Loading...
1992/04/14 City Council MinutesRohnert Park City Council Minutes The Council of regular session 6750 Commerce Spiro presiding. the City of Rohnert Park met commencing at 6:00 p.m. in the Boulevard, Rohnert Park, April 14, 1992 this date in City Offices, with Mayor CALL TO ORDER Mayor Spiro called the regular session to order at approximately 7:50 p.m. and led the pledge of allegiance. Mayor Spiro advised that a closed session commenced this evening at 6:00 p.m. to discuss the mobile home rent control litigation matter and personnel matters. She said after reviewing the decision of the trial court in the rent control case of Sim vs. City of Rohnert Park, Council issued a press release for this Nbbile Home Rent Appeals Board matter, and read contents therein authorizing an appeal of same (copy attached to original set of these minutes). ROLL CALL Present: (5) Councilmembers Eck, Hollingsworth, Hopkins, Reilly, and Mayor Spiro Absent: (0) None Staff present for all or part of the meeting: City NNnager Netter, City Attorney Flitner, Assistant to the City Nbnager Leivo, Planning Director Skanchy, Director of Public Works /City Engineer Brust, and Director of Public Safety Dennett. Approval of Minutes Upon motion by Councilmember Hopkins, seconded by Councilmember Eck, with the exception of Mayor Spiro's absence during the Tobacco item, the minutes of March 24, 1992 were unanimously approved as submitted. Approval of Bills Upon motion by Councilmember Hopkins, seconded by Council- member Eck, the bills presented per the attached list in the amount of $1,224,619.78 were unanimously approved. Unscheduled Public Mayor Spiro stated that in compliance with State Law (The Appearances Brown Act), anyone in the audience who wished to make a comment may do so at this time. In most cases under legislation of the new Brown Act, the Council cannot handle an item without agendizing. To ensure accurate recording, "Speaker Cards" are provided at the entrance of the Chamber and unscheduled public appearances are requested to fill out the cards and present to recording clerk after speaking. Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (2) April 14, 1992 Jake Mackenzie Jake Mackenzie, 1536 Gladstone Way, referenced item #4 under Transportation matters listed on tonight's agenda regarding the Two County Transit District and said as a member of the Transportation Coalition in agreement with Chairman Kortum, encouraged Council to support the resolution for consideration to allow public to vote on the formation of the referenced Two County Transit District. In closing, Mr. Mackenzie asked Council to also consider the possibility of regional government not being in conflict of that. George Horwedel George Horwedel, 7669 Camino Colegio, reported on the recent two town meetings in M Section. Councilmembers were invited to attend, as well as Armando Flores. Both meetings went well with about twenty people at the Tuesday meeting and about thirty at the Thursday meeting. Mayor Spiro and Councilmen Eck participated in the Thursday meeting which provided an opportunity for the public to be informed of both sides of the issues and alleviate possible misunderstandings. Mr. Horwedel recommended consideration be given to neighborhood councils similar to Simi Valley as reviewed at the previous Council meeting that would allow public to review facts before decisions are made. He said it was understood that there would be six neighborhood meetings for the General Plan and will be very helpful toward public communications. Mr. Horwedel responded to Council inquiry that he was not aware of the scheduling conflict with the City /School Board meetinq prior to setting up the first Tuesday meeting in M Section. Benator Milton Nbrks - Mayor Spiro introduced Senator Milton Marks and explained he would be making comments later tonight during scheduled public appearances. Tom Anderson Tom Anderson, representing Friends of the Rohnert Park Symphony, reported on the status of fundraising mechanism for the symphony. He said he met recently with representative of Sonoma County Community Foundation regarding this matter, and it was basically established that their subgroup would be an advisory committee to the Sonoma County Community Foundation. A further description of the contract was submitted this afternoon that will be reviewed and refined by the legal department at the Sonoma County Community Foundation, and upon completion and acceptance, they will be able to start raising money for the symphony. Councilman Eck said this item would be covered later toniqht under City Manager's staff report, but wanted W. Anderson to share the information as well. He thanked Mr. Anderson and complimented the committee on putting this together on fairly short notice. Flo Gresty Flo Gresty, Broker, Century 21 Classic Properties, said she was here on behalf of brokers in the community. She referenced the provision of affordable home ownership loans through Northbay Ecumenical Housing and said this effort is Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (3) April 14, 1992 needed and very commendable, however, it does not seem appropriate to give this provision exclusively to one broker. She reviewed the procedure to use licensed brokers, who would go to a packager to submit the request, who in turn would submit it to the required department. Petaluma just finished a similar plan wherein all brokers were able to participate. Ms. Gresty listed several brokers in the neighborhood who agreed they would like the City to reconsider this arrangement and include the other brokers for use of the referenced funds. Mayor Spiro said this Community Development Agency item would be moved up on tonight's agenda to be reviewed earlier than scheduled in order to respond to concerns expressed by Ms. Gresty. C O N S E N T C A L E N D A R Mayor Spiro queried if anyone had any questions regarding the matters on the Consent Calendar which were explained in the City Manager's Council Meeting Memo. City Manager Netter said Resolution No. 92 -67 should be removed from the Consent Calendar for further explanation. Council agreed. Acknowledging the City Imager /Clerk's report on the posting of the agenda. Resolution No.92 -62 RESOLUTION DECLARING WEEDS GROWING UPON OR IN FRONT OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE, DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO POST NOTICE THEREOF, AND DETERNIINING HEARING DATES AS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 8.08 OF THE ROHNERT PARK MUNICIPAL CODE Resolution No.92 -63 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK ACCEPTING GRANT DEED FROM STATE FARM K=AL AUTO INSURANCE CO. (for right -of -way on Seed Farm Drive) Resolution No.92 -64 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK OPPOSING THE REQUIREMENT THAT LOCAL AGENCIES PERFORM THE POLICING DUTIES OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Resolution No.92 -65 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK AUTHORIZING THE SALE OR DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN SURPLUS EQUIPNENT AND VEHICLES Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (4) April 14, 1992 Resolution No.92 -66 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK EXTENDING THE BID OPENINGS FOR MISCELLANEOUS FURNISHINGS FOR THE NEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING Approval of Parcel Map No. 145 for a public utility easement and road right of way dedication on Laguna Drive on a 30.97 acre parcel located in the vicinity of the Price Club and Food 4 Less Approval of final map for University Meadow, a 77 lot development located on Roman Drive and E. Cotati Avenue adjacent to Sonoma State University Upon motion by Coun.cilmember Hollingsworth, seconded by Councilmember Hopkins, with the exception of Resolution No. 92 -67, the Consent Calendar as outlined on the meeting's agenda was unanimously approved. Resolution No.92 -67 RESOLUTION CALLING FOR SEALED PROPOSALS FOR A VETERINARIAN TO PROVIDE SPAYING AND NEUTERING SERVICES FOR THE LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLD ASSISTANCE PROGRAM City Manager Netter said the City had received a couple phone calls from veterinarians in the area inquiring about the bid procedures for this spay /neutering program. W. Netter said proposals can be submitted as long as specified criteria is met. There was a disparity in cost to the City and, therefore, it was considered prudent to go out for bids regarding this matter. Upon motion by Councilman Hollingsworth, seconded key Councilman Hopkins, and unanimously approved, Resolution No. 92 -67 was adopted. Delane Patton Mayor Spiro congratulated Retired Department of Public Safety Presentation Lieutenant Delane Patton on his retirement and read contents of resolution commending him on his thirty ye arns of sew ✓ice with the City, as reviewed in the Council Meeting Memo. She presented the resolution and a small gift to Mr. Patton in token of the City's appreciation for his many years of service. Director of Public Safety Dennett shared comments regarding his working relationship with Lt. Patton over the past thirty years, both as a friend and a supervisor. He said it was a pleasure to work with him and, no matter what the assignment, Del never complained but always gave the same kind of response, which was simply to say "check ". Chief Dennett expressed appreciation to W. Patton on behalf of all his co- workers, members of the department, and himself. Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (5) April 14, 1992 Ordinance No. 556 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK A 4n\IDING CHAPTER 2.60 OF THE ROHNERT PARK MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE FOR CURRENT REGULATION AND STANDARDS GOVERNING CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA POLITICAL REFORM ACT City Manager Netter explained the ordinance as reviewed in the Council Meeting Memo. This ordinance was introduced at the Council meeting of March 24th, 1992. Upon motion by Councilman Hollingsworth, seconded by Councilman Eck, and unanimously approved, reading of Ordinance No. 556 was waived and said ordinance was adopted. Ordinance No. 557 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK AMQMING TITLE 10 VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC OF THE ROHNERT PARK MUNICIPAL CODE ADOPTING TRIP REDUCTION AND TRAVEL DEMAND REQUIREMENTS City Manager Netter explained the ordinance as reviewed in the Council Meeting Memo pointing out the two revisions as specified by Council at its previous meeting when this ordinance was introduced which were 1) 100% TRIP survey response rate as the desired goal, and 2) sunset clause rendering this ordinance null and void if the cost to administer same exceeds the cost of 2105 funds received. Upon motion by Councilman Hollingsworth, seconded by Councilman Reilly, and unanimously approved, reading of Ordinance No. 557 was waived and said ordinance was adopted. Scheduled Public Appearances: 1) Barber Shop Quartet - Lew Kuehm, 1406 Gregory Court, introduced representatives of the local chapter of the Barber Shop Quartet, specifically President Ralph Peters and Paul Lowe. President Ralph Peters expressed appreciation to appear before Council. He referenced copies provided to Council of material to introduce the Rohnert Park Chapter of the Society for the Preservation and Encouragement of Barber Shop Quartet Singing in America (S.P.E.B.S.Q.S.A.) and shared contents therein reviewing history, singing activities, and goals. The goal of the local Chapter is not only to provide wholesome entertainment for the conrunity, but to act as a musical ambassador for the City to be available and participate in all conywnity activities. They desire to become more involved and accepted into the City and cony=ity. Paul Lown distributed booklets to Council regarding the Far Western District's Nor -Cal West Preliminary Chorus and Quartet Convention to be held in Yountville, California on April 11, 1992. The Barber Shop Quartet and Choir each shared a song for the enjoyment of everyone present at tonight's Council meeting. Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (6) April 14, 1992 2) Senator Milton Marks - Senator Milton Marks expressed appreciation for this opportunity to introduce himself to Council. He said he could appreciate the Council's role and line of duty as he was a Senator of Local Government for fifteen years and, therefore, knows they face many issues. Senator Marks introduced his Administrative Assistant, Liz Daugherty, and said they look forward to working for this community in Sacramento and appreciates the opportunity to serve in Sacramento. 3) Jonnie Tolman. City Manager Netter explained that Ms. Jonnie Tolman notified the City earlier today that neither she, nor John Mazurek, would be able to attend tonight's Council meeting to express their concerns regarding the extension of Seed Farm Drive and would, therefore, re- schedule this item on a future agenda. Discussion followed during which City Manager Netter responded to Council inquiry that the referenced project is part of the City's transportation plan and that these concerns have been passed on to the Director of Public Works Brust. He said there is no funding now for this project because of budget constraints, but when funds are available, it will be an issue and Council may want to discuss the matter and review the concerns expressed. Boys and Girls Club Jan White, 164 Allan Avenue, referenced pamphlet provided to Council regarding Boys & Girls Clubs of America and reviewed her background that began with taking a public relations class at SSU and has led to spearheading efforts to bring a Boys and Girls Club to Rohnert Park. She has discussed this with both Mayor Spiro and Corm-unity Resource Specialist Vander Vennet, has an eleven board membership, and Terri King as Counsel working on obtaining 501(c)3 status. She reviewed possible temporary site locations, such as the old Crown Market building or the Public Safety building on Southwest Blvd. when it is vacated this summer, that have been considered until funds are available for a permanent location. Discussion followed during which Ms. White responded to various Council questions regarding anticipated programs which would be drop -in /after school types of pro(,m&mG from 2 :30 to 6:30 p.m., or 9:00 p.m., depending upon the needs of the community; and confirmation that fire trucks left at the Public Safety building would not be a problem and that the site would still be preferable because of the close proximity to schools, especially as a temporary location for two or three years until full services are developed. City Manger Netter said staff is looking at other options and these are simply initial discussions, since consideration is also being given to the Ambulance Company for use of the Public Safety building when vacated, however, use for the proposed Boys and Girls Club is one of the options. Jan White confirmed she would bring the video regarding this item to the City Manager's office to be available for Council's review. Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (7) April 14, 1992 Potbellied Pigs City Manager Netter referenced copies provided to Council of Planning Staff Report regarding potbellied pigs and shared contents as reviewed in the Council Meeting Memo. The Planning Commission adopted P.C.Resolution No. 92 -4 at its meeting of March 26th, 1992 recommending the City Council not amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow for potbellied pigs in residentially zoned areas. Mr. Netter said staff has received information from other areas that these pigs are starting to be turned in to shelters. He said staff continues to recommend against allowing potbellied pigs on residentially zoned property for reasons as outlined in staff reports previously provided to Council. If Council desires to override the Planning Commission's recommendation, it would be necessary to re- introduce Ordinance No. 554 with amendment to include approval by a use permit procedure and outlined conditions. Mayor Spiro said this item had been reviewed previously by Council including input from public hearing, and asked if anyone in the audience had further comments they would like to make at this time. No one responded. Discussion followed during which concern was expressed regarding proposal of $200 use permit fee and consideration to waive the fee, if the ordinance were adopted. A motion was made by Councilman Hollingsworth that Council stand with the Planning Commission recommendation to deny potbellied pigs in residential areas, and not re- introduce the referenced ordinance regarding same. Said motion died for lack of a second. Further discussion followed during which concerns were expressed regarding proposal of a one year trial period, because of attachment to pets, with confirmation that the potbelly pet owners were willing to work with that condition; comparisons were made to the possibility of residents wanting other exotic pets, like pygmy goats, and that approval may open the opportunity for other non - traditional animals as pets. Ordinance No. 554 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK PROVIDING FOR THE KEEPING OF POT- BELLIED PIGS IN THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK Upon motion by Councilman Reilly, seconded by Councilman Eck, with inclusion by use permit with conditions for one (1) year trial period, reading of Ordinance No. 554 was waived and said ordinance was re- introduced by the following vote: AYES: (3) Councilmen Eck, Reilly, and Mayor Spiro NOES: (2) Councilmen Hollingsworth and Hopkins ABSENT: (0) None Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (8) April 14, 1992 RECESS Mayor Spiro declared a recess at approximately 7:40 p.m. in order to proceed with the Community Development Agency meting scheduled at the close of tonight's Council meeting in order to accommodate those in the audience who expressed concerns regarding the Northbay Ecumenical Housing (NEH) item. RECONVENE Mayor Spiro reconvened the Council meting at approximately 8:18 P.M. with all Councilmmbers present following the above referenced CDA meeting. She then declared an additional recess at this tim , and reconvened the Council meting at approximately 8:27 p.m. with all Councilmembers present. Resolution No.92 -68 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK AGREEING TO RESOLVE CERTAIN POTENTIAL CLAIMS RELATING TO PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATION FEES AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION FEES City Manager Netter explained the resolution as reviewed in the Council Meeting Memo regarding the Local Agency Grant Program which will enable the County to distribute credit due the City in the amount of approximately $20,000 once the City has executed the provided release resolution and has paid all of its fiscal year 1990 -91 property tax administration fees and jail booking fees. Mr. Netter said repeal of SB2557 is still pending, but would not be retroactive, therefore, staff recommends approval of tonight's resolution. Upon motion by Councilman Hollingsworth, seconded by Councilman Hopkins, and unanimously approved, reading of Resolution No. 92 -68 was waived and said resolution was adopted. Mayor Spiro leaves Mayor Spiro left the Council Chamber at approximately 8:29 p.m. due to a conflict of interest regarding the following tobacco agenda item, with Vice Mayor Hollingsworth presiding. Tobacco matters: City Manager Netter referenced Ordinance No. 555 wi-!ich rey relates the sale and distribution of tobacco products to protect the health of minors and was introduced at the previous Council meeting. He referenced comments in the Council Meeting N&-mo recommending tabling this matter because of enforcement issues and said copies of City Attorney memorandum with attachments dated April 13, 1992 addressing this matter were also provided to Council. City Attorney Flitner shared contents of his above - referenced memorandum questioning the constitutionality of the tobacco ordinance, duplication of Penal Code Section 308, and that his opinion has not changed since his previous response provided to former City Manager Callinan in 1990, as attached to his memo. Mr. Flitner requested Council to table this item for sixty (60) days in order to enable time for a more extensive review of the matter. Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (9) April 14, 1992 Public Hearing Vice Mayor Hollingsworth opened the public hearing at approximately 8:29 p.m. Food 4 Less Letter dated April 7, 1992 from Food 4 Less supporting the STAMP efforts to eliminate the possibility of minors to purchase cigarettes (copy attached to original set of these minutes). Frank Ivbffett - Frank Moffett, President of Northern California Grocers Association consisting of members of major supermarkets, convenient stores, proverbial "Mom and Pop" stores, etc. He said somehow they missed the first public hearing notice regarding this matter and apologized for not presenting comments at that time. The Northern California Grocers Association throughout the cities and the state do support not selling tobacco to minors. There is already a State law regarding this issue covered in Penal Code Section 308. The Grocers Association provides material, free of charge, for posting "it's the law" signs beside each register and tobacco display areas, I.D.'s are checked, one member who will speak later tonight regarding this item has been given a letter of conflation for their performance in checking I.D.'s and preventing sales to minors. Mr. Moffett said there should be larger penalties on those who purchase for minors, reviewed additional monitoring procedures by grocers, and that they want to do what is right. He asked Council not to place a hardship on these merchants that are already complying with the law. Independents need to have the flexibility to merchandise in different ways. He expressed the concern regarding cigarette eliminations that could lead to restricting other items such as snack foods and gave the example of traces of arsenic in cling peaches. The Grocers Association opposes the requirement of placing all single pack cigarettes behind clerk counters as this is not feasible with the new designs in some places and the cost to comply would be prohibitive in many cases. It is believed that when young people obtain cigarettes, they are getting somebody else to purchase for them. There is imich training involved for clerks and employees are required to sign a document stating they know it is against the law to sell such products to minors. The Grocers Association asks that the City not penalize everyone for the actions of a few. There is the State Law forbidding tobacco sales to minors, we do abide by it, and there is no need for duplication. Mr. Nbffett responded to various Council questions regarding pilferage which is done by people of all ages and backgrounds and that single pack cigarettes are a very minor theft in supermarkets. He responded to Council comment regarding cigarettes violation of the Food and Drug Act and are the second leading cause of death in the U. S., that under Proposition 65 a few years ago, regarding the Clean Water Act, the legislation did everything but clean up the water. The reference to arsenic in peaches was only used as an example of information received that lists a multitude of products that may cause cancer. Bill Jonas Bill Jonas, President and major owner of Roger Wilco Nlarket on Country Club Drive, shared comments objecting to prohibition of self - service tobacco products. He expressed agreement with the intent of the ordinance, but said it contains things regarding single pack cigarettes that would change the way grocers do business. Twenty -five Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (10) April 14, 1992 years ago, every Councilmember's place would have had an ash tray before them. There are no longer ash trays in the chamber and an good example is being set not to smoke. Young people are now learning about the hazards of smoking which is having a major effect. our market has been working with Mr. Kropp representing North Bay Health Resources Center toward efforts to keep smoking down. However, smoking is still a legal activity and we are involved with selling cigarettes. For 41 years we have been following the law set by the State and not selling to minors and have been fulfilling this responsibility. Efforts in our store have included putting up signs around tobacco products, distribution of STAMP brochures, and clerks are required to read and sign acknowledgments. "Sting" operations on our store have resulted in 100% no violation. The law is clear regarding no tobacco sales to minors. The way this ordinance is written basically means the end of selling single packs because, with so many brands and sizes now as compared to former days, it would be impossible to handle under the counter. Many of the large discount stores have solved this problem by eliminating the sale of single packs but, even because of this kind of competition, the smaller businesses are depending more and more on providing convenience shopping. We would have to redesign the whole front of our store to meet the requirement of single pack sales as stipulated in the ordinance. In summary, the laws regarding tobacco sales to minors are very clear and there is no need for further legislation. Nevertheless, if the City desires to pass an ordinance regarding this matter, it should only reflect the State law requirements. There are a lot of smokers in Rohnert Park who are also part of the community and deserve recognition and consideration. If this ordinance is passed, the convenience stores will lose a lot of business if they tell the people they have to buy cartons, because of the store's inability to meet stipulations to sell single packs. Council's reconsideration of this ordinance is strongly urged with request not to adopt it. Jack Hammond Jack Hammond, 6183 San Gabriel Place, said he is the owner of five retail stores and representative of the Sonoma County Board of Retailers. Pilferage of cigarettes is very low and, in comparison, cartons are actually higher than single packs. It is important to know there is a change in our society with respect to the hazards of smoking, but retailers on the Board are very concerned about the intent of this ordinance. A person who can vote and go to war should have the right to purchase tobacco. We do agree with not selling to minors and have letters of commendation that we are very tough on checking I.D.'s and have never been caught as an offender of sales to minors on either alcohol or tobacco. The State already has laws against selling such products to minors. The City's reasoning is understandable in wanting to get rid of vending machines, however, pilferage of single pack cigarettes is not a large item. Larry Katen Larry Katen, Manager of Roger Wilco Market, said they were not against regulating tobacco sales to minors, but to implement racks for single packs of cigarettes presents an implementation nightmare. Regarding recent student undercover survey, Mr. Katen said he was pleased to report that Roger Wilco employees refused to sell to under age buyers. Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (11) April 14, 1992 Rick Kropp Rick Kropp, Executive Director of North Bay Resources Center for STAMP addressed above issues raised by merchants. He said the merchants represented here tonight were exemplary, commended them on their efforts, and said his STAMP staff has reported their supportiveness. The merchants here tonight are very responsible and, if all were like these, there would be no need for an ordinance. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The revised ordinance only deals with specifications for single packs of cigarettes and exempts cartons. The rationale behind this is that, if a minor has to ask the clerk for cigarettes, there is a better chance of identifying the minor, as well as help prevent shop lifting. Tobacco display racks are usually located beside candy racks at the eye level of children which entices the young people to want to buy the products. W. Kropp reviewed various areas, including Sebastopol, that have eliminated self- service sales with no problems or complaints about altering tobacco sales. There have been fifteen cities in Minnesota that have passed similar ordinances. W. Kropp said he talked with the Director of Minnesota Grocers Association who reported there has been no problem with putting cigarettes behind the counters. There was originally a small amount of complaining, but these cities now have complete compliance. A two year study in St. Paul, Minnesota found cigarette pilferage down to zero. These are the reasons the Rohnert Park Steering Comnittee recommended this ordinance because it has been proven to be effective. There has been laws on the books for 102 years regarding child labor laws that are not enforced. Mr. Kropp reviewed low percentages of those complying with laws even though posted. Mr. Kropp responded to comments made regarding I.D.'s, and said only an average of 3% actually check I.D.'s. Contrary to previous comments made tonight, studies have shown that nearly 75% of all minors buy their own cigarettes, which is another reason for asking the City to consider this ordinance. In response to the recommendation to table this item, efforts were made toward the more voluntary approach between July 1990 and August 1991. We conducted a voluntary program and spent $25,000 trying to educate the merchants toward at least a 44% reduction of tobacco sales to minors. The late Ken Butler tried twice to get sponsors for the voluntary approach and not one merchant was interested in sponsoring the voluntary program. It was only after these attempts that the Steering Committee recommended the ordinance, therefore we ask that this item not be tabled. Mr. Kropp continued that one of the things they have committed to do is to take some of the administrative burden off the City by providing literature and learning guides to help merchants understand what they have to do. They will have signs printed up and provided to all merchants and will continue to do compliance checks and simply report to the Director of Public Safety. There will be some City staff time involved, but after several months, similar to what has worked in other cities, Rohnert Park will be in compliance with requirements in the smoking ordinance. If parking violations can be enforced, then certainly this ordinance should be passed and enforced to protect the health of the City's youngest members. Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (12) April 14, 1992 Vice Mayor Hollingsworth closed the public hearing at approximately 9:15 P.M. Councilman Reilly said if the ordinance can save one child from smoking in Rohnert Park and provides even one opportunity to save a person from going through cancer, it would be worth it. A motion was made by Councilman Reilly to adopt the tobacco ordinance regulating sales to minors with the exception that merchants be allowed 60 days to be in compliance regarding self - service tobacco products instead of 30 days. A second was made by Councilman Eck to enable Council to proceed with discussion. Discussion followed during which it was concluded that the City Attorney should be given the time to research this matter further to address his concerns as outlined in the provided memorandum. City Attorney Flitner responded to Council inquiry that 60 days may not be required to review this item as previously requested, as he could probably do it in less time, but there were concerns he had regarding designs of some and whether or not property rights are violated. Councilman Eck withdrew his second to the above motion by Councilman. Reilly. Said motion died for lack of a second. Discussion followed during which Councilman Eck recommended that a copy of the Food 4 Less letter supporting this ordinance be provided to all the merchants. Councilman Hopkins responded that Food 4 Less does not sell single packs of cigarettes and would not be affected by the concerns expressed tonight and said every time attempts are made to regulate something, it costs money. A record of the costs of doing this regulation should be kept in order to review them in two or three years. He referred to a previous report from the City Engineer regarding the cost of off ramps and said needed roads are not being built because of spending so much on meeting regulations. W. Hopkins said there has to be a better way of doing it. Councilman. Eck said the intent of the tobacco ordinance is good and he still intended to consider it following advice of City Attorney. Further discussion followed. A motion was made by Councilman Eck, seconded by Councilman Hollingsworth, to continue the public hearing for the Tobacco Ordinance No. 555 thirty (30) days (to Council meeting of May 12th) to allow time for City Attorney review, and failed by the following vote: AYES: (2) Councilmen Eck and Hollingsworth NOES: (2) Councilmen Hopkins and Reilly ABSENT: (1) Mayor Spiro Vice Mayor Hollingsworth said since the motion to continue this item failed, the referenced tobacco ordinance also dies for lack of sufficient vote, whereby Councilman Reilly said he would like to change his vote under the circumstances, as it would be better to put Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (13) April 14, 1992 the matter off for thirty days, than not give further consider to the ordinance. Said motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: (3) Councilmen Eck, Hollingsworth, and Reilly NOES: (1) Councilman Hopkins ABSENT: (1) Mayor Spiro Mayor Spiro Mayor Spiro returned to the Council Chamber at approximately 9:18 p.m. returns to preside over the remainder of the meeting. General Plan 1) Committee Report - Barbara Mackenzie, Chairperson for the General Update Plan Committee, distributed copies to Council and shared contents therein of report on the Town Feting of March 21, 1992 (copy attached to original set of these minutes) that concluded in the decision to conduct a full -scale public survey and hold at least six neighborhood meetings. She responded to Council inquiry that efforts are being made by the Committee to concentrate on focused goals and objectives. Dawna Gallagher - Dawna Gallagher, 7342 Rasemsen Way, referenced flyer printed by the Sonoma County Department of Planning entitled "Williamson Act" (copy attached to original set of these minutes) and directed question to City Attorney Flitner regarding the City's proposed annexation. She said she was interested in preventing future lawsuits and asked for an explanation regarding the Williamson Act provision that would prevent building until 1998 and could only be broken for specific purposes. Ms. Gallagher asked how is the City going to adhere to the referenced ten year clause. She responded to Council inquiry that her information was not as a result of conversation with Steve Sharpe, the interim Assistant Executive of LAFCO, but from personal experience with the Williamson Act, public records available to anyone from County records, conversation at length with Ernie Carpenter and further independent research and calls, and conversation yesterday, April 13th, with Phil Trowbridge. City Attorney Flitner said he would have to review the particular case referenced by Ms. Gallagher, but there are other circumstances to consider, such as, if the City protests when the district is formed, otherwise consideration could be by repayment of penalty contract if there is a penalty involved. He said he would take a look at the referenced Sierra Club Case. Councilman Eck said this has come up at the meetings he has attended and from what he has checked out, apparently, you can get out, if you are willing to pay the penalty. 2) Role of staff in update process (Reilly) - Councilman. Reilly said he had been asked about the staff's role in the update process of the General Plan and had passed the question on to staff to review at this time. Councilman Hollingsworth responded to the question that the basic objective of staff working with the General Plan Citizens Committee is to act as a facilitatator to make sure the goals and objectives of the City Council regarding the General Plan are met. Councilman. Eck said this would be to implement policy of three votes of the Council. Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (14) April 14, 1992 3) Role of Council in update process (Spiro) - Mayor Spiro said she requested this item to be placed on the agenda as a result of citizen questions raised at the recent Town Meeting. She said Council certainly does not want anyone to feel intimidated, but Council's role at such meetings would be to clarify explanations in the event that staff is unable to respond or answer certain items. Vice Mayor Hollingsworth said he had been appointed liaison to this Committee and pointed out that this does not mean it is necessary for him to attend the Committee meetings like the ones George Horwedel recently had at his house and invited Councilmembers to attend. If there is a problem that the Committee needs to address Council, then the liaison should be called and invited to respond to the issue, but at this point, the Committee should not be disturbed by his attendance at their meetings. 4) Simi Valley Neighborhood Councils concept (Reilly) - Councilman. Reilly referenced copies provided to Council of Simi Valley By -laws and Ordinance regarding the establishment of Neighborhood Councils and said he thought the concept should be reviewed more fully regarding how Simi Valley runs its Neighborhood Councils, how these are set up, etc. Discussion follov&-d. A motion was made by Councilman Reilly, seconded by Councilman Eck, and unanimously approved, directing staff to further investigate Simi Valley Neighborhood Councils concept. 'televised Council Councilman Reilly said he requested this item to be placed on Meetings for the agenda regarding televised City Council meetings to give hearing impaired consideration to the possibility of taping the meetings for hearing impaired at low or no cost. Discussion followed during which similar example of voluntary sign language procedure for hearing impaired in church services was given; question was asked if the sign language could be taped in later before the meeting goes on the air, or could the meetings be taped live with sign language interpreter and aired earlier; and comments were made that the airing time of the Council meetings could be better compared with news broadcasts if the meetings could be viewed at 6:00 p.m. prime time the next night after a regular Council meeting rather than the current mid - afternoon time. Assistant to the City Manager Leivo responded that there are certain funds available provided in the fees of the Cable TV contract but the City has held off on committing to additional expenditures because of not wanting to use up the funds in the event that other unanticipated needs arise. MultiVision can air the meetings live by bringing their trucks here, but our equipment would have to have two -way capability and there would be a cost. Staff was directed to check out the possibility of using volunteer Sign language interpreters at City Council meetings and options for live telecast. Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (15) April 14, 1992 LAFCO matters: 1) Response to LAFCO draft policy working paper of 2/24/92 - City Manager Netter shared contents of the above - referenced LAFCO material as reviewed in the Council Meeting Memo regarding consensus at recent City Managers' meeting indicating duplication of efforts, as addressed in letter from City of Petaluma dated March 30, 1992. Staff recommends that a similar letter be submitted to LAFCO indicating the cities' comments relative to its proposed draft policies. A motion was made by Councilman Eck, seconded by Councilman Hollingsworth, and unanimously approved, directing that a letter of response be written to LAFCO in agreement with the referenced City of Petaluma letter regarding duplication of efforts. 2) LAFCO organization and staffing - Councilman Hopkins said LAFCO Commission would like to reorganize and is reviewing the possibility of hiring a director, rather than continue with County Administrator, because one of the complications of the way LAFCO is staffed now is that the Executive Officer does not come to meetings and reports are made to the County Administrative Office. City Manager Netter shared comments as reviewed in the Council Meeting Memo of copies provided to Council of letter dated March 23, 1992 from Office of County Administrator regarding LAFCO organization and staffing with attached letter dated April 1, 1992 from City of Petaluma responding to this matter taking the position that additional information is needed and LAFCO should initiate a study committee composed of LAFCO commissioners, a representative from the County Administrator's Office, and representatives from the cities and special districts. Staff recommends following Petaluma's suggestion and supports the formation of this committee to determine the best option for LAFCO's structure and organization. Discussion followed. A motion was made by Councilman Hollingsworth, seconded by Councilman Reilly, and unanimously approved, directing a letter be written to LAFCO regarding its structure and organization as recommended by staff. Resolution A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK No. 92-69 REQUESTING ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS (ABAG) TO EX= PERIOD TO REVIEW POPULATION PROJECTIONS City Manager Netter explained the resolution as reviewed in the Council Meeting Memo. Discussion followed during which City Manager Netter responded to various Council questions confirming that TDA and gas funds are generated by use of population figures certified by the Department of Finance. Upon motion by Councilman Eck, seconded by Councilman Reilly, and unanimously approved, reading of Resolution No. 92 -69 was waived, and said resolution was adopted. Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (16) April 14, 1992 P.G. & E. City Manager Netter said he would like to introduce P. G. & E. Franchise representative Sil Cincera for a presentation at this time, rather Checks than wait until later in the meeting as planned, because of the lateness of the hour. Sil Cincera, representative for P. G. & E., said this would be the last year it would be his pleasure to present franchise checks to the City because of his retirement this year. He introduced David LaFever who would be his replacement. W. Cincera presented franchise checks to the Mayor for the City in the amounts of $51,000 for gas and $180,000 for electric facilities. He explained that the outages experienced during the past couple of weeks were because P. G. & E. is in the process of upgrading its facility. Transportation matters: 1) Federal Transportation Funds - ISTEA Program CSAC & League of California Cities position - City Manager Netter shared comments pertaining to this item as reviewed in the Council Meeting Memo referencing copies provided to Council of letter dated March 25, 1992 from California State Association of Counties (CSAC). The League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties solicits the City's support in amending SB1435 to allow for direct pass through of federal transportation revenues to cities and counties as has previously been the policy. A motion was made by Councilman Hollingsworth, seconded by Councilman Eck, and unanimously approved, to respond as requested and support the above - reviewed amendment of SB1435. 2) FAU /FAS 1991 -92 Funds /Proposed projects - City Manager Netter referenced copies provided to Council of staff's recommended projects for the FAU /FAS 1991 -92 funds available to the City (copy attached to original set of these minutes) and shared contents as reviewed in the Council Meeting Nbmo. He said this is the final year the City will receive these funds because of the flexibility of the aforementioned ISTEA program. Staff requests Council's approval of these projects by priority as listed so the claim can be filed for these funds. A motion was made by Councilman Hollingsworth, seconded by Councilman Eck, FAU /FAS 1991 -92 Funds for projects as recommtinded by staff w --re unanimously approved. 3) SCTA Preliminary Budget - Director of Public Works /City Engineer Brust referenced copies provided to Council of Sonoma County Transportation Authority preliminary budget for its review, discussion and input. Mr. Brust said that he and Councilman Eck attended the last SCTA meeting regarding this matter, that this is a very preliminary budget to provide an opportunity for the referenced input, and that before the budget is final, it will submitted again for a final review. Mr. Brust said the Executive Director currently handles all the workload herself with no other staff assistance and is finding her time extremely consumed and is needing help. Councilman. Brust recommended that Council look closely at the suggested increases. Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (17) April 14, 1992 4 ) Two County Transit District - Councilman Eck referenced item VII in the April 6, 1992 meeting agenda items provided to Council for review presenting several alternatives presented to the SCTA meeting regarding the Two County Transit District proposal. This proposal is not intended for the June ballot, but as a November Ballot Measure. It sounds like a good idea and if the thirty -five representatives that now agree stay in office, a plan should be put together. In conversa- tion with Bill Kortum, if these members do not stay in office, whatever planning committee is then put in place, would not have any kind of vested interest in keeping the interest alive. North Bay Regional Agency: 1) Symposium on creation of North Counties Regional Agency and resigning from ABAG - City Manager Netter referenced copies provided to Council of letter dated April 2, 1992 regarding this matter and shared comments as reviewed in the Council Feting Memo, which was discussed at the last Mayors and Councilmembers' Executive Board Nbeting held on April 9, 1992. Discussion followed during which Councilman Eck said he attended the meeting and thinks the plan has been toned down. He acknowledged comments regarding the timing of Redwood Empire meeting and said it would be subject to holding this workshop first, confirmed a very long and emotional discussion in regard to creating another agency, but comments were it would take a legislative act, and said the workshop should be an open forum. 2) Creating North Counties Transportation agency to administer transportation funds /removal from MTC - City Manager Netter said there has been some very preliminary discussion by local Directors of Public Works throughout the County regarding the break away from MTC. He said that MTC is becoming the controlling agency for more of Sonoma County's Federal and State transportation funds, and it is very difficult for the small, rural counties such as Sonoma County to compete with the large urban counties for state and federal funding. City Engineer Brust reviewed the complexity of various details regarding this situation giving the example of TDA funds for Counties under 500,000 population in that the funds can legally be spent on streets and roads, and that MTC has changed its local game plan this year, therefore, the City will be applying for streets and roads funds. Next year whatever we have left will go into transit. Secondly, new ISTEA money is coming in to replace the old FAU system. Mr. Brust reviewed details of the financial picture concerning $16 million over a three year period of which MTC will now control. Projects have to be submitted in order to compete for that money. It appears we will not be able to compete against large counties, which is the reason for efforts toward the creation of a North Bay Transportation Group. Sonoma County makes up 6.1 % of population in Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (18) April 14, 1992 the Bay area and has normally received .5% of the funds. We are a large donor county and pay on a 6% basis, but receive only .5% back. MTC is not providing smaller counties with proportionate funding. A motion was made by Councilman Eck, seconded by Councilman Hollingsworth, and unanimously approved, directing a letter be written to MTC and our legislators asking how the City should proceed to withdraw from MTC ande include the above reviewed donor numbers. ConTmmity City Manager Netter referenced Comranity Separators Committee meeting Separators of March 5, 1992 wherein a proposed resolution was presented by Healdsburg Councilman Ben Collins encouraging the County of Sonoma to designate areas and establish policies to protect open space and community separators. Copies of similar resolution for consideration were provided to Council for its