under the latter category. The main questions we need to ask ourselves are how much employment, what kind, who will benefit and who will decide? - the employer or the future employees? I understand that this City has six existing Commissions: one for Parks and Recreation, Culture and the Arts, Senior Citizens, Mobile Homes, Planning Commission and possibly a Commission on Youth. I would like to propose another Commission for Employment which would draw up guidelines, with wide spread input from the citizens, on what types of employment should be encouraged here that would be consistent with the City's and County's General Plans. - 4 - Considering how the pay gap between women and men is getting worse I would also suggest that future employers endorse the concept of comparable worth - that is the idea that women should receive equal pay for work of equal value. I would also like to suggest a Town Meeting be scheduled with members of the Environmental Studies at SSU participating, as well as members of the Sonoma County Peace Network and RP citizens to discuss these issues in depth and how to make crea- tive and peaceful jobs compatible with agriculture a reality. As a starter some employment possibilities that would meet these criteria are: e cooperative alcohol still for use in cars which could produce alcohol for $.50 a gallon, recycling plants, o cooperative gardens and nurseries to guarantee a food supply by year 2000, ® local ice -cream plants. In summary there are creative alternatives to the Franken- stein plans of Hewlett Packard. They only require some planning. and a process to bring people together to discuss what these alter- natives are. It is your responsibility to preserve the General Plan and to protect the citizens from the outrages of the H. P. project. Respectfully, Laura Belle Zelmachild 22 Anne Sonoma Grove RP 94928 U Danny Weil V 95 George St. (ITY OF IMI-INEff P& Cotati, California 94928 Telephone: 707-795-7450 The City Council of the City of Rohnert Park 6750 Commerce Blvd. Rohnert Park, California November 3, 1981 Re: The Proposed Hewlett Packard Expansion ProJect Dear members of the City Council: This letter is to apprise you that in the event the City Council of Rohnert Park renders a decision approving the proposed Hewlett Packard Expansion Project, Danny Weil, an individual, intends to commence an action setting aside the decision of the City Council of Rohnert Park in approving the proposed project. cc: City Attorney. Planning Commission Very truly yours, b- u�-t Awff,, /it ":�[ v VJI--.0 OCI CITY OF ROHNEfff PARK /(-/-g/ Tr : U't- VIL'o- j- :itc - /w Ve j /44 A-e-,-A- - - I PU--k- �-6 ctt) 1A) a-41--�Il it erzy- ) 0 -LC-Q- le2a14'l 4m�%?a '� W- - - . - RECEIVED '':UV CITY OF. ROHNERT. PARK M-�r �' .7 ry) 9, 1981 Council Report and tes) and the to offer the or the Df 47,000 people, the area and 3.6% out- ?4% of all its ales rate to J/ decrease of Puting to other all aployees to (the proposed capacity of the project) would reduce auto-caused air pollution and conserve 15 to 20 million gallons of fuel annually. continued ........ 847 Fifth Street, Santa Rosa, California 95404 (707) 575-0200 To: Honorable Members of the Rohnert Park City Council November 9, 1981 page 2 LOCATION OF HEWLETT PACKARD FACILITIES The proximity of the proposed plant is excellent, with minimal impact on traffic and fuel requirements. Hewlett-Packard has consistently maintained a "good neighbor" policy, with facilities close to multi-family and single-family housing. • The HP-Santa Rosa facilities are adjacent to residential areas on two sides. This proximity has encouraged many employees to use alternative modes of transportation - e.g., ride-sharing, bicycles, walking, mopeds and moto• - cycles. This would also be strongly encouraged in Rohnert Park by HP management. ENERGY CONSERVATION Hewlett-Packard has continued to set an excel-lent example of energy conservation . • Facilities design - During 1976-81, HP-Santa Rosa manufacturing output increased 25%/year, space occupied rose only 12%/year and employment was up 1.8%/year. Yet, energy use per sq.ft. (occupied) decreased 5%/year, reflecting the impact of an aggressive energy conservation program. Each department has an energy coordinator. • Company sponsorship of energy conservation programs for employees and the community - e.g., seminars on solar energy, insulation and other residential /commercial conservation, transportation, etc. • Assisting creation and development of energy audits, incentive programs, tax credits and development of alternative energy sources. We firmly believe that Hewlett-Packard will. invoke pride in the citizens of Rohnert Park and provide high quality employment. Respectfully, we urge your approval. Thank you again for your consideration. Very truly yours, Raymond B. Mattison President ft- iqgi CC, Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Rohnert Park City Hall Rohnert Park, California Dear Councilmembers, We, the undersigned, want to go on record as urging your approval of the Hewlett Packard Project. Being very familiar with the Rohnert Park community, we are aware of the fine job that the Council has been doing in regulating the development of our community. Our well - planned and attractive community has many facilities and services for its residents which attest to the dedication and sincere interest that you and previous Councils have had in allowing only orderly development to occur. The proposed location of Hewlett Packard and the manner in which you have handled the processing to date of the proposed conditions thatyou will impose on its development are another example of the fine job you are doing. Rest assured that our sentiments are shared by many other citizens and business people of the community. /tW e/p respectfully urge your approval %(j�o If�gg �t //h'e/��+ Hewlett '7 741/ / »�' \.s I /� 4.w �...1 �..,, 6✓ �" Il ' ' V 1 '+J FJ b / 7"° LA' K...