1990/02/20 City Council MinutesRohnert Park City Council Minutes
February 20, 1990
GENERAL PLAN
Adj.Reg.Mtg.
The Council of the City of Rohnert Park met this date in
adjourned regular session commencing at 7:00 p.m. in the City
Offices, 6750 Commerce Boulevard, Rohnert Park, with Mayor
Hollingsworth presiding.
Call to Order Mayor Hollinc_
to order at
of allegiance.
Roll Call Present: (4)
Absent: (1)
[sworth called the adjourned regular session
approximately 7:01 p.m. and led the pledge
Council members Eck, Hopkins, Spiro, and
Hollingsworth
Council m n ber Cochran
Staff present for all or part of the meeting: City Manager
Callinan, City Attorney Flitner, Planning Director Skanchy,
Director of Public Works /City Engineer Brust, Director of
Administrative Services /Assistant to City Manager Netter, and
Assistant to the City Manager Leivo.
General Plan NHyor Hollingsworth welcomed citizens to the City Council's
second public meeting regarding the General Plan and reviewed
the conduct of the meeting. He said that time will allotted
for public comments concerning each element of the General
Plan as itemized on the agenda. He asked members of the
public to refrain from interrupting Council deliberations.
At the close of the meeting, if time allowed, there will
be an opportunity for further public comments on any
General Plan element.
Mayor Hollingsworth opened the public meeting at approximately 7:06 p.m. and asked if
anyone wished to speak regarding Chapter 1, Purpose of the General Plan.
Harvey Bell, 700 Lindsay Avenue, was recognized and referred to the "General
Principle." He suggested that the term "thorough" be more clearly defined. He
suggested that the future general plan process include neighborhood meetings and
adhere strictly to the State guidelines.
David VanNuys, 6189 San Bruno Court, was recognized and referred to first paragraph,
second colurrn of page 1.1. He stated that the General Plan was not internally
consistent. To summarize, the plan sends mixed messages on the growth issue. The
survey indicated that growth should be limited but the Draft General Plan in places
seems to be saying,•that if only we had more sewage, growth would be possible.
Rohnert Park City Council Minutes
(2)
February 20, 1990
GENERAL PLAN
Adj.Reg.Mtg.
City Manager Callinan recited, for the record, written convents and letters received
today, of Mich copies were provided to Council, as follows: 1) Donna J. Mckenzie,
Assistant Executive Officer /Sonoma LAFCO; 2) Alexis Tellis, General Partner, Sonoma
Grove Associates /Octogon Conpany; 3) Laura Reichard, 21 Alexis, Sonoma Grove; 4)
Edward Turpin, 21 Alexis, Sonoma Grove; 5) Scotty Thompson, 34 Varda, Sonoma Grove;
6) Amanda Tunison, 32 Anne, Sonoma Grove; 7) Francis Nbrans, 32 Anne Avenue, Sonoma
Grove; 8) Andrea and Eric Edwards, 186 Avram Avenue #23, and David W. Benson,
President of Sonoma State Lhiversity.
Councilman Hopkins requested that it be noted that the letter from "LAFCO" was from
the executive staff and not from the LAFCO.
There being no further appearances regarding Chapter 1, Purpose of the General Plan,
Mayor Hollingsworth closed the Public Comnent period at approximately 7:10 p.m.
City Manager Callinan stated that since the Draft General Plan was compiled the City
has received further information, compiled survey results, and listed the convents
from the public. The expressions received indicate that the Council should limit
development to the confines of the existing city limits. People are saying that
development should stay within the city limits. The City went to the effort to
solicit and receive the community input. The Council should respond to that input.
Mayor Hollingsworth, referring to page 1.1, stated that the Plan should cite the dates
of the public meetings held by the City Council.
Councilman Eck said that the paragraph referring to climate should be revised.
Councilman Eck stated that the Plan should clearly specify that State law allows four
amendments of each element of the General Plan in a year.
Mayor Hollingsworth said he agreed with City Manager's previous comments that the
General Plan should stipulate that the City will plan for development within the City
boundaries. The language "based on five years" should be changed to "based on the
area within the City Limits for, the period of the General Plan "ieTMrvsaici we are `- .ocked'intothat area because of sewer limitations. City Manager Callinan responded
that the City Council has to bite the bullet; the Council has to decide how large the
City should grow. We should not be trying to obtain substantially rmre water and
increased wastewater treatment capacity if the City is not going to grow.