review of which contents were reviewed in the Council Meeting Memo. City Manager Netter recommended that Council not adopt this resolution until the community separator lands to the west of the City have been re- evaluated. Discussion followed during which Councilman Hopkins said LAFCO staff has been directed to review this item more thoroughly as there are a lot of questions that have to be addressed and will be on the next LAFCO agenda on May 7th. There should be a LAFCO staff report by the end of this month so this matter could be reviewed at a later date. Council agreed. Extend Meeting - A motion was made by Councilman Hollingsworth, seconded by Councilman Eck, to continue the meeting after the scheduled 10:00 p.m. adjournment time to 10:30 p.m. in order to complete the remaining agenda items, and approved by the following vote: AXES: (4) Councilmen Eck, Hollingsworth, Reilly and Mayor Spiro NOES: (1) Councilman Hopkins ABSENT: (0) None Economic City Manager Netter distributed copies to Council an item regarding Development the status of Economic Development Corporation for its review and said Corporation this matter would be deferred to the next Council meeting. Kathleen City Manager Netter referenced copies provided to Council as reviewed Burnham in the Council Meeting Nbmo of letter dated March 24, 1992 from U. S. Complaint Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regarding "Determination of No Reasonable Cause" pertaining to Kathleen Burnham's complaint alleging discrimination against her on the basis of handicap (environmental illness) and said that HUD has denied her claim. Communications: Commin.ications per the attached outlines for both the previous Council meeting and this meeting were brought to the attention of the City Council. No action was taken unless specifically noted in these minutes. Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (19) April 14, 1992 City Manager's Report: 1) Rohnert Park Symphony update - City Manager Netter said a meeting was held on April 9th, 1992, as reviewed in the Council Meeting Metes, with Council Comnittee NL-mber Eck, staff, Symphony representatives, Orchestra Members, Tom and Suzanne Anderson (the local citizens interested in establishing a "Friends of the Symphony ", and Kay Marquette of the Sonoma County Comnmity Foundation. He said the prospects are looking good toward working out the various complications, and both sides are starting to work toward one goal and direction. Discussion followed. 2) Installation of cable television editing system - City Manager Netter referenced copies provided to Council, as reviewed in the Council Meeting Nemo, of letter dated March 17, 1992 from VultiVision regarding the cable television editing system and said the letter is self - explanatory. 3) Hazardous materials incident at Fireman's Fund - City Manager Netter referenced copies provided to Council of report from Department of Public Safety regarding a small Haz -Mat incident at Fireman's Fund as reviewed in the Council Meeting Memo. 4) A T & T vs. State Board of Equalization re. Utility Rolls - City Manager Netter referenced copies provided to Council of letter dated March 18, 1992 from County of Sonoma Auditor - Controller regarding the good news, as reviewed in the Council Meeting Memo, that the County is not going to recommend any impounds of Utility Property Taxes for the fiscal year 1991 -92 pertaining to A T & T ConTmmications vs State Board of Equalization and Related Utility Roll Cases. 5) Receipt of 100 camphor trees from Sister City, Hashimoto, Japan - City Manager Netter copies provided to Council of appreciation letter to Mayor Hanesaka for the referenced trees from Hashimoto City, Japan. He said about half of the trees are being placed in parks throughout the City and the other half are being offered to residents for front yards. 6) Rainbow Park - Council concurred to June 6th, 1992 at 10:00 a.m. for dedication ceremony date for Rainbow Park. 7) Spring Clean Up, April 23 - May 1, 1992, RP Stadium Parking Lot - City Manager Netter referenced copies provided to Council of letter dated April 13, 1992 from Rohnert Park Towing regarding its voluntary participation in the referenced Spring Clean Up. 8) Acknowledgment was made to the final item on the City Manager's report regarding Household Hazardous Waste Clean Up, May 3rd, 1992, Rohnert Park Stadium Parking Lot. Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (20) April 14, 1992 City Attorney's Report: 1) Mobile Home Rent Control matters - a) Sime vs. City of Rohnert Park - City Attorney Flitner said circumstantial judgment was entered in on 31st of March regarding this case and the matter is under way. We are in the last phase of it regarding argutTent for attorney fees with the possibility of being reduced by one - third. b) Yee case settlement - City Attorney Flitner said this case has also received a great deal of publicity. The decision of the U. S. Supreme Court was that rent control ordinances are constitutional. 2) SB 1019 - City Attorney Flitner said he has read SB 1019 several times and has also talked with Chris Lane regarding same. It has to do with the housing element to at least establish priorities for low cost housing. The reason the bill was enacted is that it seems special districts were not coordinated about sewer and paid utilities, so the legislation was adopted and this was taken into consideration when the housing element was formulated. The bill does not give specific details on how to address this provision, but the City Council should consider this in the Housing Element update. Matters from Council: 1) City Manager Netter referenced copies provided to Council of letter dated March 9, 1992 from Sonoma County Advocates for Youth Development Board Members James and Millie Plaisted regarding 24 hour Challenge Relay/ "Comnmi ty of Light" event, May 30 -31, 1992, and said a call has been received from the White House indicating that the First Lady, or representative, might be able to attend. 2 ) Sister Cities Commiittee trip to Hashimoto, Japan (Spiro) - Councilman Hollingsworth wished the Mayor and Sister Cities Committee well on the upcoming trip to Hashimoto City, Japan. Mayor Spiro requested approval of funds for T- shirts for each of the Hashimoto City for the occasion in the aliAunt of $387.00. Upon motion by Councilman Hollingsworth, seconded by Councilman Eck, funds for the T- shirts in the amount of $387.00, as requested by the Mayor, were unanimously approved. Upon motion by Councilman Hollingsworth, seconded by Councilman Reilly, authorizing the Mayor to select a $250 gift for this occasion, was unanimously approved. 3) T -Zones - Councilman Eck said he would like to push ahead regarding T- Zones(Mobile Home Parks) within the next thirty days, with intent of being able to draft an ordinance and hold the initial hearing sometime around June. Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (21) April 14, 1992 Unscheduled Public Mayor Spiro asked if anyone in the audience wished to make an Appearances appearance at this time. James M. Clark James M. Clark, 80 Walnut Circle, said now that the Yee case has been settled, could the ordinance patterned after Pacifica to strengthen mobile home tenancy (regarding relocations) be brought back again for further review on the next Council agenda. Adjourrmnent Mayor Spiro adjourned the meeting at approximately 10:30 p.m. De Cit lerk Mayor f� 1 v PROPOSED PRESS RELEASE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF ROHNERT PARK RE: RENT CONTROL Sine, et al., vs. City of Rohnert Park The City Council of the City of Rohnert Park after reviewing the decision of the trial court in the rent control case of Sime vs. City of Rohnert Park has issued the following press release: The City Council has authorized an appeal of the decision of the trial court indicating the Council's belief that there was reversible error by the court in holding that the City of Rohnert Park was legally responsible for a breach of contract when the citizens of the City of Rohnert Park passed an initiative ordinance providing for rent control. The initiative ordinance was allegedly contrary to an agreement entered into by the City and the park owners wherein the City agreed to refrain from initiating rent control in Rohnert Park for the period 1985 to 1955. The agreement between the City and park owners provided for a method of resolving rent issues within the parks without the necessity of the City i adopting a rent control ordinance. A provision in the agreement entered into by the City provided that the agreement would be automatically amended to include any changes in law affecting its provisions or rent controls. The City fee is strongly that the court committed error in 1 liability decision wherein it held that the the initia ursuant to initiative ordinance passed by its Citizens p to do so, was a breach by the City constitutional right The City clearly ark owners. of the agreement with the P e of the took no part, nor did it encourage the passag initiative invoking the rent control ordinance in Rohnert The City does not equate the initiative ordinance park. '� uteri to the City by its citizens as being conduct imp subjecting the City to liability for a breach of the agreement. the City council noted on the subject of damages, s in excess of owners sought damage that the park of $6,000,000.00, contending that they last this sum money as a result of the passage of the rent control e• The judge's decision and formula for damages ordinanc sited breach, for the entire ten year period of the disp in all probability be less than a total of will �s appeal be $2,000,000.00 damages should the City John D. Flitner, and The City attorney, unsuccessful. Demeo, were of the co -trial counsel for the City, John F. the appeal is whether opinion that threshold issue an the ,�ating the City Council or not the trial court erred in eq * of Rohnert Park with its citizens so as to and the City the passage of an .. hold the City responsible for initiative ordinance by the citizens which. allegedly initi the City Council Contravened a contract entered into by to refrain from adopting a rent control ordinance. The appeal could conceivably take up to five years and may ultimately be heard by the United states Supreme Court. The recent decision by the United States Supreme Court in the case of I—ee v. City of Escondido decided April 1, 1992, held that vacancy control pursuant to a rent control ordinance was not a taking subjecting the City to damages for a "physical taking" without just compensation. The holding denied park owners relief on this theory. This decision by the high court should dispose of other pending lawsuits for damages by the park owners against the City. tOOD JLEss. "Our Name Says It All" April 7, 1992 Aurtur Hollingsworth Vice Mayor Rohnert Park City Council 6750 Commerce Blvd. Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Dear Aurthur, ,k4!0V1VZ' 101 � nF yNE 199� RT Ulf o.. This letter is a show of support for the STAMP coalation and their efforts to eliminate the possibility of kids under 18 being able to purchase cigarettes. We felt, at its conception, that it was an organization with a good purpose and deserved our support. We have had people from our management team on the coalation almost from the beginning. Those of us who own and operate Food 4 Less stores in Northern California were looking for a way to comply with the law that was passed more than a year ago restricting access to cigarettes by minors. We were also very concerned about the shoplifting that takes place with cigarettes. We had a machine developed for us that accomplished both of those goals. Our carton dispensing machines are worked by computerized cards that customers must purchase from a checker. At the time of purchase those who look under 25 are asked for identification to verify that they are over 18 and are qualified to purchase cigarettes. Once identification has been made and the transaction is paid for, the customer goes to our Customer Service Desk to receive the computerized card to insert into the machine to receive their cigarettes. It is my understanding that the STAMP coalation has been instrumental in, and will continue to educate retailers about the law that exists in California in regards to selling tobacco products to minors. I know that there are some retailers out there who do not know if they have cigarette package vending machine that it must be situated in such a place Santa Rosa — Santa Maria — Rohnert Park Warehouse Markets Management Inc. 2055 Sebastopol Road, Santa Rosa, CA 95407 (707)578 -8900 • Fax(707)523 -2208 that minors cannot get to it to make purchases. By explaining to the merchant how the law works, it would be my hope that the coalition could help a lot of retailers stay out of potential problems. It is also my understanding if or when they have a merchant who, through their sting operation, sells tobacco products to minors they notify the merchant. This gives the merchant the opportunity to look inward and determine what procedural changes need to take place. Hopefully, by working with the merchants, it will take a lot of the burden out of the law and allow those merchants to enjoy sales that they so dearly need. I would also like to see the STAMP coalition come up with other ways that merchants could comply with the law. They may be a very good catalyst since they do work with and visit so many different types of retailers to pass on hints that other operators have used. This would, in my opinion, make all of us allies as opposed to us against them. Since ely X9 Mike Runyan Chairman /CEO Z -il 14, 1992 20 TO: MEMBERS OF ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL )M: GENERAL PLAN COMMITTEE 0ECT: TOWN MEETING your appointed representatives on the General Plan Committee, we re agreed that it is important to keep you apprised of our progress an ongoing basis. We have also agreed to regularly relay to you it we are hearing from the residents of Rohnert Park, rather than .t until August to present our final report. primary importance are: The results of the Town Meeting on March 21. Our decision to send a survey to all Rohnert Park addresses, rather in requiring residents to request being included in the survey. Our decision to hold at least six neighborhood meetings. jarding the town meeting, we think it is important to advise you of very strong message we received on the general plan update and B proposed annexation that has initiated this process. Although we not know if the 120 or so attendees of the Town Meeting expressed a Bwpoint representative of the populace as a whole, we do think it ild be a disservice to the residents who attended the meeting if we 3 not let you know how strongly the large majority of them opposed Ls annexation /general plan update. You have been given the comments those who spoke at the "open mike" session, as well as the written cults of the "break out" sessions. The messages are loud and clear, I almost exclusively consistent in their opposition. cause a big part of our job is to gather and consolidate public inion, we believe it is vital to solicit much more public input to termine exactly how Rohnert Park residents want to update their city's neral plan. Therefore, we have decided to conduct a full -scale public rvey and hold at least six neighborhood meetings. plan to share the results of these meetings with you at future council ssions. � I If you are the owner of agricultural land in Sonoma County, but are finding it difficult to remain in agriculture because of the pressure from high taxes, you have the opportunity to relieve this tax burden while you continue farming your land. The California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act) allows counties to establish "agricultural preserves" and thereby allow tax reductions by signing restrictive contracts with landowners who are engaged in commercial agricultural operations. Under current law, lands under contract are appraised by the County Assessor for their agricultural productivity rather than their market value. This brochure, prepared by the Sonoma County Planning Department, with the assistance of the County Assessor, explains the use of the Williamson Act in Sonoma County. It is hoped sufficient information is provided so you will look beyond any tax benefits to understand the restrictive and exclusively agricultural and open space nature of the program. Experience has shown that the program is usually not burdensome to agricultural operations which are viable economic units. However, in the case of marginal operations that barely qualify for a contract, pressures for alternate land uses may become so sufficiently great that the contract restrictions create a severe hardship. The County also provides for agricultural preserves for open space and species preservation. If land is within a scenic corridor or is within a unique habitat area it may qualify for preserve. WHAT IS AN AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE? The State Legislature recognized that it is important to preserve a maximum amount of the limited supply of agri- cultural, open space and critical habi- tat land, both to conserve an important economic resource, to insure adequate food supply for future generations and preserve lands with unique open space or habitat value. In addition, the pre- mature and unnecessary conversion of these lands to urban uses creates unde- sirable development patterns (urban sprawl) with increased costs of com- munity services to community resi- dents. Furthermore, it was also deter- mined that agricultural lands which re- main in agricultural production have a definite public value as open space and are an important asset to adjacent ur- ban areas. As a means to accomplish these pur- poses the Williamson Actprovides that agricultural areas, open space and unique habitat areas may be desig- nated as "Agricultural Preserves" by a county after holding noticed public hearings which then allows owners to sign a contract restricting the use of their land. In Sonoma County, preserves are most commonly created at the request of owners of properties that qualify, al- though the County may itself initiate preserve formation hearings in certain key agricultural areas. When a pre- serve is formed, State Law requires all lands in the preserve to be zoned to prevent land uses which are incompat- ible with agriculture within the pre- serve. These controls, described in the Sonoma County General Plan, the zoning ordinance and the local regula- tions governing agricultural preserves, include large lot restrictions on land divisions, prohibition of many non- agricultural uses and a prerequisite public hearing for clearance of certain other uses (conditional use permit). The requirement to restrictively zone each preserve therefore affords each rancher a measure of protection from encroachment of incompatible uses on adjoining properties within the pre- serve and the probable tax conse- quences of such development. Preserves may be dissolved using the same public hearing process by which they are created. THE CONTRACT Once land is placed in an Agricultural Preserve, the County will offer a con- tract, limiting the use of the land to agriculture, to each of commercial agricultural land meeting the contract qualifications within that preserve. In signing a contract with the County, the landowner agrees to retain his land in agricultural or open space uses for at least ten years. Current law provides that lands under contract are appraised by the Assessor for their agricultural productivity or open space