- ^�+ 1 d % / �! N ��L�B / \ `� �6 'xis-- 7 "V J, r4v ..... tv'- s � 1' i Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Rohnert Park City Hall Rohnert Park, California Dear Councilmembers, We, the undersigned, want to go on record as urging your approval of the Hewlett Packard Project. Being very familiar with the Rohnert Park community, we are aware of the fine job that the Council has been doing in regulating the development of our community. Our well—planned and attractive community has many facilities and services for its residents which attest to the dedication and sincere interest that you and previous Councils have had in allowing only orderly development to occur. The proposed location of Hewlett Packard and the manner in which you have handled the processing to date of the proposed conditions th4tyou will impose on its development are another example of the fine job you are doing* Rest assured that our sentiments are shared by many other citizens and business people of the community. We respectfully urge your approval of the Hewlett Packard Project. &1 (71' t czl- "s -Al X P 7 ■ V VS ewe &7- Houorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Rohnert Park City Hall Ahuert Park, California Qnn� Gouncilwombers, "'u". uli.�-! r s i fund, wan L to go on record as urging your approval of the Howlett Packard Project. AeK4 vany fmailiar with the Rohnert Park community, we are aware of the fine job rhn� the Council has been doing in regulating the development of our community. Car WI —planned and attractive community has many facilities and services for Aq rcsidemn which attest to the dedication and sincere interest that you and pzov%us CounciN have had in allowing only orderly development to occur. The p.opoEvd location of Uewlett Packard and the manner in which you have handled Ol" Prucessing to date of the proposed conditions diatyou will impose on its devAuDnnat are another example of the fine jo - b you are doing. vw,a assured that our sentiments are shared by many other citizens and business people of the community Uc respectfully urge your approval of the Hewlett Packard Project. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Rohnert Park City Hall Rohnert Park, California Hear CouncilmemberB, We, the undersigned, want to go on record as urging your approval of the Hewlett Packard Project. befog very familiar with the Rohnert Park community, we are aware of the fine job Lhou Ve Council has been doing in regulating the development of our community. Our well—planned and attractive community has many facilities and services for As residents which attest to the dedication and sincere interest that you and pfevions Couacils have had in allowing only orderly development to occur. The proposed location of Hewlett Packard and the manner in which you have handled Lhe processing to date of the proposed conditions diatyou will impose on its duveloppon; are another example of the fine job you are doing. Rost assured that our sentiments are shared by many other citizens and business people of the community. e Pi y Y z ewlett, Rackard Project � ��L-a, 5roval of the H I E 41oo _q( A 5 C AWE 775 PK60 E- or able Mayor and Members of the City Council of Rohnert Park C Aa 13. R, art Park, California Dear Councilmembers, No, the tuidersigned, want to go on record as urging your approval of the Hewlett Packard Project. Wag vnry familiar with the Rohnert Park community, we are aware of the fine job that Au Council has been doing in regulating the development of our community. Our well—planuid and attractive community has many facilities and services for its Losidents which attest to the dedication and sincere interest that you and previous Councils have had in allowing only orderly development to occur. The proposal location of Hewlett Packard and the manner in which you have handled Eby paoauRsiag to date of the proposed conditions thatyou will impose on its %QaTopment are another example of the fine Job you are doing. Rest assured that our sentiments are shared by many other citizens and business peoplu of the community. We rq5pectfully urge your approval of the Hewlett Packard Project. 77 V1 BOtle,,ez Y P/0 9 NOW&- NO Adds" W �Vv S M"s VC) 01 7-0 Y 0,IZFC S) 4/4QFC/C) vivo? 0 0 t�' ,•�j[u.r��' ��Z'If(� �7 Cf Ae el }��4 )Q a C 1'1(0 ,i I?/- yei"tJi cE t. an�c!'Gi GWe�tio�iS T tc1i�V ��t2(ur�'{ -'r-c p e n e n s are- 100ki 7`(01 -tva rc� 11A want sovfk(prtl scnoolct'6v0"t fy wjti Well -i *h 112W r.c)m fc"_f!f fOr eJ1-- vit4 r�e4s de peepl e-, a �1�i ar va , e � too typos of ever 4y Yin from ore s i` r~ crud !rives Ifl e f , a q(A 0 sane rri Re- Iqr c _ ;K) sC? of k -(rq k1 C7 Sri c{ m p G ,s e �} (4 ( ,> �_) i kv C r'-t" a. S..e-W C ! f po JiU'f-,`t16j.,... ,(t O.5`i.. look; kq 4crr^'iw t'd Yo 4 r't /Y ei C - ! it ICJ q „(,,-�'P1jet -i l f o wat-4 j '�, vV 1 � pp �t �o t/ris/1 t 6't; Cr�tGt !x, s nej;, /itjj' `"[3 OCiTfl Cavite .. tlarNk Me R 6c�necre�, res q vo�tn, s ' att d 6�;f s �� -- 7 �d alre -qd ya fw -oo Je roc a# i tla2f�S tJ� S i r s pi i try v orkr -," M'1`540 lase 4r^eq _ vvers ion of c( ckerislie /^C ()f of co mmun r f J -es �i-tf) ari c)rban r C(U ,)/f cwtfckl is cel givj °tc) c)cc:.vr, -t is tic ki-LO "T t-, k �- t bo u - t (c i Y`y�.e V e l s-i - ( c- is-)on you vvt y � e k bO L� � �f-o 141 q ice, Cam, `7� par scvIq r ce r 14PA In +0 �� p��t1P1� iii r a t i, a o°�G� t "� 1,5 a C e) V, c4e V b l e -7o „srxyerc, /7” r u -,, re ,/0 V L /1'11 k) ,,b61 (- c/ 'f. iv(ceaTed f �-k' � 6 sc v 'I ,your" -rri-tv-icls levedone-s- (Ailtk erbovl iAe- 2-ool000 qLlat-anf(ed 'fo be -�qrt e L/I 5, LV A 0 S� /0 0(,y a yv- VA-, jo h614 (,/p fro .re ale - , 4 f f fy V(,' d W "°" cc( v se � /2 c E/ G r e Ae lis -f ic p rac t 11 io,� er, rWks- �Ke rcnpie WN1 r wa of u, ro it ce-S of- 7 C'My oprt"CievtS4 wail-fam e � lifer Oly j-hoes -e6 ids 6f S`I-vde,,Js, aitxd llJ(kckrc4bt"f5, Oc loclij /�,I,&4c(-qjelA we4,erpurl c(m d Mai qetd'qejor-,- 0 (i S"( nj de v,- vA e ol s, dyer e, q ,d cA ,-,eqf,er liv,,;s; A 7 s-f ---i i n om Avolere u-r Url'e,Oi7dinj cowmu'0i-es. ,7,, Pf-cbqblX bt effec-15 of lox�c chewi-- lo Ic sjorl -e,� p (A/ u iltleff k1-Le rea4 +4e Is - y so r cx vt oft er wake cf k7 il 7 C a (-C 6f eg, f Eio q t,�alyf disc- us,sio� 4 /),-o cea urc- X-C) sc/(,C�-- A ec d ro 0 sic, c O-CS 10 O-f ea CA (It's", vrn"i t, P', q 61;s V A �r PrOdUCOky '�O CAM, CJ �o Zen S- - I ere C) o, e re- d'f 1er� 4 zo, 0 0 0 elf re, i as e- -Tr f 4 e pr v b vAcA r t\ e. Ai t4l "k(z,- P, fctrf, /--/' yo C) dc c i m S-1- S,,s1- it _fyTjCt4j, vf, ri u we" Lis etyJ a (-j Irian rw e ccy ,- c-,e rm sj Cv tho c)f ci V/ -b e4 ce vy, rk, i W-ec rc7 ort4 f -," o t) f w Q (�h 0 co 7'1, cr 4- /vd c-) -<- fcti- d `�'ry -,,J f r, f i-f- ) vu-01 ti-4 poss4l'e vof- ,e It f 4 h/ fht 6'ef, et-4/ 111q n I tJ Tk Ls- Tf 4 ect� 0 R S 10 jot, Of Scly CO t"A pj i !