Council Member Spiro said that the citizen's survey did not represent the majority of
citizens who may not want the same things. If people want their children to live
here, we need to make arrangements for some growth and the larger sewer capacity to
accommodate it. To provide for affordable housing, we need to increase housing
densities. The City will need to compensate for the additional population that's
anticipated at SSU. If we don't plan for additional growth, justice ir, not being done
for current residents.
Councilman Eck said that, if he understood whet staff is saying, the Council could say
that Rohnert Park is big enough.
Rohnert Park City Council Minutes
(3)
February 20, 1990
GENERAL PLAN
Adj.Reg.Mtg.
Mayor Hollingsworth said the buildout population within the existing limits would be
38,900. The survey indicated a public preference for a City no larger than 40,000.
The City should not attempt to designate land use changes outside the city limits at
this time. Before we do any changes outside the City, another planning process should
occur. This should be stated in the General Plan. We do not necessarily have to use
the State guidelines. We could improve upon them. We should use the language
previously suggested by City Manager.
Councilman Hopkins said that we should ask to become part of Marin County since we
have enough people, don't want anymore and don't want to do anything else.
Mayor Hollingsworth said that this document represents a General Plan for the area
within the boundaries.
Councilman Hopkins said that this is a full blown General Plan. We do not have
a sphere of influence since LAFCO reduced the area.
Councilman Eck asked why communities that develop superior facilities and services
mast then provide so much housing so as to destroy the quality of life. We do not
need a larger Rohnert Park, but more Rohnert Parks. He would be willing to stay at
40,000. We should add to the General Principle that the future General Plan will be
done by a citizen's committee but instead of using binding words, we could use "in as
much as possible" and "under the advice of Council based on recommendations of
citizen's a duly constituted committee ". We should incorporate the City Manager's
wording.
Mayor Hollingsworth stated that he was concerned about the possibility that
speculators may misread the General Plan and anticipate that the City plans to annex
surrounding areas. We will have to let the future planning process run its course.
Council Member Spiro asked who would appoint the citizen's committee members. The
consensus was that the City Council would make the appointments. She said that the
definition of "thorough" should be clearly established so there would not be
misinterpretations. She expressed concern about the possibility of losing a desirable
development because of the "General Principle." There is a need to set the time for
the next planning process. She stated that it seemed unrealistic to assume that the
community will wait five years and do nothing.
Councilman Eck said that all it takes is three votes to pass a General Plan amendment
and change any thing established in this process.
Mayor Hollingsworth disagreed with the idea that any annexation of land should occur
without a full review of the General Plan.
r
Councilman Hopkins said it had to be perfectly clear that the Council can annex land
and amend the General Plan.
Mayor Hollingsworth said he would like to see stronger language in the plan specifying
what can be done or not, even in light of the fact that three votes could change the
General Plan.
City Manager Callinan said that the citizen's survey established that the citizens do
not want the City to exceed 40,000. The statement "before there's any annexation"
should be taken out so as to not imply that there would be annexation.
Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (4) February 20, 1990
GENERAL PLAN
Adj.Reg.Mtg.
Councilman Hopkins said there is nothing wrong with having a General Plan with
annexations.
Councilman Eck said it would be easier to accomplish an annexation without the
statement in the plan.
Mayor Hollingsworth asked if it would be possible to insert a statement indicating
that the survey strongly supports limiting the population to 40,000.
Councilman Hopkins asked that it should be required that those requesting annexation
should show how the annexation would benefit the City.
Councilman Eck suggested that large annexations could be approved by a vote of the
people.
Council Nbmber Spiro said that the survey did not necessarily represent the entire
community. Suppose that a major company wanted to locate here but its employees
could not live here because of inadequate housing.
City Manager Callinan said that the survey was a sanple but, with the addition of
commnts made at public meetings, we can conclude that the public wants to limit the
size of the City to 40,000.
Councilman Hopkins said that the ultimate responsibility is the Council's and conplex
annexation decisions should not be made by referendum.
Council Member Spiro said the reference to annexation should be left out.
Mayor Hollingsworth said the language should be put in to limit developmment to within
the existing limits. He would like to take a hard line regarding annexation. If
CORRECTIONsomeone wants to come into the City, something rust be given to the City. Perhaps the
from Mbrchannexation fee should be not $20,000 but $50,000 per acre and the developer should
13 ,1990 grant open space land to the City. We wi l l not obtain open space otherwise. These
meting: re the strong terms we should put into the Gene 1 Plan.
g'The annexation fee should be $20,000 per acre for residentia and and $50,000 per acre for commercial land,
and one acre should be donated and designated to open space for every acre of annexed developed land.
