1990/03/06 City Council MinutesRohnert Park City Council Minutes
March 6, 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 Hollingsworth called the adjourned regular session to
order at approximately 7:00 p.m. and led the pledge of
allegiance.
Roll Call Present: (5) Council members Cochran, Eck, Hopkins, Spiro
and Hollingsworth
Absent: (0) None
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 Ntnager Leivo.
General Plan
Mayor Hollingsworth welcomed citizens to the City Council's public meeting regarding
the General Plan. He explained that Council had been provided with copies of the
Advanced Draft of Chapter 2, Land Use incorporating comments made at the last
meeting and asked if Council members had any further comments to make.
Councilman Eck said the standard regarding frontage along U.S. Highway 101 should be
changed to a minimum of 30 feet instead of 30 feet to 40 feet.
Mayor Hollingsworth said it would be misleading to indicate annexation in the
foreseeable future and that the wording in the Sphere of Influence section should be
changed and clarified.
Mayor Hollingsworth said the City Limits needed to be brought out stronger in the
map on page 2.13 and the Chapter should include the definition of "Planning Area ".
Council Member Spiro asked if this General Plan Advanced Draft would still be
subject to change. Council members confirmed that this is not final and further
changes could be made. Council Member Spiro referred to a citizen's inquiry and
asked City Attorney to clarify whether or not the State Guidelines required that
elements of the General Plan should be prepared and reviewed in a specific order.
City Attorney Flitner said a specific order is not mandatory. The law says you have
to complete a General Plan which includes all the elements and is internally
consistent.
The Council accepted the amendments to Chapter 2, Land Use as submitted by staff
with above - mentioned changes.
Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (2) Larch 6, 1990
COAL PLAN
,Adj. Reg. Mtg.
o "IZIWi la
Mayor Hollingsworth opened the public meeting at approximately 7:12 p.m. and asked
if anyone wished to speak regarding Chapter 3, Circulation.
City Manager Callinan recited, for the record, letters received, of which copies
were provided to Council, as follows: 1) Henry Arian, 4567 Harbor Lane, 2)
Linda Branscomb, Anne Street /Sonoma Grove, 3) Gary Starr, President of Solar
Electric, 175 Cascade Court, and 4) Harvey Bell, 700 Lindsay Avenue.
Frank Sall, 513 Oak Lake Avenue, Santa Rosa, said he works in Rohnert Park and
commutes by bus or bike four days a week. He would like to see the City adopt a
better style of bike lanes. There are several problems with the current system. It
teaches children to ride on the wrong side of the road. Cars pulling out of
driveways do not see bikers coming. Drivers do not look for bicyclists coming from
the wrong way as happens on Southwest Boulevard. It is important to put well paved
shoulders with paint stripes on both sides of the road to separate the traffic from
bicyclists. He referred to his printed statement to the Planning Commission and
shared the contents therein (a copy of which is attached to the original set of
these minutes).
Athena Rushka, 4867 Canyon Drive, Santa Rosa, said she is also a bike commmuter and
the President of Santa Rosa's Bicycling Club which represents Rohnert Park
residents. This is the largest bicycle club in Sonoma County and represents more
Rohnert Park residents than any other bicycle organization. She requested that a
letter dated December 13, 1989 from Duane Strawser, Rohnert Park Representative of
Santa Rosa Cycling Club be entered into the record and shared some of the contents
therein (a copy of which is attached to the original set of these minutes). The two
main points are as follows: 1) in response to the first policy standard set forth
in the Draft Rohnert Park General Plan dated November, 1989 that appears on page
3.14, "Bikeway systems shall be separated from vehicular traffic where feasible ";
2) Section 1000 -5 of Caltrans' Highway Design Manual advises, "Bike paths
imrediately adjacent to streets and highways are not recommended... Low barriers
(e.g., dikes, raised traffic bars) next to a highway are not recommended because
bicyclists could fall over them and into oncoming automobile traffic." The current
t%u -way bike path separated by a concrete barrier forces cyclists to go on the wrong
side of the road. It makes turning ham since cars are not looking for cyclists
coming from the wrong direction. The Santa Rosa Cycling Club would appreciate a 4'
wide lane identified with a painted line. Snyder Lane and Southwest Boulevard are
dangerous. Alternative transportation, other than cars, should be encouraged by
installation of bike racks on buses to promote the use of buses.
