2017/10/24 City Council Agenda Packet
City of Rohnert Park 130 Avram Avenue Rohnert Park, California 94928
PHONE: (707) 588-2227 FAX: (707) 794-9248 WEB: www.rpcity.org
ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL
Rohnert Park Financing Authority (RPFA)
Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission (CDC)
JOINT REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
Open Session: 5:00 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: CITY HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBER
130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park, California
The Rohnert Park City Council welcomes your attendance, interest and participation at its regular city
meetings scheduled on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month at 5:00 p.m. in the Council
Chamber. City Council/RPFA agendas and minutes may be viewed at the City’s website:
www.rpcity.org.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: Council/RPFA may discuss and/or take action on any or all of the items listed
on this agenda. If you challenge decisions of the City Council or the Rohnert Park Financing Authority
of the City of Rohnert Park in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone
else raised at public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the
City of Rohnert Park at, or prior to the public hearing(s).
RIGHT TO APPEAL: Judicial review of any city administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1094.5 may be had only if a petition is filed with the court no later than the
deadlines specified in Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, which generally limits
the time within which the decision may be challenged to the 90th day following the date that the
decision becomes final.
SIMULTANEOUS MEETING COMPENSATION DISCLOSURE (Government Code § 54952.3):
Members of the City Council receive no additional compensation as a result of convening this joint
meeting of the City Council and the Rohnert Park Financing Authority.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Provides an opportunity for public comment on items not listed on the agenda,
or on agenda items if unable to comment at the scheduled time (limited to three minutes per appearance
and a 30 minute total time limit, or allocation of time determined by Presiding Officer based on number
of speaker cards submitted). PLEASE FILL OUT A SPEAKER CARD PRIOR TO SPEAKING
ANNOUNCEMENT: Please turn off all pagers, cellular telephones and all other communication
devices upon entering the Council Chamber. Use of these devices causes electrical interference with
the sound recording and TV broadcast systems.
Mission Statement
“We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to
Build a Better Community for Today and Tomorrow.”
City of Rohnert Park Joint Regular Meeting Agenda October 24, 2017
for City Council/RPFA/CDC Successor Agency Page 2 of 5
1. CITY COUNCIL/RPFA/SUCCESSOR AGENCY JOINT REGULAR MEETING
- CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
(Ahanotu __ Belforte__ Callinan __ Stafford __ Mackenzie __)
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of American Council Engineering Companies (ACEC) Award for
Eastside Trunk Sewer Project
4. DEPARTMENT HEAD BRIEFING
A. Development Services: Downtown Form-Based Code Charrette on November 6th
through November 9th (Monday – Thursday)
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Persons wishing to address the Council on any Consent Calendar item or on City
business not listed on the Agenda may do so at this time. Each speaker will be allotted
three minutes. Those wishing to address the Council on any report item listed on the
Agenda should submit a “Speaker Card” to the City Clerk before announcement of
that agenda item.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
All items on the Consent Calendar will be considered together by one or more action(s)
of the City Council and/or the Rohnert Park Financing Authority and Successor
Agency to the Community Development Commission, whichever is applicable, unless
any Council Member or anyone else interested in a consent calendar item has a
question about the item.
A. Approval of Minutes for:
1. City Council Special Meeting, October 4, 2017
2. City Council/RPFA/Successor Agency Joint Regular Meeting, October 10,
2017
B. Acceptance of Reports for:
1. 2017 Alcohol Beverage Service Ordinance (ABSO) Annual Report
2. City Bills/Demands for Payment dated October 24, 2017
3. RPFA- Cash Report for Month Ending September 2017
4. Housing Successor Agency- Cash Report for Month Ending September 2017
5. Successor Agency- Cash Report for Month Ending September 2017
6. City- Cash Report for Month Ending July 2017
7. City Councilmembers Quarterly Expense Report (July, August, September)
C. City Council Resolutions for Adoption:
1. 2017-124 Terminating the Existence of a Local Emergency
2. 2017-125 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Easement
Agreement with the Sonoma County Water Agency and
Related Actions
3. 2017-126 Approving Elimination of a Temporary Part-Time Technical
Advisor and a Temporary Part-Time Information Systems
City of Rohnert Park Joint Regular Meeting Agenda October 24, 2017
for City Council/RPFA/CDC Successor Agency Page 3 of 5
Assistant and Addition of a Regular Full-Time Information
Systems Technician I in the Information Systems Department
4. 2017-127 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Amendment 1 to
Task Order 2017-01 with Green Valley Consulting Engineers
for Construction Management and Inspection Services for the
University District Project and Related Actions
D. Authorize the City Manager to Execute Assignment and Assumption
Agreements for the Vast Oak East and Vast Oak North Portions of the
University District
E. Authorize the Purchase of Four (4) Utility Police Vehicles for the Department
of Public Safety not to exceed $180,000 and Authorize the City Manager to
Execute Purchase Documentation
Council Motion/Vote
7. Discussion and Direction on Permitting Policies to Support Recovery from the
Sonoma Complex Fire
A. Staff Report
B. Public Comments
C. Council discussion/direction
8. Discussion and Direction on City’s General Plan Update, Proposed Scope of Work
A. Staff Report
B. Public Comments
C. Council discussion/direction
9. Discussion and Direction on Affordable Housing Fees and the City’s Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance
A. Staff Report
B. Public Comments
C. Council discussion/direction
10. Discussion and Direction on Recreational Courts Rehabilitation & Resurface Plan
and Pickleball Courts
A. Staff Report
B. Public Comments
C. Council discussion/direction
11. Informational Update on the All-Weather Soccer Field Required by Sonoma
Mountain Village Development Agreement
A. Staff Report
B. Public Comments
C. Council discussion/direction
City of Rohnert Park Joint Regular Meeting Agenda October 24, 2017
for City Council/RPFA/CDC Successor Agency Page 4 of 5
12. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE – Consideration of Adjustment of City Council
Compensation
A. Staff Report
B. Public Comments
C. Ordinance for Adoption:
1. No. 911 An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park
Amending Section 2.12.020, Population, and Section
2.12.030, Salaries, of the Rohnert Park Municipal Code to
Adjust City Council Compensation
a. Council motion/discussion/roll call vote
(Ahanotu __ Belforte__ Callinan __ Stafford __ Mackenzie __)
13. COMMITTEE / LIAISON / OTHER REPORTS
This time is set aside to allow Council members serving on Council committees or on
regional boards, commissions or committees to present a verbal report on the activities
of the respective boards, commissions or committees on which they serve. No action
may be taken.