+ RECEIVED / J� -//V-/ N 0 \l/ 2 19 81 elTY OF ROHN RT. PARK toe tot o tc, -03 j AM i r alt Council Correspondence Copy to ea. Councilmen Ktu Copy to r r a opy to .0 ///S7/-O)- GEORGE G. HENLEY. D.D.S. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ROHNERT PARK MEDICAL VILLAGE 5300 SNYDER LANE ROHNERT PARK. CALIFORNIA 94928 TELEPHONE 5849589 November 4, 1981 CITY COUNCIL 111 n'7 Clly OF ROHiYERT PARK Re: Hewlett - Packard plant location - Rohnert Park I have taken a number of hours to interpret the EIR reports and feel CH2M Hill, LeBlank & Co. and Del Davis Associates have studied and interpreted all concerned matters as completely as possible. I do realize that as the plant is built, the Hewlett -Pack- ard organization, as it has done in the past, will help alleviate any problems that may occur. I feel that the facility will have a tremen dous benefit to the city, county and state. We should feel very fortunate to have such a dynamic business choose our city for the development of their complex. Sincerely yours, 1C - A tai- I George G. Henley D.D.S. GGH:;.kle - STATEMENT TO THE ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL November 9, 1981 by DALE MCCARTY, representing ROHNERT PARK CITIZENS FOR COMMUNITY COMMUNITY CHOICE I represent the Rohnert Park Citizens for Community Choice. We have reviewed in detail the 36 conditions that you have placed on the Hewlett-Packard project. We would like to commend you for making what appears to be genuine attempt to prevent the terrible harm that this project could inflict on our city if it went ahead as originally proposed. We also.-mish to convey our sympathy for those of you who must feel the intense pressure from certain pro-development forces in our city. Here at a time when you are responsible for protecting the future living environment of our city, it must be difficult to make a responsible decision when you are subjected. to such pressures as a phony public opinion poll or those who denounce anyone who opposes the project as being "outside the mainstreamIt of our city But Rohnert Park is more than just a clique of self-interested businessmen. Rohnert Park is a city of thousands of people who have come here seeking relief from the madness that afflicts our major urban centers. People have come here to escape air pollution, traffic jams, and expensive housing. People have. come here to find. a reasonably-sized community surrounded by open space and farmland. Yes, it is true that our population also wants a healthy, growing local economy. But they are no willing to totally sacrifice the environment merely to satisfy the arbitrary demands of a big corporation. -3- he can't believe the "growth schedule" for the factory either. It suits Hewlett-Packards purposes at this time to tell as that it plans only slow expansion of the factory over a long period of time. But what if Hewlett-Packard changes its mind and decides it wants an immediate build-out of the factory site? A future City Council could quietly give Hewlett-Packard per- mission, sometime in the future when nobody is watching. he need guarantees that this giant corporation is not going to take over our city. he ask that you fix a permanent limit on the size of the project by moving it to a smaller site. According to your planning department, there is a 77-acre parcel of vacant land zoned for industrial use On the west side of U.S. 101. This is where Hewlett-Packard belongs. This location offers the corporation enough land for a large factory, but not a factory so large that it would overwhelm Sonoma County. If Hewlett-Packard conserves in its use of land by using parking garages instead of parking lots, and by using buses more and private cars less, it will have plenty of space left over to build a factory of profitable size. W know that you have been told by Hewlett-Packard that the company will refuse to settle for the site on the west side of the freeway. he think they are bluffing. They know that if Hewlett-Packard is excluded from Rohnert Park, the company has very little chance of finding another acceptable location anywhere in Sonoma County. he urge that you call Hewlett-Packardfs bluff. Offer them the 77-acre site. They will probably take it. If they d.on't, there is probably another electronics company just over the horizon that will be delighted to build. in Rohnert Park. By moving to this location, the City Council will have relieved the serious traffic problem that the project would have caused in its old site® But serious problems will remain in housing, sewage disposal, and. water supply® ZD t-D There are solutions to these problems® Hewlett-Packard is an extremely profitable corporation® Last year, its gross profits exceeded one-half billion dollars® If Hewlett-Packard is going to create problems by its development here, it can well afford, -to invest some of its money in solving those problems. The greatest obstacle -to an adequate supply of affordable housing in Sonoma County is the lack of investment capital at reasonable interest rates® If they propose to bring -thousands of people here as employees, then Hewlett-Packard should also be required to finance the construction of equivalent supply of housing units and make them available as needed. The same is true of the sewage problem® Your "Conditions Z:�) of Approval" commit the City of Rohnert Park to find additional wastewater disposal capacity 'to accomodate Hewlett-Packard's needs. But we all know that this will be a futile search more apac y gy�a _,_i1ab1e,,, and no federal funds to build more, Unless Hewlett-Packard pays the cost of new facilities to handle its sewage, then the sewage effluent will t�> ZD have to -o into the Russian River.Is this accep-table to the ZLI k� people of Rohnert Park? Is it acceptable to jou? he hope not. For that reason it is necessary to,;;qQre that Hewlett- Packard build or finance the construction of sewage treatment and disposal facilities sufficient to handle all its own is factory needs and the needs of the increasepopulation that Hewlett-Packard