Lynn Phillips, 1 Front Court, member of Santa Rosa Cycling Club, quoted from
California Driver Handbook code, page 13, which defines a bike lane as shown by
solid white lines 4' from the curb painted on the lane at intervals. Bikers have
the same rights and responsibilities as motor vehicles. They must stop at signs and
ride with the traffic. Only walkers face the traffic. He concurred with the first
speaker that it is dangerous for bikers to ride on the wrong side of the street
since drivers are not looking to the right, but to the left.
Barbara MacKenzie, 1536 Gladstone Way, expressed appreciation to the City Council
for the way it has responded to date on input to the General Plan. She asked why
the 30' setback did not apply to Scandia. Ln an effort to inform herself for the
Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (3) March 6, 1990
GENERAL PLAN
Adj.Reg.Mtg.
school bond issue, she asked why the land set aside for the school in G section was
not sufficient. Light rail needs to be supported in the whole regional area, as
well as bike paths with access to local businesses. The area near Smitty's has not
been addressed regarding traffic congestion. What should be done since Walmart may
build in the area. Low traffic land use alternatives, such as a cemetery, should be
considered on the west side of the freeway. The need for cemeteries has not been
addressed.
Ted Shimkowski, 614 Holly Avenue, presented a petition with sixty signatures from
various residents opposing any form of a pedestrian/bike bridge connecting Holly
Avenue and Fauna Avenue which is attached to the original set of these minutes. He
said such a bridge would result in the increased risk of thefts, vandalism and
littering for the nearby residences.
Brian Marshall, 1444 Warrington Road, Santa Rosa, said there is a major traffic
problem on Petaluma Hill Road at East Cotati Avenue. Stop lights should be placed
at this intersection to avoid accidents.
Coralia Serafim, 761 Lincoln Avenue, said she supports the recommendations from the
bicyclists. Transportation alternatives to the automobile should be encouraged.
She enphasized the need for passenger rail service. She approved of removing the
heliport from the Draft General Plan. She referred to letter submitted earlier
tonight from Harvey Bell and shared some of the contents therein (copy attached to
original set of these minutes). It is important to coordinate with SSU because of
the increased number of students coming to campus daily. Lower traffic businesses
should be put around the Wilfred Avenue, Commerce Boulevard and Golf Course
Drive interchange.
Robert Cato, 6197 Santa Clara Place, said major traffic problems will continue so
light rail and bikes should be encouraged. The current bike path system is
disconnected and not safe to use. Bike paths should go in the same direction as
vehicle traffic.
Gregory R.
Conklin, 6079 Darleen Court, said he
rides his bike everyday.
The
barrier on
Southwest Boulevard should be removed.
The
sign forbidding bikes on
the
right side
of Southwest Boulevard is frustrating.
It
is difficult to get to
the
other side
of the street and it is important to teach
his children to ride on
the
right side.
He would also appreciate the removal
of
the barrier on Country
Club
Drive near
Golf Course Drive.
Tom Anderson, 534 LaCrosse Court, said he comrutes to Santa Rosa everyday on his
bike. There should be no more dividers and stripes should be painted for bike paths
on both sides of streets for safety reasons and so motorists know that
bike paths exist.
George Horwedel, 7669 Camino Colegio, supported the land swap idea to obtain open
space land and to annex land out by the proposed Walmart location. The City of
Fairfield has bike lanes that run throughout the city. It has paths specifically
for playgrounds and walkers. Wastewater can be utilized for landscaping along such
paths. Consideration should be given to a monorail down the center of 101 since it
would seem inexpensive as compared to other alternatives, would create less noise
problems, and the land is available.
Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (4) March 6, 1990
GOAL PLAN
P j.Reg.Mtg.
There being no one further desiring to speak on Chapter 3, Circulation, Mayor
Hollingsworth closed the public greeting on this section at approximately 7:32 p.m.
Mayor Hollingsworth asked if Council members had any comments regarding Chapter 3,
Circulation.
Councilman Eck said that a clause should be added to the last Goal to encourage all
modes of transportation alternatives that would reduce the use of automobiles.
Council Member Spiro said the third paragraph of section 3.4 referred to four (4)
roadways that had LOS worse than C and the map showed seven (7). The City Engineer
confirmed that seven (7) is the correct number.
Discussion followed regarding the State Farm Drive /Business Park Drive crossing of
U.S. Highway 101. Comments were made regarding the need to protect right of ways
for future needs. The City Engineer illustrated proposed overpass configurations,
reviewed traffic flow projections, and confirmed the cost would be in the
neighborhood of four to five million dollars. If right of ways are not protected
and the properties are needed, the condemnation process would be required and the
land would have to bought back at higher prices. The Wilfred Avenue and Commerce
Boulevard intersections were also discussed as possible sites to improve east /west
traffic flow.