A. Standing Committee Reports
B. Liaison Reports
1. Golf Course Oversight Committee (10/3)
C. Other Reports
14. COMMUNICATIONS
Copies of communications have been provided to Council for review prior to this
meeting. Council Members desiring to read or discuss any communication may do so
at this time. No action may be taken except to place a particular item on a future
agenda for Council consideration.
15. MATTERS FROM/FOR COUNCIL
Prior to agenda publication, any Councilmember may place an item on this portion of
the agenda. Upon the concurrence of two Councilmembers, the item may be added to a
subsequent agenda for deliberation and action. In accordance with the Brown Act, at
the City Council meeting, Councilmembers may not add items hereunder, except for
brief reports on his or her own activities or brief announcements regarding an event of
community interest.
16. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Persons wishing to address the Council on City business not listed on the Agenda may
do so at this time. Each speaker will be allotted three minutes. Those wishing to
address the Council on any report item listed on the Agenda should submit a “Speaker
Card” to the City Clerk before announcement of that agenda item.
17. ADJOURNMENT
City of Rohnert Park Joint Regular Meeting Agenda October 24, 2017
for City Council/RPFA/CDC Successor Agency Page 5 of 5
NOTE: Time shown for any particular matter on the agenda is an estimate only. Matters may be
considered earlier or later than the time indicated depending on the pace at which the meeting proceeds. If
you wish to speak on an item under discussion by the Council which appears on this agenda, after
receiving recognition from the Mayor, please walk to the rostrum and state your name and address for the
record. Any item raised by a member of the public which is not on the agenda and may require Council
action shall be automatically referred to staff for investigation and disposition which may include placing
on a future agenda. If the item is deemed to be an emergency or the need to take action arose after
posting of the agenda within the meaning of Government Code Section 54954.2(b), Council is entitled to
discuss the matter to determine if it is an emergency item under said Government Code and may take
action thereon.
DISABLED ACCOMMODATION: If you have a disability which requires an interpreter or other person
to assist you while attending this City Council meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (707)
588-2227 at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to ensure arrangements for accommodation by the City.
Please notify the City Clerk’s Office as soon as possible if you have a visual impairment requiring
meeting materials to be produced in another format (Braille, audio-tape, etc.)
AGENDA REPORTS & DOCUMENTS: Copies of all staff reports and documents subject to disclosure
that relate to each item of business referred to on the agenda are available for public inspection at City
Hall located at 130 Avram Avenue, during regular business hours, Monday through Friday from 8:00 am
to 5:00 pm. Any writings or documents subject to disclosure that are provided to all, or a majority of all,
of the members of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda after the agenda has been
distributed will also be made available for inspection at City Hall during regular business hours.
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA
I, Caitlin Saldanha, Deputy City Clerk for the City of Rohnert Park, declare that the foregoing agenda for the
October 24, 2017, Joint Regular Meeting of the Rohnert Park City Council/RPFA was posted and available for
review on October 19, 2017, at Rohnert Park City Hall, 130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park, California 94928.
The agenda is also available on the City web site at www.rpcity.org,
Executed this 19th day of October, 2017, at Rohnert Park, California.
___________________________________________
Caitlin Saldanha, Deputy City Clerk
The Charrette is a multi-day opportunity for downtown property and business owners and the Rohnert Park com-
munity at large to collaborate with a multidisciplinary team to craft a Form-Based Code (FBC) for Rohnert Park’s
emerging downtown. The FBC will build upon the vision established in the Rohnert Park PDA plan in order to paint
a clear picture of the area’s future form and character.
What’s your Vision for Downtown Rohnert Park?