would bring to the area. Water supply is a thi-rd-major pray ,M that must be solved before the project is approved. It now seems to be admitted by all concerned that Rohnert Park must find new aqueduct water if the Hewlett-Packard factory is built. It is hoped that this water will be made available by the Warm Springs Dam. But this is a hope, no more. We cannot gamble with the water supply of our city. 41QEp we can get more water from the aqueduct, we must secure the agreement of the majority of the members of the Sonoma County Water Agency -- Santa Rosa, Petaluma, Cotati, Sebastapol, the Forestville Water District, the Sonoma Valley Water District, and the North Marin water district. If these agency members az-e�,� refuse to give us M-1 the water the Hewlett➢Packard will need, then we must know that now, not later. It is absolutely qAq;pjial to have a signed commitment for additional aqueduct water .before the Hewlett- Packard project is approved. In conclusion, we commend you for the many hours that you have dedicated to the study of this project and its implications. But we must ask you to go back to the negotiating table yet another time to try to make this project acceptable. Rohnert Park is a n4ce place to live. Please, let ®s keep it that way. ROHNERT PARK AND THE LAW Before approving the Hewlett - Packard project, the Rohnert Park City Council must certify that the environmental impact report complies with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). Among the CEQA Guideline requirements are theses FULL DISCLOSURE Section 15150 "An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decisionmakers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness and a good faith effort at full disclosure." REDUCE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS TO AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL Section 15088(d) "A public a out a project as proposed unless effects have been reduced to an gency shall not approve or carry the significant environmental acceptable level." STUDY ALL REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES Section 15143(d) "Describe all reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, and why they were rejected in favor of the ultimate choice. "The specific alternative of 'no project' must also always be evaluated, along with the impact. The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives capable of eliminating any significant adverse environmental effects or reducing them to a level of insignificance, even if these alternatives substantially impede the attainment of the project objectives, and are more costly. "If the environmentally superior alternative is the 'no project' alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives." League of Women Voters of Sonoma County 1431-A Town and Country Dr, Santa Rosa, CA 95404 707 - 546-5943 November 9, 1981 To: Rohnert Park City Council Subject: Final response to the Hewlett Packard Final EIR-and. Supplement Final response to the proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezoning. Thank you for this opportunity to express our conclusions re- garding the Final EIR and Supplement, and the proposed Hewlett Packard project. FINAL EIR AND SUPPLEMENT: The four added sections to the Supple- ment add substance to the EIR. However, we still find that the total EIR is inadequate in dealing with our five fundamental con- cerns: .... ..project size and population growth ......impacts on affordable housing ......demands on public services (particularly county services) ......adverse environmental pressures (notably air quality and the protection of the groundwater resource), and ......loss of agricultural land. In addition, the section on Fiscal impacts in theEIR is in- adequate. While it does address anticipated revenues to Sonoma County, it omits costs to the county. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING We hope you have had the oppor- tunity to study the comments we submitted on Nov. 3, analyzing the Staff's Recommended Conditions of Approval. We wish to reiterate now what we conceive to be the five essential conditions for approval, of this project, none of which is fully developed in the staff report. 1. Reduce the project to a size that would be in compliance with the Sonoma Co. and Rohnert Park General Plans. Justify the number in terms of projected population growth and housing. 2. Relocate the project to a designated industrial zone of Rohnert Park with direct freeway access. 3. Redesign the plant to be more compact and to use less space, for example: multi-level parking designed to encourage car pools and small cars. Develop an employeesltranspbrtation plan which will minimize air pollution, noise and traffic congestion. 5. Develop a plan to provide affordable housing for employees. The League of Women Voters of Sonoma County believes the Hewlett Packard plant in Rohnert Park could be of benefit to the city and the - 2 - county. However, lacking any or all of these five conditions, we believe the project will be detrimental to the quality of life and long-range interests of the county. Under these circumstances, we must recommend that you deny the project. Rachel Carter, President [-I Y)C- 02 MATTISON .. INC November 9, 1981 Ton Honorable Members of the Rohnert Park City Council Subjects Hewlett - Packard Environmental Impact Report and Proposal for Rezoning On behalf of the REA (Responsible Energy Advocates) and the Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce, we are pleased to offer the following comments for your consideration. We support this proposed high quality project for the following reasons: OUT-COMMUTING AND EMPLOYMENT Reduce out commuting below the year 2000 level of 47,000 people, per ABAG estimates, thereby keeping workers in the area and consuming considerably less fuel. • Rohnert Park presently has approximately 28.6 %_out- commuting workers. • Sonoma County presently has approximately 24% of all its workers commuting out of the area for jobs. • Increase local employment, reducing the jobless rate to less than the present estimated level of 8 %. • According to the EIR, page 3 -8, para.3, "A decrease of 3 to 4 percent in the number of people commuting to other areas would provide another 1000 to 1400 employees to local employment in the year 2000." • Hewlett - Packard as a quality employer, along with support industries and services, should contribute to reduction of the out- commuting from 47,000 to less than 20,000 by the year 2000. HP has a corporate policy to be one of the world's ten highest paying companies. This strong commit- ment to human resources is important to preserving jobs within the area. • Reduction of out - commuting by 12,000 workers (the proposed capacity of the project) would reduce auto - caused air pollution and conserve 15 to 20 million gallons of fuel annually. continued ........ 