A motion was made by Council Member Spiro, seconded by Councilman Eck, to include
both crossings as discussed above in the General Plan.
Discussion followed in which Councilman Eck withdrew his second with the comment
that each crossing should be dealt with separately. Said motion died for
lack of a second.
A motion was made by Councilman Cochran, seconded by Mayor Hollingsworth, to strike
any reference to over crossings and delete paragraphs "e" and "k" on page 3.18, and
approved by the following roll call vote:
AYES: (3) Cochran, Hopkins, and Hollingsworth
NOES: (2) Eck and Spiro
Discussion followed regarding traffic flow patterns at on Commerce Boulevard, the
Expressway and Redwood Drive. Comments were made regarding the need to maintain and
acquire the right of way with preference to an undercrossing at State Farm.
Complications of railroad right or ways were reviewed at the Wilfred Avenue, Golf
Course Drive and Commerce Boulevard interchange area. Staff confirmed that item No.
10 on page 3/17 reflects a proposal to work with Caltrans to complete modifications
for the U.S. 101/Wilfred Avenue interchange.
Rohnert Park City Council Minutes
(5) March 6, 1990
COAL PLAN
Adj.Reg.Mtg.
Mayor Hollingsworth directed staff to draft specific language to put in the
Circulation Element to maintain and acquire the right of way so that the City may
may construct a crossing at State Farm Drive and Business Park Drive in the future,
if the need is demonstrated. The preferred alternative is an undercrossing.
Council responded to Mayor Hollingsworth's call for a vote on this proposal as
follows:
AYES: (4) Eck, Hopkins, Spiro, and Hollingsworth
NOES: (1) Cochran
Mayor Hollingsworth said the next item for review was rail service. Discussion
followed regarding rail service being addressed by Council members and staff at
Sonoma County Transportation Comnittee meetings, as well as at meetings by Mayors'
and Councilmen's Association.
Councilman Eck recommended incorporation of the language from the Council's
positions transmitted to these entities. We should make sure the light rail systems
meets our requirements for grade crossings.
Mayor Hollingsworth said, regarding the rail alternatives, the cities of Santa
Rosa, Rohnert Park and Petaluma desire to have control over what goes through the
cities.
Councilman Cochran said part of the problem is that even if the one cent sales tax
passes, we would only be acquiring a portion of the right of way. A big concern is
that people do not want to have a 1930's locomotive type of rail service but want a
state of the art system. He encouraged acquisition of right of way for mass transit
use and to retain control of same.
Councilman Hopkins conpared the housing situation with the need for rail service.
Local control is desired but has not had much success. It better be recognized that
if we can not do it, somebody else will do it for us, probably the State.
Councilman Cochran said he would like to encourage high density residential
development near a light rail system. The language should be incorporated in the
sales tax measure.
Councilman Eck said there will be a need to have a site for a transit station and
that the ideal location would be at the new Civic Center site. Discussion followed
regarding other locations to consider for transit station sites and the
complications of disrupting traffic. Council concurred that a transit site would
have to be designated in keeping with the light rail proposal. Mayor Hollingsworth
directed that such language should be incorporated into the General Plan.
Discussion followed regarding incorporating the suggestions of bicyclist. The need
to develop a north /south bicycle path, possibly in the median along Commerce
Boulevard, was confirmed. Bike racks ought to be incorporated on buses. Bike lock
ups should be provided at commmuter parking areas. Barriers along bike paths should
be removed and paint stripes should be used on both sides of the road.
The consensus of the Council was to remove the heliport proposal. Under the U.S.
Highway 101 section, Council members recommended including the widening of Petaluma
Hill Road and Stony Point Road. Directions were given to reword Objective 2 and to
change the language in inplementation measure 10. Confirmation was given to remove
Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (6) March 6, 1990
CAL PLAN
Adj.Reg.Mtg.
item "K" and rewrite a mre generic proposal consistent with the earlier discussion.
Direction was given to include all proposed traffic signals on Petaluma Hill Road at
Snyder Avenue, East Cotati Avenue, Rohnert Park Expressway and Valley House Road, as
well as at Stony Point Road and the Expressway.