Join us for a Public Charrette
N ovember 6th - 9th, 2017 Location: 6250 State Farm Drive, Rohnert Park
November 14th, 2017 Final Presentation to City Council at City Hall
Contact Information
Phone: (707) 588-2236
Fax: (707) 794-9242
Email: planning@rpcity.
org
For additional informa-
tion, please visit :
www.rpcity.org/city_hall/
departments/develop -
ment_services/planning_/
downtown_form_based_
code/
Downtown Rohnert Park
Form-Based Code
Charrette
LocationRohnert Park Expressway
Rohnert Park Expressway
H
w
y
1
0
1
Enterprise Dr
SMART Station
Library
S
t
a
t
e
F
a
r
m
D
r
S
t
a
t
e
F
a
r
m
D
r
City Center DrPadre Pkwy
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
e
B
l
v
d
á
Hinebaugh Creek Trail
Project Study Area
Downtown District
Amenity Zone (DDAZ)
Monday 11/6 Tuesday 11/7 Wednesday 11/8 Thursday 11/9 Tuesday 11/14
Opening
Presentation
6-8pm
Community
Open House
5:30-7:30pm
Community
Open House
5:30-7:30pm
City Council
Presentation
5pm
Open Studio
10am-5pm
Open Studio
10am-5pm
Stop by and
talk with design
team members
one-on-one &
create your
vision for
Downtown
Rohnert Park
Open Studio
10am-12pm
Use a scale
model of the
project study
area to explore
building form
and scale
Brown Bag
Lunch
Downtown
Retail
12pm-1pm
Item No. 4A
Item No. 6A1
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL
Wednesday, October 4, 2017
Rohnert Park Community Center, Multi-Use Room
5401 Snyder Lane, Rohnert Park, California
1. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING - CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Mayor Mackenzie called the Special Meeting to order at 6:00 pm, the notice for which being
legally noticed on September 29, 2017.
Present: Jake Mackenzie, Mayor
Pam Stafford, Vice Mayor
Amy O. Ahanotu, Councilmember
Gina Belforte, Councilmember
Joseph T. Callinan, Councilmember
Absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager Jenkins, Assistant City Manager Schwartz, Finance Director
Howze, Development Services Director Pawson, Director of Public Safety Masterson,
Director of Public Works and Community Services McArthur, Human Resources
Director Perrault, City Clerk Buergler, Executive Assistant to the City Manager Drolet,
Senior Analyst Tacata, Public Safety Commander Bates, Public Safety Commander
Johnson, IS Operations Manager Rowley, IS Analyst Son, Planning Manager
Beiswenger, Planner II Tusinger, Administrative Assistant Willis, Management Analyst
Beran, Supervising Account Orozco, Community Services Manager Bagley, and Deputy
City Clerk Saldanha.
2. INFORMAL TOWN HALL MEETING
A. Roundtable Discussion of “Neighborhood Upgrades and Workforce Housing
Programs”
Staff Members acted as facilitators during roundtable discussions consisting of
residents who shared their thoughts on how to spend funds dedicated to neighborhood
upgrades and workforce housing programs.
A total of six (6) tables participated in the roundtable activity. Each table reported out
on their top two (2) subject areas which included topics such as: public
parks/pools/bike paths, neighborhood housing improvements, speeding up the
development of downtown, subsidization of existing rents, synchronization of traffic
signals, homelessness, affordable housing fee waivers, crosswalk safety, public safety
staffing, workforce housing program, SSU Student Housing, and public transportation
& SMART connections.
City of Rohnert Park City Council Special Meeting Minutes October 4, 2017
Page 2 of 2
B. Discussion Of Current Issues In Rohnert Park
City Council and staff addressed public comments regarding current issues in Rohnert
Park.
3. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Mackenzie adjourned the Special Meeting at 8:01 p.m.
_____________________________________ __________________________________
Caitlin Saldanha, Deputy City Clerk Jake Mackenzie, Mayor
City of Rohnert Park City of Rohnert Park
Item No. 6A2
MINUTES OF THE JOINT REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
City Council
Rohnert Park Financing Authority
Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission
Tuesday, October 10, 2017
Rohnert Park City Hall, Council Chamber
130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park, California
1. CITY COUNCIL/RPFA/SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CDC JOINT REGULAR
MEETING - CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Mayor Mackenzie called the joint regular meeting to order at 5:01 pm, the notice for which being
legally noticed on October 5, 2017.
Present: Jake Mackenzie, Mayor
Pam Stafford, Vice Mayor
Amy O. Ahanotu, Councilmember (arrived 5:02 p.m.)
Gina Belforte, Councilmember
Joseph T. Callinan, Councilmember
Absent: None
Staff present: City Manager Jenkins, City Attorney Marchetta-Kenyon, Development Services
Director Pawson, Planning Manager Beiswenger, Senior Analyst Tacata and Deputy City Clerk
Saldanha.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Led by Councilmember Callinan.
MOTION TO ADD ITEM TO AGENDA
City Manager Jenkins requested the addition of an urgency item to the agenda regarding
Council consideration of adopting a resolution ratifying the City Manager’s proclamation of
the existence of a local emergency.