847 Fifth Street, Santa Rosa, California 95404 (707) 575 -0200 IIA Eau p y _ ' - _ rze League of Women Voters of Sonoma County 1431 -A Town and Country Dr, Santa Rosa, CA 95404 707 - 546 -5943 October 13, 1981 TO: The City Council of Rohnert Park SUBJECT: The Hewlett Packard Project The League of Women Voters of Sonoma County continues to be concerned with the impact of the proposed Hewlett Packard project on Sonoma County. The issue for us is not whether Hewlett Packard should locate in Rohnert Park. The issue is that the project be developed to conform to the General Plan. Our concerns with this project continue to be: ...project size and population growth ...impacts on affordable housing ...demands on governmental services ...adverse environmental pressures ...loss of agricultural land The analysis by the County's Planning Department on the three major projects reinforces our position that the EIR still does not deal adequately with these impacts. Or the other hand, it seers possible that Rohnert Park could. accommodate a major industrial development by relocating and redesigning the project and attaching appropriate cc- nditions. The League suggests that the Rohnert Park City Council consider placing the following conditions on the develop:ent before approving the project: 1. Reduce the project to a size that would be in compliance with the present tio-oma County General Plan 2. Redesign the plant to be more compact and use less space, for example: multi -level parking with design to encourage small cars and car pools 3. Relocate the project to a designated industrial zone of Rohnert Park with direct freeway access 4. Develop a plan to transport employees which will minimize air pollution, noise and traffic congestion 5. Develop a plan to provide affordable housing for employees. V7e urge the Rohnert Park City Council to consider impr-sing these conditions on the proposed industrial development. Vith such alterations in scale, location, design and associated conditions, the city of Rohnert Park could insure that the project will not place an excessive burden on the taxpayers. Such a plan could assure that in the future Rchnert Park and Sonoma County will have jobs and housing, protection of agricultural lands and a high quality of life for all of our citizens. _G' Rachel Carter President AA OCTOBER 13 1981 ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL: COMMENTS ON THE HEWLETT- PACKARD FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, REZONING AND ANNEXATION FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT: Thank you for the opportunity to respond again to the proposed project. After a careful review of the Final EIR Supplement, I have come to the same conclusion about this report as I did the others - -that it is still inadequate and does not straightfor- wardly deal with the tremendous impacts to the relatively small communities of Roh- nert Park, Cotati, and Penngrove. This statement will respond to the consultant's re- sponses of my August 10 and August 17 statements and then deal specifically with the council decisions concerning the rezoning, general plan amendments, and prezoning. RESPONSES'TO THE AUGUST 10 STATEMENT: COMMENT 1: "If the reader carefully reviews the supplemental analyses, he (sic) will. find that all significant issues raised in the comments are addressed." Specific questions raised by myself and others were not answered by the vague generalities found in the supplemental analyses. This does not seem to be a proper fulfillment of CEOA Sec. 15146. (b). In particular, the major issues .raised when the lead agency's position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the comments must be addressed in detail giving reasons why specific comments and. suggestions were not accepted." (emphasis added) COMMENT 3: The consultants have misunderstood my .response. In the year 2000, there is estimated to be 13,522 acres lost which of course are cumulative from the present. COMMENT 4: 14,100 additional people are expected to be attracted to Sonoma County from this specific project. It is not true that "indirect population growth (and hence agricultural loss) caused by Hewlett- Packard is already provided for in current population projections" because of the growth - inducing impacts specifically generated by the Hewlett - Packard project. If we assume that the People for Open Space figures are correct , then the 81/. of additional farmland loss due to the Hewlett-Packard project is correct, also, COMMENT 5: It can easily be assumed that a large factory at this site will greatly impact a large percentage of prime agricultural land on the eastern periphery,of Rohnert Park, Cotati, and Penngrove. COMMENT 6: This is a significant issue in terms of environmental impact. The general. plan designation should have no bearing on an impartial, scientific. analysis of this particular site. Loss of productive farmland is not insignificant. COMMENT 8: This EIR is for the project as a whole, inclyding up to the year 2000. The significant impact in the year 2000 is a cumulative process which begins when the fac- tory begins to use water, thus the impact certainly is significant. What is known, as stated in this EIR Supplement (p.6 -20), is that the water table is lowering already, without-the addition of Hewlett- Packard's large allocations. COMMENT 10: There is no reason why Transport routes of toxic wastes should not be re- vealed in the EIR, before the project is approved, so that citizens living on or near 2 these routes will know how this project will affect their lives. COMMENT 11: In terms of environmental impact, it is certainly