Due to the resident's request, the Council directed staff to delete item M regarding
the construction of a pedestrian /bicycle bridge over Five Creek Diversion Channel
from Holly Avenue to Fauna Avenue.
Direction was given to incorporate all the bike paths as proposed.
There being no further business, Mayor Hollingsworth adjourned the public meeting
for the General Plan at approximately 9:00 p.m. to be continued on March 12, 1990 at
6:00 p.m. beginning with Housing.
AV
De Cit Jerk
Mayor
CIRCULATION ELEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Page Item 66
3.8 RAIL SERVICE: Add to this short section added description about
the potential for light rail passenger service. It is mentioned
later, but should be included under the RAIL heading also.
- Figures 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9 and associated descriptions should all
be revised to include the latest input from SSU which shows
an increase of the number of students coming to campus daily
over the existing roadways to jump from 5,000 to 10,000 within
the five year period of this plan. The service levels shown
cannot be realized with this added traffic volume.
3.17 #6 Add the following: Congestion and potential gridlock conditions
mitigated before approving development plans. Streets, roadways,
needed turn lanes, traffic lights, etc. shall be put in place
before any traffic causing development shall be built.
Require developers to fund all related circulation changes needed
to upgrade traffic flow to assure that full use conditions will
not cause deterioration of existing levels prior to building.
3.18 #15 Delete this item. Do not include plans for a heliport or helipad
anywhere in our city that would just encourage use. An
"emergency Only" location can be identified for appropriate
use.
3.18 Add the following items:
- Create new land use designations to help stop additional traffic
iducing development from further eroding conditions around problem
areas such as Commerce and Wilford and Golf Course Drive.
One designation is needed for "Open Space ". A second could be added such
as "Low traffic /Low density /Minimal development" for such uses
a cemetery, RV storage lot, etc.
- Zone the land around the Wilford avenue interchange on the East
side of 101 as one of these new desiganations to avoid further
gridlock conditions.
- Develop a bike path plan for North -South and East -West travel
accross the city. Roads that appear to be likely major
Bike - Arteries might be Commerce Blvd., Snyder Lane, Country
Club DR., E. Cotati Ave., Southwest Blvd., R.P. Expressway,
and Golf Course Dr.
- Develop a light rail plan and set aside sufficient land to
accommodate the building of adequate parking lots and a R.P.
station along the rail lines in the best available location.
(770 of the over 4,000 survey respondents favor light rail service
making it the 3rd highest vote getter in that survey. We need
proposals now to plan for fulfilling their wishes before all
the best locations are filled with developments or City Halls).
6, 1990
Harvey Bell
jlll;l;lg !IIIIIIIIIII :: 11 1 1
Santa Rosa Cycling Club
Rohnert Park Subcommittee
951 Copeland Creek Drive #21
Rohnert Park, CA 94928
Paul Skanchy, Director
Planning Department
City of Rohnert Park
6750 Commerce Blvd
Rohnert Park, CA 94927
RE: BICYCLE POLICIES IN GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Dear Mr. Skanchy:
December 13, 1989
I am writing on behalf of the Santa Rosa Cycling Club in reference
to the policies regarding bicycles set forth in the Draft Rohnert
Park General Plan dated November, 1989.
The bulk of our comments are in response to the first standard
that appears on page 3.14:
"Bikeway systems shall be separated from
vehicular traffic where feasible."
We would agree that two -way recreational paths are desirable along
creeks, for example, where intersecting roads are minimized. `How-
ever, in order to safely encourage bicycle travel in Rohnert Park,
for school, college, work, and shopping trips, bicycles should be
accommodated on the roadway, where conflicts with pedestrians and
cross traffic do not pose a safety hazard.
In particular, the members of the Santa Rosa Cycling Club are
strongly opposed to the City's policy of constructing 2 -way
bicycle lanes adjacent to one side of the roadway separated by an
asphalt concrete berm (E.g., Southwest Blvd, Golf Course Drive).
This configuration creates a confusing situation at intersections
and driveways because motorists do not expect bicycles to be on
the wrong side of the road. They force left - turning cyclists to
turn from the curb lane (an illegal maneuver) and force right -
turning motorists to turn in front of bicycles. Finally, we
object to these "paths" because they teach children to ride on the
wrong side of the road.
On this subject, Section 1000 -5 of Caltrans' Highway Design Manual
advises:
"Bike paths immediately adjacent to streets and highways are
not recommended. . .Low barriers (e.g., dikes, raised
traffic bars) next to a highway are not recommended because
bicyclists could fall over them and into oncoming automobile
traffic."