City Attorney Marchetta-Kenyon reported the following facts which supported the findings
necessary for Council to add the item to the agenda: The need to adopt this emergency
resolution came to the attention of the City on October 8th, when the Director of Emergency
Services proclaimed a local emergency which was after the posting of the agenda and there is
a need to take action prior to the next regularly scheduled meeting as the emergency declared
by the Director of Emergency Services must be ratified by October 15, 2017.
ACTION: Moved/seconded (Stafford/Belforte) to find that a need to take action came to
the attention of the City after the posting of the agenda and there is a need to
City of Rohnert Park Joint Regular Meeting Minutes October 10, 2017
for City Council/Rohnert Park Financing Authority/Successor Agency Page 2 of 6
take action prior to the next regularly scheduled meeting and moves to add as
an urgency item the consideration of a resolution ratifying the City Manager’s
proclamation of the existence of a local emergency.
Motion carried by the following unanimous 5-0 vote: AYES: Ahanotu,
Callinan, Stafford, Mackenzie, and Belforte, NOS: None, ABSTAINS: None,
ABSENT: None.
Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Ratifying City Manager’s Proclamation of the
Existence of a Local Emergency
City Manager Jenkins presented the urgency item. Recommended Action(s): Adopt a
Resolution Ratifying City Manager’s Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency.
Public Comments: None.
ACTION: Moved/seconded (Stafford/Ahanotu) to adopt Resolution 2017-123
Adopting a Resolution Ratifying City Manager’s Proclamation of the
Existence of a Local Emergency.
Motion carried by the following unanimous 5-0 vote: AYES: Ahanotu,
Callinan, Stafford, Mackenzie, and Belforte, NOS: None, ABSTAINS:
None, ABSENT: None.
3. PRESENTATIONS
A. Mayor’s Proclamation: Recognizing the 30th Year Anniversary of SweetPea Gift
Shoppe
Mayor Mackenzie presented a proclamation to SweatPea Gift Shoppe volunteers,
who thanked Council for their support.
4. SSU STUDENT REPORT
No report.
5. DEPARTMENT HEAD BRIEFING
City Manager Jenkins announced that the Salvation Army in Santa Rosa is accepting
donations.
City Manager Jenkins also reported on Founder’s Day 2017.
For the record, Mayor Mackenzie noted that “City Man” (City Manager Jenkins) beat Cotati-
Rohnert Park Unified School District Superintendent Robert Haley in the Fun Run event at
Founder’s Day 2017.
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
City of Rohnert Park Joint Regular Meeting Minutes October 10, 2017
for City Council/Rohnert Park Financing Authority/Successor Agency Page 3 of 6
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes for:
1. City Council/RPFA/Successor Agency Joint Regular Meeting, September 26,
2017
B. Acceptance of Reports for:
1. City Bills/Demands for Payment dated October 10, 2017
2. City- Cash Report for Month Ending June 2017
C. City Council Resolution for Adoption:
1. 2017-119 Authorizing and Approving the Purchase of a New Pumper
Apparatus for the Public Safety Department
2. 2017-120 Authorizing and Approving the Director of Finance to Increase
Appropriations for FY 2017-18 for a Contract with R3 Consulting
Group
3. 2017-121 Approving an Update to the Records Retention Schedule
D. Authorize the City Manager to Execute Master Services Agreements with Associated
Right of Way Services, Inc and Overland, Pacific, & Cutler
E. Approval of an In-Kind Donation of City Labor, Fees, and Services in the Amount of
$4,891 to Support the Founders’ Day 2017 Event
ACTION: Moved/seconded (Stafford/Belforte) to approve the Consent Calendar.
Motion carried by the following unanimous 5-0 vote: AYES: Ahanotu,
Belforte, Callinan, Stafford, and Mackenzie, NOS: None, ABSTAINS: None,
ABSENT: None.
8. Discussion and Direction on Recreational Courts Rehabilitation & Resurface Plan and
Pickleball Courts
Item was not heard.
ACTION: By Consensus (none opposed), City Council directed staff to table the item
and re-schedule this item for a future City Council meeting.
9. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE – Consideration of Adjustment to City Council
Compensation
City Manager Jenkins presented the item. Recommended Action(s): Introduce an ordinance
increasing City Council compensation by 17.73%, the same percentage increase employees
received since the last council member compensation adjustment (2006).
Public Comments: None.
ACTION: Moved/seconded (Stafford/Callinan) to waive full reading and introduce
Ordinance 911 An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park
Amending Section 2.12.020, Population, and Section 2.12.030, Salaries, of the
Rohnert Park Municipal Code to Adjust City Council Compensation. Title
read by Mayor Mackenzie.
City of Rohnert Park Joint Regular Meeting Minutes October 10, 2017
for City Council/Rohnert Park Financing Authority/Successor Agency Page 4 of 6
Motion carried by the following roll call 3-2-0 vote: AYES: Callinan,
Stafford, and Mackenzie, NOS: Ahanotu and Belforte, ABSTAINS: None,
ABSENT: None.
ACTION: By Consensus (none opposed), City Council agreed to re-order the agenda by moving
Agenda Item 11 before Agenda Item 10.