not unreasonable to ask what the possible effects of groundwater contamination would be if a spill occurs. This is a very great concern of mine because my drinking water is from a well gust a 15 minute walk from the proposed factory. COMMENT 12: Headlines such as "Big East Bay Chemical Spill; Schools Evacuated- - Thousands Flee Homes" (S.F. Chronical 9 -9 -81) also show that toxic wastes are sometimes not safely transported through urban areas. COMMENT 13: The original response still reamins inadequate because industrial uses are inconsistent with surrounding land uses according to the Rohnert Park General Plan, not "as defined by Mr. Helmer." The quote from the Qanatas EIR and the quote in the final EIR on page 3 -18 clearly state this. City planning objectives have not changed -- Hewlett - Packard is just imposing its priorities onto a community plan for growth to a major degree. Hewlett- Packard did not choose this site for good planning reasons but just because it was expedient to do so. Such a random selection of the largest industrial facility in the County cer- tainly has severe repercussions on the City's General Plan as a whole, not to mention the Sonoma County General Plan. COMMENT 14: This comment is very important and still deserves an answer. It is obvious from this EIR that Hewlett- Packard will produce a huge amount of wastewater. This is a large environmental impact upon the County. The Hewlett- Packard project is in addition to planned uses. COMMENT 15: My comment concerned the long -term effects of microwave radiation. There are many sources for this date -- Hewlett - Packard does not have a monopoly on this in- formation. An adequate answer should still be given. COMMENT 16: Again, my comment refers to future growth, not past growth of the elec- tronics industry. Also, the fact that no other factories have to be built to spec- ifically serve Hewlett-Packard's industrial needs is irrelevant to the growth - inducing impact of one of the largest electronics manufacturers in the world. In a recent article in the Everett Herald (Washington State) Ray Verley of H -P admits this: "But he )Verley) acknowledges that, as a pace - setter in the industry, the company often acts like a magnet for other electronics firms." It is well -known that the growth of the electronics industry is not dependent on Stanford University or particular conditions intrinsic to the Santa Clara Valley . It is interesting to note, however, that the growth of the electronics industry now is occuring in places similar to the Santa Clara Valley of 20 years ago. The study by the Bay Area Council and the Association of Bay Area Governments were for the years 1965 to 1976 (Final EIR p.6 -E2). On page 6 -C17 Final. EIR I quoted H -P's president John Young stating that future electronics manufacturing growth will 3 not be in Silicon Valley, but other parts of the Bay Area as well as out of the region.. The consultants ignore this point in their response. COMMENT 18: The immensity of this project clearly violates the Sonoma County General Plan.in the areas I have outlined. The necessity of annexation and adverse impacts on near -by communities are carefully avoided in this EIR. An EIr should elucidate these conflicts, not mystify them. The Sonoma County Planning Staff also point to existing and potential city and county general, plan violations in its review of the Fountain Grove, Frates Ranch, and H -P projects. These include increasing basic employment and population projections beyond the County General Plan as well. as intense pressure to alter the General Plans of near -by cities, such as Cotati. COMMENT 19. The violations of the Sonoma County Commercial /Industrial Study I outlined still stand- -this project violates the criteria listed.. Coupled with the massive en- vironmental impacts outlined in convoluted fashion in this EIR, the benefits of the factory shrink in comparison. Increased employment opportunities and an enlarged: tax base become true benefits if they don't create more problems than they solve, unlike the proposed factory. COMMENT 20: This response explicitly avoids the question and its legitimate concerns based upon data in this EIR. In the summary of project impacts of this EIR (p. # -5) it is stated for the Rohnert Park General Plan for 1985. "Heavy development pressure; significant revision needed for housing and urban expansion." This pressure, according to the summary, continues unabated through the year 20000 For "Other General Plans" it is stated: "Pressure on Cotati and County to amend- plans for growth." According to this EIR, this pressure becomes "significant" by the year 1995. These significant effects upon the General Plans of Rohnert Park, Cotati, and Sonoma County were avoided in the section "Summary of Project Impacts ".,and were not ad- equately analysed in the test. Such changes in these General Plans will be directly caused by the growth - inducing impacts of the Hewlett - Packard project. The County and cities have their own plans (including Rohnert Park), and should not be forced into meaninglessness by the whims of private industry. In the County Staff report cited above, it is stated under General Plan Changes: "The most dramatic pressure will be upon Rohnert Park and Cotati where the 12,000 employee Hewlett - Packard plant is replacing;, a residential designation in Rohnert Park's General Plano" This EIR still inadequately analyses the impacts upon city and county general plans stemming from the proposed factory. COMMENT 21: If this is so, why haven't the site - specific questions I .raised been ade- quately dealt with? The impacts of industrial re- zoning for this site has not been anal- ysed. The County staff report previously referred to raises similar concerns about the locations of such large developments and the .resulting impacts: "There is likely to be increased pressure for rural development in the vicinity of these projects because 4 of their location on the peripheries of Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park, and Petaluma. This pressure will likely result in applications to amend the County General Plan in order to allow rural residential development in agriculturally suitable areas." COMMENT 22: The response does not