We agree and, therefore, strongly encourage the City of Rohnert
Park to adopt a policy of including 4 -foot wide bicycle lanes on
each side of all street widening, resurfacing, and new road
- 2 -
construction projects. In particular, we would like to see such
Class II bicycle lanes included in the Redwood Drive and Commerce
Blvd road widening projects described on page 3.15, Proposals 11d
and 11g. In addition, we would like the impact on bicycle traffic
routinely considered during the design stages of the Snyder Lane
and Southwest Blvd left turn lane projects described in Proposals
11a and 11c.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Duane Strawser
Rohnert Park Representative
Santa Rosa Cycling Club
P.S. Please note that the Santa Rosa Cycling Club is the largest
county -wide bicycle club in Sonoma County and that we represent
more Rohnert Park residents than any other bicycle organization.
cc: Pete Caliinan, City Manager
We the residence, at or near the end of Holly Ave. in Rohnert
a'6t
Park, wish to notify the city council that we oppose any form of a
k—`�'V� �"
N pedestrian /bike bridge connecting the ends of Holly Ave. and Fauna
Ave. It is our united opinion that any connection providing easy
5 •
access across Five Creel; will invite loitering around the bridge
and encourage undesirables into our neighborhood. This can only
6. {
result in as increase risk of thefts, vandalism, and littering for
�j` /G' f• d'JLG in/ GSGJr� ti �/
us residence near the interconnect. We originally purchased our
homes with the understanding that Holly Ave. terminated at Five
Creek and we wish to keep it that way. Furthermore, we feel that
•\`o
the construction of a pedestrian bridge is setting a precedence for
- c�z..f -A 1 K1ccF+
6yoc, �.
the possible future expansion to a connected roadway. We wish to
express at this time that we are completely opposed to any future
plans of a connecting roadway between Holly and Fauna Avenues.
8 . \ \ �,
Address
Nam%e�
4 1 3 ((I V•) q 5 W o r%
/
3 • 110
/, Lam_ o l��`� ��
y'T !-1 !7-O i �[ y►G S c�� �i
k—`�'V� �"
.
5 •
6. {
,� /Vt.!Y.
�j` /G' f• d'JLG in/ GSGJr� ti �/
C7
•\`o
- c�z..f -A 1 K1ccF+
6yoc, �.
8 . \ \ �,
p�,J.;a,,,, `- �X c/� CJ" • ' yO
4 1 3 ((I V•) q 5 W o r%
t�
10.
toe
r G.
&.L
ii.
�
C
rt j 21 tag y4h cat
t d -
lip
W/
zS
s i),;
/ ' ° - fc_-
h a61Z4 t
4!j
V)
-23 A 4 - 01 1 r%C,
La
-4-6 ef
q 7,
Ite, '141 Al
3
Ito
37
3 9
3211
—acil\ga
L - ClItA (Lt
k s t,
A-L
1A 5 -DC$j6LA'
POLL--4 go�,
It's
ML) LR4
S A) //,Oz L 11oFF
442-S
Cvc
--ALUOL ilaC k6lilu-�-t
d,-vzl
,
o c
dt/L. em.?
—(-Cv
avv:jeuR
LN
421u Her"OS& CLTU✓i-
P.lNAe,-K CA 902,?
5 JL yyL d'
q,
AA
i xzJ, k 9
HOUSING ELEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS p.2
Page Item
4.5 Section 4.5 In both paragraphs, delete any references to "Needs"
for housing as currently expressed by ABAG. These are ABAG's
projections for where they see housing increasing around
the Bay Area. Projections are not Needs. Substitute words
such as proposed, projected or other more correctly used
terms. (Let's save urgent words like "Needs" for issues
vital to the existing community, like school capacity, reduced
traffic congestion, bike paths, more jobs, and open space
protection.)
4.5 Figure 4.2 Change heading "HOUSING NEEDS" to some other terminology.
4.9 - Delete the second paragraph in the right hand column. There
is no reason to bring up 1980 conceptions of conditions
in Sonoma Grove.
- Figure 4.5 Remove the box that represents Sonoma Grove as
"dilapidated Units" along Camino Colegio
4.14 - In the left hand column, it refers to Water supplies as
being adequate to serve any anticipated residential development,
yet we are now asking for significant water increases from
the county. This statement may be misleading in the text.