11. CLOSED SESSION
A. Mayor Mackenzie made the closed session announcement pursuant to Government Code
§54957.7 and Council recessed to Closed Session at 5:40 p.m. in Conference Room 2A to
Consider:
1. Personnel Matters (Government Code § 54957)
Public Employee Annual Performance Evaluation – Title: City Manager
B. Reconvened Joint Regular Meeting Open Session in Council Chamber at 6:56 p.m.
C. Report on Closed Session (Government Code § 54957.1)
Mayor Mackenzie reported: no reportable action.
10. PUBLIC HEARING (NO EARLIER THAN 6PM – (Noticed on 9/29/2017)
Consideration of Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of a Conditional Use Permit
and Site Plan and Architectural Review for Mixed Use Residential and Commercial
Project at the Northeast Corner of East Cotati Avenue and Camino Colegio Avenue
Planning Manager Beiswenger presented the item. Director of Development Services Pawson
answered questions from Councilmembers. Recommended Action(s): Conduct a public
hearing and consider an appeal of a Planning Commission decision to deny a Conditional
Use Permit and Site Plan and Architectural Review for the mixed-use project at the corner of
East Cotati Avenue and Camino Colegio Avenue, commonly known as Vintage Pointe III
Mixed Use Project (the “Project”). Staff recommends upholding the appeal and approval of
the Project.
Hearing Opened 7:16 p.m.
Applicants/Appellants Matt Taylor (Farrell-Faber & Associates Inc. Project Manager) and
Steven Scarpa (Owner) spoke in favor of the project and requested Council to uphold the
appeal, which would approve the project to move forward.
Joe Drescher spoke in opposition to the project because he believes the design is not
appealing and presents various safety hazards. Mr. Drescher also requested a continuance due
to the fires.
Kim Butler spoke in opposition to the project because the addition of multiple cars in the area
will cause traffic issues.
Bill Butler spoke in opposition to the project because it will lead to parking issues.
Wes Claussen spoke in opposition to the project because it will cause both parking and
accident issues.
City of Rohnert Park Joint Regular Meeting Minutes October 10, 2017
for City Council/Rohnert Park Financing Authority/Successor Agency Page 5 of 6
Pete Van Ryne spoke in opposition to the project because it will decrease the quality of life
for residents and lead to parking issues.
Daniel Levy spoke in favor of the project because there is a need for housing within the City
and the lot has been vacant for years.
Applicant/Appellant Matt provided a rebuttal statement stating that there are more parking
spaces provided than required by the zoning code.
Hearing Closed 7:50 p.m.
ACTION: Moved/seconded (Stafford/Callinan) to adopt Resolution 2017-122 Upholding
an Appeal and Approving a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan and
Architectural Review for Mixed-Use Multi-Family and Retail Commercial
Project Located at the Northeast Corner of East Cotati Avenue and Camino
Colegio Avenue (143-340-061 and 158-270-065).
Motion carried by the following unanimous 5-0 vote: AYES: Ahanotu,
Belforte, Callinan, Stafford, and Mackenzie; NOS: None, ABSTAINS: None,
ABSENT: None.
12. COMMITTEE / LIAISON/ OTHER REPORTS
A. Standing Committee Reports
None.
B. Liaison Reports
1. Russian River Watershed Association (RRWA) (9/28)
No report.
2. Golf Course Oversight Committee (10/3)
Report will be provided at a future City Council meeting.
3. Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) (10/9)
Mayor Mackenzie reported that the meeting was cancelled due to the fires.
4. Sonoma Clean Power (10/5)
Councilmember Belforte reported on an increase in memberships, government
incentives regarding solar panels, additions to the evergreen program and installation
of solar panels in Petaluma.
C. Other Reports
None.
13. COMMUNICATIONS
None.
14. MATTERS FROM/FOR COUNCIL
None.
City of Rohnert Park Joint Regular Meeting Minutes October 10, 2017
for City Council/Rohnert Park Financing Authority/Successor Agency Page 6 of 6
15. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
11. CLOSED SESSION
A. Mayor Mackenzie made the closed session announcement pursuant to Government
Code §54957.7 and Council recessed to Closed Session at 8:05 p.m. in Conference
Room 2A to Consider:
1. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation - Significant exposure to
litigation pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(d)(2): (One Case)
B. Reconvened Joint Regular Meeting Open Session in Council Chamber at 8:40 p.m.
C. Report on Closed Session (Government Code § 54957.1)
Mayor Mackenzie reported: no reportable action.
16. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Mackenzie adjourned the joint regular meeting at 8:40 pm.
_____________________________________ __________________________________
Caitlin Saldanha, Deputy City Clerk Jake Mackenzie, Mayor
City of Rohnert Park City of Rohnert Park
Item No. 6B1
ROHNERT PARK DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY
To: City Council via Chief Masterson From: SGT. Utecht and
PSO Snodgrass
Subject: 2017 ABSO Annual Report Date: 10/09/2017
I. Specific allocation of the fees to be collected to activities
The annual fees collected for 2017 fiscal year for the Alcohol Beverage Service
Ordinance (ABSO) Program thus far were $27,175.00. The 2017 fiscal year ABSO
Program expenditures were $27,550.66. The Annual Budget for the program was
$45,807.00. The additional monies in the budget were from reserve funds in the
ABSO account. The addition of the additional funds to the budget were to
increase enforcement operation and to purchase additional I.D. checking
equipment for the businesse s in the city. Unfortunately, do to personnel shortage
issues within the department and the unavailability of the equipment for purchase
those two things were not accomplished. At the end of the year the program came
in $18,256.34 under budget for 201 7 calendar year. It should be noted that the
ABSO Program budget is based on the fiscal year, 201 6/2017, while the fees
collected are based on the 2017 calendar year. I have attached the fiscal year
2016/2017 ABSO Program Budget to provide you with a deta iled breakdown of
the programs spending during the fiscal year. The numbers in the budget are
slightly different then the numbers listed above because of a change in the
employee costs. That change is included in the actual numbers listed here as it
was taken from Spring Brook.