Council Mmmber Spiro asked if the number 40,000 could be eliminated. City Manager
r Callinan recommended confining development to the existing City limits. Councilman
Hopkins agreed with this recommendation and proposed eliminating references to 40,000.
Councilmen Eck said he liked incorporating the number 40,000, but, in the spirit of
conpromise, he would accept approximately 40,000.
The Council reached a consensus on these issues and directed staff to draft language
that would define "thorough" in the General Principle as a process conducted by a
citizen's committee appointed by the City Council and following, as mach as possible,
the state general plan guidelines and incorporating a policy indicating that, based on
input from the public, that development will be limited to areas within the existing
City limits and the ultimate population for that area will total approximately 40,000.
Council Member Spiro offered a reminder that the reference to mild winters should be
taken out.
Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (5)
a :r O• V, U, a
February 20, 1990
GENERAL PLAN
Adj.Reg.Mtg.
Mayor Hollingsworth, at approximately 7:44 p.m., asked if there was anyone in the
audience wishing to speak regarding the second item on the agenda - Chapter 2, Land
Use.
Jim Clark, 80 Walnut Circle, said he would like the City to set aside some land for a
cemetery. This should be specifically incorporated into the General Plan.
David VanNuys, 6189 San Bruno Court, said he had a strong negative reaction when he
first heard about the proposal for a new city. After hearing discussions about the
idea, he has developed some sympathy for the idea. Rohnert Park's General Plan is an
inappropriate place for the idea though. It feeds the paranoia of those who live
outside of Rohnert Park. Regarding SSU's plans to grow dramatically and since SSU
greatly impacts the community, he is alarmed that there has been no official input
from the Lhiversity. The recommendation of a heliport was a surprise to those who
attended the other General Plan meetings because it had not come up at the other
meetings. He opposed the heliport because of the noise. A helipad for emergencies
only would be more advisable. He said the word "residents" should be put in place of
"City" in the section that says "the City will decide how big our City will grow. We
should at least give residents an opportunity to have input about size, annexation,
etc. Whether or not the survey represents the City, a more thorough effort including
neighborhood meetings could provide a wider range of input. We should eliminate
statements that suggest development plans outside the City limits to be consistent
with the principles discussed earlier tonight. He supports providing open space and
an open space buffer.
Harvey Bell, 700 Lindsay Avenue, stated that Rohnert Park should not propose new
cities elsewhere. He said in the survey that 65 percent responded in favor of new
non - polluting industry and a large percent said there is a need to balance jobs. We
should not be building more homes now but more businesses so those who are here can be
employed here. He said SSU produced a study at the Lhiversity regarding their needs
but the people participating in this planning process have not been able to look at
what SSU is planning. The SSU environs plan should be included in this General Plan,
at least as an appendix. The proposal for the heliport should be deleted because of
the noise factor. Perhaps we should put in a pad for emergencies only. He agrees
that the word City should be replaced by residents and that the Council should respond
to residents rather than developers. He said that 40,000 to 50,000 was desirable, not
50,000 to 60,000. Another survey could be done to assess accurately the ultimate size
of Rohnert Park. The definition of open space should clearly not include parking
lots, golf courses and freeways. He supported creating an open space buffer but urged
that the General Plan list the steps that we would take to create such a buffer. If
high density housing and mass transit came in the future, we will need to preserve
land for a mass transit parking. The plan should add creation of an architectural
review committee which would review building designs. Due to the potential for
earthquake damage, we should limit the height of buildings to three stories. The plan
should specify the final city limits. Additional open space is needed so the ratio of
open space to developed land is proper according to today's standards. We should
establish agricultural zoning to protect open space.
Jake MacKenzie, 1536 Gladstone Way, said language should be added to clearly state
that the intent of the school bond issue is to address existing needs rather than
anticipated expansion. He expressed a concern that there seems to be an increasing
number of single family residents to the north of the City. We might have another
Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (6) February 20, 1990
GENERAL PLAN
Adj.Reg.Mtg.
Canon Manor in the making. The agricultural uses should be retained. Permanent
boundaries, taking into account the anticipated expansion of SSU, should be identified
within the next five years. SSU's plans will have a direct impact on this Rohnert
Park and Cotati. In anticipation of the limited growth policy, there should be a tie
between the 40,000 population and the physical and economic growth elements.