4.14 Section 4.10 Delete the first two paragraphs in this section.
They were designed, I would guess, as part of the "friendly
city" image that was developed to be friendly to developers
so that they would come to the seed farm and build. We
now have a desirable city that businesses want to build
in so we do not need to cut corners on proper planning any
more to achieve proper growth. What our residents want,
and what the court recently required is that R.P. follow
the laws to plan properly and do proper environmental impact
reports to assure that development does not compromise the
quality of life here. Those proper and legal processes
take time to assure accuracy. Why should we advertize
shortcuts that can only lead to more problems.
4.16 - 4.17 The last paragraph of 4.16 carrying into the first two on
4.17 should be amended to eliminate the "target" focus as
if we had that target. It was only an ABAG projection,
not a R.P. goal. Also, reference to the wastewater treatment
plant capacity that "should be" completed by 1995 might
be more realistically expressed as "may be completed somewhere
in the future after 1995".
4.18 Section 4.13 The second paragraph is totally misleading and inaccurate.
Solar Energy is productive in R.P. Ask Solar Electric,
baheadquartered in R.P., or any of the Solar companies.
We should be actively encouraging and promoting the use
of both active and passive solar systems and adding financial
incentives for businesses and homes that equip with solar
energy equipment for hot water, building heat, or electrical
production.
4.19 #7 &8 Change "the City" to "Residents ". Residents should now
be deciding the ultimate size of our city, and it is the
responsibility of residents to become involved in planning
for our future.
see p.3, 4 March 6, 1990
Harvey Bell
HOUSING ELEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS p.3
Page Item
4.19 #9 Delete this item. It makes us sound like wimps.
4.19 #11 Eliminate the expression of "required action " and housing
"needs ". Our residents should have a voice in our future.
4.19 Add the following new item after Item #11:
- All available undeveloped land around SSU should be designated
student housing, high density housing and low income housing
to help provide for the housing needs of students. The
"M" and "R" neighborhoods adjacent to the University should
be designed to accommodate student housing. (SSU can construct
on- campus housing for only 10% of its student population.
The number of students should jump from 5,000 to 10,000
making daily trips to campus by 1995. Providing housing
close to SSU will help reduce future traffic congestion
and gridlock conditions.
4.20 #4
Delete. No planning for housing to be built after 1995
in this plan.
4.20 #12
Add the criteria that apartment to condo conversions can
only be approved if SSU student housing is provided for
in the current and coming (two to five) year(s).
4.20 #2
Change "M" and "R" section plans to fulfill student housing
needs by zoning for student housing, high density and low
income housing units.
4.21 ;#3,4,5
Delete all three items. It is not appropriate to tell a
citizen's advisory committee what results they should produce.
The next "thorough General Plan Update" should focus first
on identifying more specifically and accurately what the
current residents of R.P. want for the future of our city.
If what the residents want is plans for more residential
development and the extension of public services, it is
up to the planners at that time to determine such goals,
and the actions needed. It is not the right of this plan
to dictate that result before the public will is accurately
assessed.
4.22 #18
Again, add the criteria that SSU student housing be assured
for the present and future years before allowing any apartment
to condo conversions.
4.22 #20
Delete this item. Leave the "not- dilapidated" Sonoma Grove
residential units in place.
4.22 #24
Delete this item. It is not R.P.'s business to build new
cities around the county.
4.23
Add the following items to take the place of #24:
- The Community Development Agency of R.P. will make available
funds for low interest loans to assist rehabilitation of
(number to be determined) travel trailer housing units
in Sonoma Grove... (see items 7 & 8 on page 4.19 for added
language.)
see p.4 March 6, 1990
Harvey Bell
HOUSING ELEM124T RECODOUMATIONS p.4
Page Item
4.23 Add the following new items:
- Increase the parking space allotment required for multi - family
residential construction. (There appear to be more cars
per family unit. More teenagers now have cars of their own. More children
may be staying with their parents for more years after high school. More
college students come to campus with cars. And more people have company
over to visit (bringing more cars) than it appears to have been planned
for. We may need a study to indicate the appropriate number of spaces
needed and the frequency of visitors needing spaces for apartment dwellers
in our spread out rural environment.)
- Maintain a three story height limit for buildings and a
two story limit for housing units (to provide better safety
and escape ability in earthquakes and fires.)
- Add representation of SSU to all Planning functions.that
could affect housing or businesses around or near the university.
- Add financial incentives for new construction (business,
industry or residential) that includes solar energy equipment.
Karch 6, 1990
Harvey Bell