adequately respond to the traffic impacts on Cotati and Penngrove. COMMENT 24: The basis for my concern about the impacts on Railroad Avenue comes from living near Railroad Avenue and knowing that a northbound Fwy. 101 exit for this avenue could potentially induce employees to use this route to the factory site. The county staff report also cites the following: " ..it seems obvious that the cumulative impacts of the projects will be concentrated on Hwy. 101 and access routes to the project sites from Hwy. 101. There is also likely to be pressure for development along secondary access routes such as Petaluma Hill Road, Railroad Avenue and Adobe Road. Another Penngrove resident, Marthe Norwick, expressed similar concerns about impacts upon Rail- road Avenue. It is obvious that my "view" on this requires an adequate response. COMMENT 26: Again , the consultants confuse "No Project" for the site with "No Project" for the General Plan Amendment. No Project means no project, whether it be residential or industrial development according to the General Plan. If there is no industrial proj- ect on this site, the land will remain in agricultural production until such time that res- idential development proceeds according to the General Plan or the General Plan is amended to preserve agricultural uses for the site. When there is no project, there are other alternatives. The Qantas EIR, the Frates ranch EIR, and the Fountain Grove EIR had a similar straightforward interpretation of "No Project ". In any case, it seems totally inadequate in an iEnvironmental Impact Report to interpret No Project to mean "no project" for the developer (I.E. lost market opportunities etc.)instead of the environment. RESPONSES TO THE AUG. 17 STATEMENT COMMENT 1: I appreciate the effort of the consultants in beginning to address the cumu- lative effects of the Hewlett - Packard, Frates Ranch, and Fountain Grove projects. How- ever, a more thorough analysis - -not necessarily exhaustive- -seems realistic given the requirements of CEQA. Also, the analysis of the three projects by the County staff can be questioned, but certainly not ignored. In light of their analysis, the Cumulative impacts on housing and transportation are inadequately dealt with. Employment and population projections for the County, however, are analysed in suff- icient detail, although the population increase outlined is very questionable. If the scenario the consultants are projecting is correct, then a "Silicon. Valley North" will indeed develop rapidly in Sonoma County. The response to my, Comment 16 explaining why a Silicon Valley cannot happen here "to a significant degree" is contradicted by this new analysis. The answer to Richard Box's Comment 6 (p.5053 Supplement) gives further clues as to the nature of the limits, if any, of this type of development. Box states: "The 5 Santa Clara Valley is full; it is polluted, short of housing, and generally has been overdeveloped to the point that it is a poor place to live, and a worse place, to start a new large-scale company." The consultants reply that contrary to much po . pular opinion, the Santa Clara Valley is not "full"--there is plenty of vacant industrial land. The problem is not "overdevelopment per sell but just a shortage of labor resulting from a shortage of affordable housing. According to this reasoning pollution-generating development should have no ecological or social limits, only the abstract parameters of the marketplace,.-:_ This attitude sheds some light on the consultant's distance I from ana- lysing environmental impacts as if they occurred to real people in a real place. It is also stated on page 5-53: "The attraction of Sonoma. County to Hewlett-Packard is the prevailing large out-commute of labor and antic. ipated growth in the labor supply, characteristics lacking in Santa Clara County." On Page 6-12 it is stated: "Recent trends in rapidly growing regions have shown the employment growth rate to be increasing faster than the population growth rate." An article in Electronic Engineering Times (May 4-11-81) states: "And for the electronics industry, the availability of labor is at the top of the list. In the mind of Richard Carlson, senior economist at SRI International in Palo Alto, CA, its no contest. "Overwhelmingly, labor is the most important factor." In the article "Sonoma County Grew Fastest in Bay Area"(2-5-81, Press Democrat) Ray Brady of the Assoc. of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is stated as relating "...that whereas the south bay boom will slow down during the coming decade, the influx into the north bay will continue during the next decade, gaining 3 to 4 % of the Bay Area population. Much of the employment growth he said should be in the high technology industry... On Page 6-12 it is stated that a "conservative" increase of 51/o women into the labor force would increase the resident labor force by 6000 by the year 2000. Two thirds of the Santa Rosa H-P workforce are women, and this ratio is common to the electrnics industry in general. In other words, a prime element in electronics workforce needs is projected to become more prevalent, especially as the economy and other factors continue to increase the role of women into the labor market. Simultaneous with these trends in Sonoma County population and labor force growth is the relocation, cutbacks, and worker layoffs by major electronics firms in Silicon Valley. It is reasonable to assume that many of these displaced workers will want to move to Sonoma County if the high technology basic industric rate continues to rapidly grow, as predicted. Industrial zoned lands in both the Frates Ranch and Fountain Grove dev- elopments are geared towards high technology, electronics-type employment. And as the military budget continues to expend, the electronics industry will once again gear its expansion directly or indirectly to a high unstable situation, in more ways than one. ("The biggest U.S. buildup in military electronics capability since the Vietnam War is be- ginning, just as Pres. Ronald Reagan promised in his 1980 campaign." (Electronics 6-30-81) I "Defense spending for electrnics equipment sales in the telecommunications m . arket, and new products have bouyed Hewlett-Packard's sales