Mike Terwilliger, 1165 Santa Cruz Way, said determining permanent boundaries and
establishing an open space buffer are the tun issues that cut to the heart of the
General Plan. This plan is going to focus on the current city limits. He referred to
previous Council discussion and said that annexation pressure will build. We have an
opportunity to decide how large Rohnert Park should grow. He originally questioned
the new city idea but has developed a broader view. The idea is to help keep Rohnert
Park small and manageable. There should be more explanation of the idea in the
General Plan. Is there any place where we can get more information on the idea? If
there is not more information, then the idea should be taken out of the General Plan.
He would not vote for the heliport because the noise would be intolerable.
Coralia Serafim, 761 Lincoln Avenue, said she was very happy with previous decisions
made by Council tonight. She said the General Plan should only look at the next five
years. She supports and would like to keep the natural appearance of the waterways in
Rohnert Park as compared to the fenced and cemented ditches in Cotati. Sonoma Grove
is a nice, natural environment and should be retained. She would like to see the City
coordinate with the County so efforts are not duplicated. She could not support the
heliport but could support an emergency landing area.
Teresa Bowden, 1701 E. Cotati Avenue, said that SSU is currently in the process of
revising its Master Plan. If anyone is interested, please contact SSU. Now is
the time to get involved.
Robert Intersinone, 4310 Fairway Drive, said that industrial development goes along
with residential development. He encouraged development of shopping around the
Uiiversity. There exist charming shopping areas near some universities. In addition
to talking about numbers, we need to talk about the quality of development. It is
important to set limits and boundaries. Instead of just saying more shopping could be
put on the east side, we need to have neighborhoods which include small cotmiercial
centers within walking distance.
George Horwedel, 7669 Camino Colegio, citing examples in Vacaville, said that more
houses will not necessarily result in lower prices.
RECESS
There being no one further wanting to comment on the Land Use element, Mayor
Hollingsworth declared a recess at approximately 8:21 p.m.
R lag=
Mayor Hollingsworth reconvened the Council meeting at approximately 8:30 p.m. with all
Council members present except for Councilman Cochran.
Mayor Hollingsworth suggested that the Council wanted to digest tonight's comments on
the Land Use element. He noted that several residents from Sonoma Grove were present
at the meeting. Rather than proceed wrath the review and amendment of the Land Use
Element, he asked for a show of hands of those desiring to speak regarding Sonoma
Rohnert Park City Council Minutes
(7) February 20, 1990
GENERAL PLAN
Adj.Reg.Mtg.
Grove. Approximately two dozen people indicated that they wanted to speak. He stated
that his recommendation would be to strike comments in the General Plan proposing the
removal of Sonoma Grove and that Sonoma Grove should be retained as an alternate place
to live.
Discussion followed in which it was pointed out that Sonoma Grove property owner was
present and wanted to speak, restricting the future residential development will make
Sonoma Grove one of the most likely places for private residential development, and
simple economics could force such construction even though the owner has a social
conscience and is trying to provide a service. Comments were made regarding past
building code violations and the changes that have occurred in Sonoma Grove over the
past several years.
A motion was made by Mayor Hollingsworth, seconded by Council Nbmber Spiro, and
unanimously approved, to strike comments from the General Plan calling for the removal
of Sonoma Grove and to support it as an alternate place to live.
Charlie Artman, 25 Alexis, wondered why staff put the words dilapidated condition in
the draft and suggested an amendment to the motion to provide housing improvement
funds for Sonoma Grove.
Alexis Tellis, owner of Sonoma Grove, said every lot has water and sewer connections.
Every vehicle is in full conformance with state codes for a travel trailer park.
There are only three buildings in Sonoma Grove. All others are licensed vehicles
which meet strict state requirements. As far as the future of the Grove is concerned,
everyone knows that eventually it will not be there, but it should be given
consideration as a pre - existing use.
Linda Branscomb, 21 Anne Way, said that she represented the people here from Sonoma
Grove. She thanked the Council for its vote. She had in hand forty statements from
Sonoma Grove residents that needed to be entered into the record. She distributed to
the Council a statement which was a collaboration of the thoughts submitted (a copy of
Mich is attached to the original set of these minutes) and shared the contents
therein. (An additional three written statements in support of Sonoma Grove were
submitted at the close of the meeting to attach to this presentation).
Harvey Bell, 700 Lindsay Avenue, said that maybe a new element regarding travel
trailers should be added to the Housing section. Community Development Agency funds
could be made available to Sonoma Grove residents. Mayor Hollingsworth noted that the
language would have to be carefully worded to avoid making funds available for the
motor homes parked in so many driveways throughout the City.