In the 2016/2017 fiscal year the ABSO Team developed a new training platform
which included new training handout that will be available in both English and
Spanish. We also conducted (16) RBS Training Classes providing at least one
class per month for the year. The ABSO Team also conducted (2) two sets of
Compliance Checks and (2) two Decoy Operations with the decoy operations
resulting in (4) four arrests for sales to minors.
Item No. 6B1
II. Problems regarding enforcement of the performance standards,
conditions and regulations
The ABSO team is working on addressing three issues facing the program at this
time. All three issues revolve around compliance with the requirements of the
ordinance.
1. Businesses/Employees are not complying wit h the ABSO ordinance,
specifically section 8.34.140 which states that all employees shall complete
an approved RBS training course with in (60) sixty days of their date of
hire.
2. Businesses are not complying with the ABSO ordinance, specifically
section 8.34.160 Annual Permit Fees are not being paid in accordance with
this section which states fees are due upon receipt. We currently wait up to
a year to collect the permit fees from some businesses.
3. Businesses/Employees are signing up for training classes a nd then not
showing up on the day of the class. This is an issue because it is not cost
effective to have to pay for two instructors to teach a class for less than (10)
ten people. Which will often happen because (20) sign up for the class and
(10) ten people do not show up on the day of the training.
III. Mitigating such problems, through prevention, education and
enforcement of the Ordinance
The ABSO Team is working on address the listed issues in the following manner:
1. The ABSO Team is currently working on an amendment to the ABSO
ordinance that would address the issue of employees not obtaining the
required training within (60) sixty days. The amendment would include a
fine of $50.00 to the business having an employee who is working without
the required training past the (60) sixty day mark. In most cases this
violation is uncovered during Impact Inspections which are done to insure
businesses are in compliance with the ordinance and ABC laws. Most
businesses are check twice a year for compliance.
Item No. 6B1
2. The ABSO Team is currently working on an amendment to the ABSO
ordinance that would address the issue of businesses not paying their
Annual Permit Fees in accordance with the ordinance. The Team plans to
add language into the ABSO Ordinance that is consistent with the current
process used by the city to address other late permit fees such as Fire
Inspection Fees. This process includes a fine for being past due.
3. The ABSO Team is currently working on an amendment to the ABSO
ordinance that would address the issue of no employees not showing up for
training after they have reserved a spot in a training class. This language
would include a fine of $50 for not canceling their reservation for training
24 hours prior to the date and time of the class. In the event that someone
does not cancel and then refuses to pay the fine their RBS training card
which certifies that they have completed the required training would be held
until the fine is paid. Last minute emergency excused will be handled on a
case by case basis and decided by the ABSO Coordinator.
IV. The future of the program
During 2017 the ABSO Team has grown by three employees. The training
process for those new members is ongoing and proceeding on schedule. PSO
Snodgrass is gradually transitio ning into the role of the ABSO Coordinator which
will take place upon Sgt. Utecht’s retirement. That transition is also going well
and it is expected that he will be up to full speed at that time.
Item No. 6B2
Item No. 6B3
Item No. 6B4
Item No. 6B5
Item No. 6B6
I
t
e
m
N
o
.
6
B
7
ITEM NO. 6C1
1
Meeting Date: October 24, 2017
Department: Administration
Submitted By: Darrin Jenkins, City Manager
Prepared By: Caitlin Saldanha, Deputy City Clerk
Agenda Title: Consideration of a Resolution Terminating the Existence of a Local
Emergency
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a resolution terminating the existence of a local
emergency.
BACKGROUND: Rohnert Park’s emergency responders have been assisting Santa Rosa with
the response to the Sonoma Complex Fires that started on October 8, 2017. On October 9, 2017
the City’s Director of Emergency Services (City Manager) proclaimed the threatened existence
of a local emergency. The fires have been declared an emergency by both the state of California
and federal government.
ANALYSIS: In response to the Sonoma Complex Fire that occurred in Sonoma County on
Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 10:30 p.m., the City Manager, acting in the capacity of the Director
of Emergency Services, declared the existence or threatened existence of an emergency. The
proclamation was signed at the Emergency Operations Center at 10:40 am on October 9, 2017,
which is hereby attached at Attachment 1.
Per Rohnert Park Municipal Section 2.52.060, “whenever a local emergency is proclaimed by the
director, the City Council shall take action to ratify the proclamation within seven days thereafter
or the proclamation shall have no further force or effect.” On October 10, 2017, the City Council
adopted Resolution 2017-123 Ratifying City Manager’s Proclamation of the Existence of a Local
Emergency, which is hereby attached as Attachment 2.