growth, despite recessionary conditions, a company report said. 11 (Press Democrat 2-5-81) This trend of increased electronics basic employment (according to the analysis on page 6-17) will be concurrent with a decrease in County-projected employment in government (i.e. social services), 5000 fewer jobs; retail trade 1000 fewer jobs; banking/ real estate 500 fewer jobs, with a total of 6500 fewer jobs than projected by the year 2000. With the consultants projection of 28,700 more jobs in basic employment rather than the County's 12,700 by the year 2000 it is assumed that electronics "basic" employment will replace rather than add to, a significant portion of the County's projected total em- ployment levels. This employment level is also assumed to not generate significant increases in the population level projected by the County by the year 2000 which is 430,000. On p.6-16 it is stated: "Certainly it is not correct to assume that the bulk of population growth associated with the Frates Ranch, Fountain Grove, and Hewlett-Packard project would be mainly in addition to already predicted change." Yet this is exactly what reasonably should be assumed from the growth-inducing impacts of the simultaneous development of these projects. As it is stated on p6-18 "However, additional projects involving basic employment must be anticipated over the next 20 years." This is why the County staff report for the 3 projects predicted an 83,000 pop- ulation increase directly related to their development. The 501/o population rate increase for the County would have to be increased, along with the employment projections. A greater increase in population serving employment would probably result. This area will indeed become a rapid growth area, an illusory haven for victims of job reloctLtions, layoffs, of polluted living conditions--if a job,, housing, and a deteriorating quality of life can be found in this latest mine of social and envirorirrinetal extraction. COMMENT 2: TRUE, There is no requirement for such an I EAk, but such a study would prove invaluable for both the City and County for adequate urban planning. COMMENT 3: Yet the table of "contents" in the Final. EIR does not show where the growth inducing impacts can be found--references to these impacts are supposed to be scatter- ed through out the EIR, Not until the Final EIR Supplement has this been listed in the table 6f "Contents":Regional Growth Overview P.6-20. However, very little of substance was said in this section. COMMENT 6: The comment was not responded to. Section 15084.(b)(.2) states: "Prior to completing the draft EIR..." No environmental organization was consulted in the scoping of the Draft EIR, even though the Lead Agency knew of the existence of many. It is hard to believe that this simple comment was misunderstood by the consultants. COMMENT•7 : The consultants have consistently used the narrowest interpretation of CEQA imaginable to avoid giving a clear and straightforward account of this projects impact upon the land and people of this County. REZONING AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT To be consistent with the Rohnert Park General Plan, industrial uses should be planned further north along Highway 101. Industrial zoning in this area is in- compatible with surrounding uses, including residential use in Rohnert Park to the west, and rural - residential and agricultural uses to the south, north, and east. This would create large -scale industrial zones on the periphery of Rohnert Park which would inevitably force the City to annex towards Petaluma Hill Road while still allowing for full -scale industrial growth in the industrial zoned lands on the western periphery. A plan for growth would be destroyed. The plan may need to be changed some day, but industrial rezoning for this site is the worst possible kind of development here. It takes a lot of foresight and courage to make the right choices at the right time. I hope that this Council remembers it's responsibility to the greater community that will be negatively affected by this project, including future workers coming home through a congested and polluted environment if this factory is built. Creative solutions can be made which will provide jobs with the quality of life in mind. PRE-ZONING AND ANNEXATION This annexation, even though it is comparatively small, violates Rohnert Park's no annexation policy. Once something is violated a little bit, it is always easier to go a little more. The necessity for housing caused by the impact of the H -P factory will force annexation one way or another. Instead of sprawling factories which "require" high density apartments and condominiums, perhaps a more livable arrangement could be planned if there was a more moderate rate of growth. The EIR never did come out and say that this project will directly result in annexation for Rohnert Park. This was implied, and indicated by chart in the summary, but never clearly stated in a lucid manner. Perhaps this was not done because the two key assumptions of the impact analysis (p.131) are negated by the impacts of the project as revealed throughout the EIR. The premise of this analysis was based upon a hidden truth, so it is no wonder that a clear analysis and conclusions based upon the data is hard to find. The inevitable annexations that will occur if the factory is approved will make this small city into a constant source of anxiety and unstability for those on its periphery. Instead of this, I would like to see the Council and Planning Commission work with its neighbors and the County on planned development which will not displace agriculture and rural ways of life. Projects of appropriate scale in industrially zoned areas would certainly fill the need for economic development, especially if they were compatable with agriculture. I hope that you will not certify this still inadequate EIR and that you vote "NO" on the rezoning, General Plan Amendments, and pre - zoning for annexation. In this case, "NO" is a positive affirmation for a future we can look forward to. Projects such as this with so many negative impacts are not necessary when projects with positive impacts can be chosen if we just give them a chance. Thank you, Y� 1 l 4e lmer Bill Helmer Penner ®v2, Ca.