Barry Eisenburg, 27 Alexis, Sonoma Grove, was recognized and thanked the Council for
its vote. He said he was a good example of one who has benefited from Sonoma Grove
and reviewed his accomplishments of the past few years.
Rohnert Park City Council Minutes
(8)
February 20, 1990
GENERAL PLAN
Adj.Reg.Mtg.
Louise Field, 40 Anne Avenue, pointed out the difficulty in obtaining grants for such
places as Sonoma Grove. She said that PG&E winterized homes in Sonoma Grove. She
said that Sonoma Grove acts as open space with birds and other animals as compared to
tract homes thaC are too sterile.
City Manager Callinan noted that color coded copies of additional suggested changes to
the General Plan were provided to the Council and made available to public.
The Council asked that staff make available the revised Chapter 1 to the
public as soon as possible rather than waiting to publish a completely
revised General Plan draft.
There being no further business, Mayor Hollingsworth adjourned the public meeting
for the General Plaza, at approximately 9:00 p.m. to be continued on February 26, 1990
at 7:00 p.m.
s� JJe
6%
-1 x
DeW#!y Ci V Clerk
71V-
Mayor -�
1o�
Sonoma Grove is a close knit community with a unique
identity. It has been a steppingstone for students struggling to
receive an education since its inception in 1973.
The current population is no different. Many are very bright
young men and women who need a private, quiet place to live and
study, or who must work while attending school. Because the Grove
is the only year round student housing in the area, they wish to
move here rather than lose their jobs in June and return home.
Many are older re -entry student who for various reasons including
single parenthood, married status, or just a greater need for
privacy simply could not fit into the typical student dorms.
Some are students with families who can only attend school
part time or are being retrained by the state, or other
vocational training programs, while providing a secure home for
their children. Many of the former students that lived in the
Grove have graduated and gone on to live successful professional
lives. And as has always been, a few of the members of our
community are senior citizens and disabled people who avail
themselves of the low cost housing and the community support that
the Grove provides.
Without the economy and diversity of housing provided by the
Grove many of these students will be unable to complete their
educations. Many more will lose not only their opportunity for
upward mobility but their home and community as well if Action
Eight is carried out. This seems to contradict both the spirit
and the actual actions required by many of the other policys and
goals mandated by the General Plan.
1
How can we achieve the Goal of "minimize[ing] the chances
that a Rohnert Park household would become homeless despite
increasing housing costs," or "prevent approximately 15 low
income households from becoming homeless each year "[objective 101
if we shut down the only truly low cost housing alternative in
the city? And why "...monitor and identify any need for an
emergency housing shelter" [objective 111 or "Conduct an analysis
of the need for an emergency housing shelter and develop an
appropriate project or projects" [Action 311 while tearing down
a community that meets many of those needs and provides an
opportunity for higher education at the same time within a safe
supportive environment?
The Grove was brilliantly designed as "alternative student
housing" nearly two decades ago with diversity and economy in
mind. Its wide open grassy "common ground," interspersed
with numerous trees, shrubs, and garden plots, and its small
individual spaces allow for a variety in size and type of
trailer. There is the option for private ownership of the
individual homes, or rental of an existing unit. It seems to have
been designed with the first goal of the current Housing handout
in mind, "...such housing shall provide as much diversity in
tenure, type, size, location, and cost -of- housing as reasonably
feasable."
In fact Action Eight appears to show a lack of understanding
of one of the basic concepts of the Grove. It would not be
necessary to "tear down" a travel trailer. If they are beyond
rehabilitation they can simply be hooked onto and pulled out, and
replaced by a unit in better condition. The park infrastructure
2
is in excellent condition. The large centrally located Community
Building, complete with fireplace and adjoining laundromat, and the
two large bathhouses, containing both men and womens facilities
at either end of the park, are in excellent condition and
thoroughly cleaned on a daily basis. The large deep sinks
located strategically throughout the Grove are all newly
reconditioned. The roadway inside the Grove is paved and vehicles
are parked in an adjoining newly designed parking lot with speed
bumps and clearly marked spaces.
Given all of this, it seems obvious that the solution to the
problem of some of the individual units being old would be to
repair or replace them with other units in better condition.
Since there is a long list of people hoping to move into the
Grove, additional new student housing could be built on an
alternative piece of land.
At a time when homelessness is an increasingly difficult and
heart breaking problem, it is ludicrous to talk about closing
down this wonderfully unique and inexpensive park. Let Sonoma
Grove serve as part of the solution to the city and county's
growing housing needs. SONOMA GROVE WORKS H
3