The Emergency Operations Center was activated by the Director of Emergency Services
throughout October 9, 2017 to October 13, 2017. During this time, staff closely monitored fire
activity, prepared draft evacuation plans, created neighborhood maps, and kept the public
informed on the situation through various forms of communication such as Nixle, Facebook,
Twitter, Nextdoor and City’s website. The City experienced higher risks during the initial
outbreak of the fires at the beginning of the week. Most notably, mandatory evacuations of G and
H sections took place on October 9, 2017. No mandatory evacuations have been ordered since
this date.
On October 15, 2017, reports from California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal
Fire) confirmed the Pressley/Crane Canyon fires, which posed the greatest threat against Rohnert
Mission Statement
“We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a
Better Community for Today and Tomorrow.”
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ITEM NO. 6C1
2
Park, no longer existed. Therefore, Rohnert Park is not experiencing an immediate threat from
the fires and there is no need to continue the existence of the local emergency.
Government Code Section 8630(c)(1) provides that the City Council shall review the need for
continuing the local emergency at least once every 30 days until the City Council terminates the
local emergency. Government Code Section 8630(d) further provides that the governing body
shall proclaim the termination of the local emergency at the earliest possible date that conditions
warrant. Staff is requesting City Council to consider terminating the existence of the local
emergency in order to comply with state law.
OPTIONS CONSIDERED:
Option 1: The City Council may adopt a resolution terminating the existence of a local
emergency. Staff recommends this option because there is no need to continue the local
emergency since no immediate threats exists to Rohnert Park.
Option 2: The City Council could determine that there an emergency still exists and not adopt the
resolution. Staff does not recommend this option because there is no longer an imminent threat
against Rohnert Park.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE: None by this action. The City is working on
requesting resources including financial support and reimbursement from the State Office of
Emergency Services (OES) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for costs
incurred as a result of fire response.
Department Head Approval Date: N/A
City Manager Approval Date: 10/17/2017
City Attorney Approval Date: 10/17/2017
Finance Director Approval Date: 10/17/2017
Attachments (list in packet assembly order):
1. Proclamation signed on October 9, 2017
2. Resolution 2017-123 Ratifying City Manager’s Proclamation of the Existence of a
Local Emergency
3. Draft Resolution Terminating the Existence of a Local Emergency
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-123
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
RATIFYING CITY MANAGER'S PROCLAMATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF A
LOCAL EMERGENCY
WHEREAS; Section 2.52.060 of the Rohnert Park Municipal Code empowers the
Director of Emergency Services to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local
emergency when said city is affected or likely to be affected by a public calamity and;
WHEREAS, conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property have arisen
within said city, caused by
x Fire __Flood
Rain _Storm
Riot _Epidemic
Drought _Hazardous Waste
Energy Shortage
Pollution
Earthquake
commencing on or about 11:30 p.m. on the 81h day of October 2017 and;
WHEREAS, the Rohnert Park City Council does hereby find that the aforesaid
conditions of extreme peril did warrant and necessitate the proclamation of the existence of a
local emergency; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Emergency Services of the City of Rohnert Park did
proclaim the existence of a local emergency within said city on the 9" day of October, 2017;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that said proclamation of existence of a
local emergency, as issued by said City Manager/Emergency Services Director, is hereby ratified
by the Rohnert Park City Council; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said local emergency shall be deemed to continue
to exist until its termination is proclaimed by the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park,
Sonoma County, California.
Attachment 2
DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED this 10"' day of October, 2017.
ATTEST:
NAL 404JVA-
Caitlin Saldanha, Deputy City Clerk
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
AHANOTU: Al) BELFORTE: CALLINANA1 e STAFFORD: '
A l
MACKENZIE:
AYES: (
S ) NOES: ( O ) ABSENT: ( O ) ABSTAIN: ( (D
2)
2017-123
1
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-124
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
TERMINATING THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY
WHEREAS; a local emergency existed in the City of Rohnert Park in accordance with
the proclamation thereof by the City Manager and its confirmation by the City Council on the 8th
day of October, 2017, as a result of conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and
property within said city, caused by
x Fire __Flood __Energy Shortage
__Rain __Storm __Air Pollution
__Riot __Epidemic __Earthquake
__Drought __Hazardous Waste __: ____________________
WHEREAS, the Rohnert Park City Council has reviewed the need to continue the
existence of the local emergency; and
WHEREAS, the situation resulting from said condition of extreme peril is now deemed
not to be beyond the control of normal; protective services, personnel, equipment, and facilities
of and within said City of Rohnert Park;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Rohnert Park City Council does hereby
proclaim the termination of said local emergency.
DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED this 24th day of October, 2017.
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
____________________________________
Jake Mackenzie, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
JoAnne Buergler, City Clerk
AHANOTU: _________ BELFORTE: _________ CALLINAN: _________ STAFFORD:_________ MACKENZIE: _________
AYES: ( ) NOES: ( ) ABSENT: ( ) ABSTAIN: ( )
ITEM NO. 6C2
1
Meeting Date: October 24, 2017
Department: Development Services
Submitted By: Mary Grace Pawson, Director of Development Services
Prepared By: Vanessa Marin Garrett, Civil Engineer
Agenda Title: Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Easement Agreement
with the Sonoma County Water Agency and Related Actions
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an
easement agreement with the Sonoma County Water Agency and related actions.