value (re- stricted value) rather than market value (unrestricted value). QUALIFICATIONS Sonoma County currently offers con- tracts in two types of agricultural pre- serves, Type A -I and A -II. Excepting open space contracts and contracts on prime agricultural lands both are basi- cally limited to operating agricultural uses. A) Should be consistent with the Son- oma County General Plan. B) 100 acre minimum preserve size. Preserve can consist of more than one ownership to total the 100 acres, but eachownership mustindividually meet preserve qualifications. Board of Su- pervisors may reduce preserve size re- quirements to as small as 10 acres for Type A -I if conditions warrant. C) no individual parcel less than 10 acres. Preserve approval may be con- ditioned to require that you combine Assessor's parcels into larger units. D) All lands within preserve bounda- ries may be zoned for "exclusive agri- cultural" or open space use. The Type A -I agricultural preserve con- tract is used in the case of intensive ag- ricultural operations such as orchards, vineyards, irrigated pasture lands, and prime soils capable of high produc- tion. In addition to the General Re- quirements listed above, any one of the following is required: A) Prime land (Class I or Class II soil or 80% stone rating). B) Land capable of c.a ✓ing at least one animal unit per ac,,.ti„ C) Land planted to orchard or vineyard or crops capable of grossing at least $200.00 per acre annually. D) Land returning at least $200.00 gross per acre annually from unproc- essed plant or animal products. Type A -II agricultural contract is used for extensive agricultural operations such as sheep and cattle grazing, dair- ies, and the like. In addition to the General Requirements, both of the fol- lowing are required: A) Land producing between $2.50 and $199.99 per acre gross annual profit agricultural products for three of the last five years, and B) A minimum of $2,000.00 annual gross income total for the entire agri- cultural enterprise for three of the last five years. Type A -II agricultural contract is also used for lands used for the preserva- tion of open space uses or critical habitat described in Government Code Sec- tion 51202 (o) and Board of Supervi- sorsResolution89 -0782(May2,1989). "`Open Space use' is the use or main- tenance of land in such a manner as to preserve its natural characteristics, beauty or openness for the benefit and enjoyment of the public, to provide essential habitat for wildlife, or for the solar evaporation of sea water in the course of salt production for commer- cial purposes if such land is within: 1) A scenic highway corridor,... 2) A wildlife habitat area,... 3) A salt pond,... 4) A managed wetland area,... 5) A submerged area,..." (Govern- ment Code § 51201(o)) PROCEDURE After examining the requirements and being certain that your land would qualify for one of these contracts, you may apply to the County to have your land placed in an agricultural preserve and under contract. The application, questionnaire and income statement forms are available in the Planning De- partment. Complete the forms and submit them to the Planning Depart- ment with the appropriate processing fee. Your application will be screened by the Planning Staff as well as the Asses- sor's Office and other local and state agencies. Recommendations will be presented to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Public hearings are held by both bodies to create the agricultural preserve and rezone the property to a district which is compatible with the preserve and the General Plan. Preserveandcontract applicationsmay be processed at any time during the year. Applications received later than October 15, however, may not be proc- essed in time to allow contract signing before the March 1 lien date. This would delay any tax consideration for a year, so early applications are sug- gested. As soon as possible, following ap- proval by the Board of Supervisors, you must submit two copies of arecent preliminary title report to the Planning Department. The legal description of your property, attached to the title report, is verified by the Assessor's Office. The Office of the County Counsel will prepare a contract for your signature. Any party who has an interest in the property, such as a trus- tee or a lien holder, is required to sign the contract; you should keep this in mind before making application for the preserve. The signed and notarized contract is then returned to the County Counsel who, in turn, submits it to the Board of Supervisors for final approval and recordation. DISCONTINUING THE CON- TRACT Contracts are for a minimum period of 10 years and feature an automatic re- newal clause. They do not automati- cally expire 10 years from the date in which you originally sign the contract. At the end of each year your property is under contract, another year is auto- matically added so that at all times there is a 10 year term of restriction unless a notice of non - renewal is given. The law provides that either party to the contract, the County Board of Supervisors or the property owner, may serve on the other a written notice of non - renewal or phase -out (non - renewal forms are available at the Planning De- partment). Notice of non - renewal stops the automatic renewal and your con- tract will expire over the ensuing 10 years. During the 10 year phase -out, contract restrictions remain in full force and effect and your assessment will rise until it reaches the full market value at the end of 10 years. According to the County Assessor 65% of the value is recaptured in the first three years of the phase -out. At the end of the phase -out period, should you desire to use your property for something other than agriculture, you would have to request the County to hold public hearings to rezone your property and to remove it from the preserve. Any such requestwould have to be consistent with the General Plan in effect at the time. Payment of back taxes is not required when you request non - renewal. A second method of removing the ag- ricultural preserve contract is also provided: immediatecancellation. This method can only by initiated by the property owner. State law very rigidly controls the cancellation process in the provisions of the Williamson Act. A contract may only be cancelled if the Board of Supervisors finds the cancel- lation is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act and that the cancellation is in the public interest. "The existence of any opportunity for another use of the land involved shall not be sufficient reason for the cancel- lation of the contract. A potential alter- native use of the land may be consid- ered only if there is no proximate, non - contracted land suitable for the use to which it is proposed the contracted land be put." (Government Code § 51282) Board of Supervisors Resolution 35236 describes the procedure for cancella- tion requests. Cancellation requests are filed with the Planning Department. Fees are determined by the County Assessor. Public hearings are held by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUES- TIONS 1. May I sell my property once it is in preserve and under contract, and is there a penalty fee such as back taxes? Provided you sell your entire parcel under contract, you may sell your property without penalty or fees. The contract goes with the land and a buyer assumes both contract restrictions and tax benefit. 2. Can I subdivide my land? Lands may be subdivided if the resul- tant parcels meet the minimum require- ments for the contract in effect on the property. (NOTE: check requirements for open space parcels.)Any subdivi- sion must be consistentwith the County General Plan. Proposed subdivisions not meeting these criteria will be de- nied. The agricultural preserve program is intended to preserve commercial agri- culture rather than allow large acreage subdivisions with built -in tax breaks. If you intend subdivision of your prop- erty you may be well advised not to request preserve status on your prop- erty. 3. When I retire, may I sell my land and keep the house with an acre or two? No, Refer to question 2 above. In these cases we suggest splitting off the home site, in conformity with current zoning and general plan, before preserve application. 4. Can the County refuse my notice of non- renewai (phase out)? No. The County must approve your request for non-renewal. If your desire is to phase out a portion of your prop- erty, the County may consider your request in a manner similar to cancel- lation of the contract. S. What if I have my property placed in a preserve, but I do not sign the contract? Any property which has been included in a preserve is required to be zoned for uses which are compatible with the preserve, regardless of whether you sign the contract or not. If the contract is not signed the Assessor will not revalue the property based on the re- stricted value. You may, at any time after the property is put in preserve request a contract, but you may be required to show that the property still meets the contract requirements. 6. Does my property have to con- tinue to meet contract income re- quirements? The County has the right to request income information whenever neces- sary, either for thepurposes of contract qualification or valuation by the As- sessor, and you should expect to be asked for further information. The County may initiate non - renewal at any time it becomes apparent that an agricultural operation has ceased or no longer qualifies. FOR MORE INFORMATION PLANNING DEPARTMENT 707 -527 -2412: General Information, preserve formation and zoning. ASSESSOR'S OFFICE 707 -527 -2691: General Information, appraisal information COUNTY COUNSEL 707 - 527 -2421: Legal data, contracts Z. NA 11.3 d r17 rsJr- U.► 000 CA- 100 00 0 loot OOL)