BACKGROUND: The Residences at Five Creek (Five Creek) project is located on a 15.29 acre
site, within the 32.8 acres covered by the Stadium Area Master Plan (SAMP). The site has been
in City ownership and the City’s plan is to sell the majority of the site for redevelopment.
The Five Creek project will develop 12.32 acres with:
• 132 room hotel
• 34,300 square foot retail center
• 135 unit apartment complex
• 0.65 acre public park
The City will retain a 2.97 acre parcel that will be partially developed as a fire station, and held
for future public use.
The public improvements required for the development include a new storm drain line and storm
water outfall into Hinebaugh Creek. The outfall is located on a parcel owned by the Sonoma
County Water Agency (SCWA). On January 10, 2017, the City Council approved the Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND), the Tentative Map, the General Plan Amendment, the Stadium
Lands Area Plan Amendment, and the Final Development Plan for Five Creek Project.
In March 2017, the Five Creek applicant submitted its public improvement plans, which included
the outfall. The applicant has applied for and received permits from the North Coast Regional
Water Quality Control Board (401 Permit received on June 7, 2017) and the Army Corps of
Engineers (404 Permit received on July 27, 2017). SCWA has required reviewed the outfall
design, and is also requiring that the City enter into an easement agreement because the outfall is
located on their property. The easement documents have been submitted to and tentatively
approved by SCWA.
On July 27, 2017, the City Council approved the final map for the Five Creek Project, which
split the property into five parcels. In August, the City completed the sale of one of the parcels to
Mission Statement
“We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a
Better Community for Today and Tomorrow.”
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ITEM NO. 6C2
2
a hotel developer. The hotel developer is ready to begin construction and the site work, including
the storm drain system and outfall is one of the first items of work.
ANALYSIS: The storm drain system for the Five Creek project drains to the southwesterly edge
of the project, runs across Labath Avenue, and enters SCWA’s property, which contains
Hinebaugh Creek, as shown in Attachment 1. The proposed easement agreement sets forward the
terms under which the City will construct and maintain its pipeline and outfall on SCWA’s
property. Specifically the easement agreement sets for the following business terms.
1. The easement is perpetual and nonexclusive. The City may use the outfall easement
indefinitely but SCWA may also grant easement rights to others in same general vicinity.
2. The City has all responsibility for construction and maintenance at City cost. This
includes the responsibility to relocate facilities if required.
3. The City has the responsibility to repair any damage done to SCWA’s property as a result
of construction or maintenance.
4. The City will indemnify SCWA for City’s use of the easement.
5. The City will pay SCWA $1,370, which is the appraised value of the easement.
6. SCWA has the right to enforce the terms of the agreement.
While the business terms are generally protective of SCWA’s interest, they do not present a
unreasonable risk to the City and the outfall is critical for the development of the Five Creek
Project.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: The storm drain system, including the outfall, was
included in the initial Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was approved for the Stadium
Area Master Plan in 2008. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Five Creek Project, which
was approved by City Council on January 10, 2017, included more detailed and updated
descriptions of the outfall. Because the proposed improvements were included in the EIR and
MND, and their impacts were analyzed and mitigated to a less than significant level, no further
CEQA analysis is required. As noted above, the major resource agency permits necessary for
constructing the outfall have already been secured.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This action is consistent with Strategic Plan Goal D-
Continue to Develop a Vibrant Community.
OPTIONS CONSIDERED:
1. Adopt a Resolution approving an easement agreement between the City and SCWA for
access and maintenance of the new storm water outfall (Recommended). With the new
outfall easement in place, the City has access to maintain the outfall infrastructure such as
vegetation, piping, and surrounding erosion control measures.
2. Do not adopt a Resolution approving the easement agreement (not recommended).
Without the easement agreement in place, SCWA will not accept the outfall construction
and the future Five Creek development will not be able to construct the infrastructure
necessary to support their development
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE: The estimated fiscal impact of this action is $9,160,
which includes the $1,370 easement price and the cost of SCWA’s staff time for processing the
easement request. The funding source for these costs is developer reimbursements. The City has
ITEM NO. 6C2
3
two formal reimbursement agreements and a total of $100,000 in deposits securing the Five
Creek development costs. There will be no impact on the City’s General Fund.
Department Head Approval Date: 10/16/2017
Finance Director Approval Date: 10/16/2017
City Attorney Approval Date: 10/04/2017
City Manager Approval Date: 10/17/2017
Attachments (list in packet assembly order):
1. Attachment 1 – Site Map
2. Attachment 2 - Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an easement agreement
with the Sonoma County Water Agency and related actions.
3. Resolution Exhibit A – Easement Agreement
10/4/2017
New Outfall Location
Five Creek Storm Drain Outfall
0.04Miles0
2,400Scale 1:
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-125
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN EASEMENT
AGREEMENT WITH SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY AND RELATED
ACTIONS
WHEREAS, the Residences at Five Creek (“Five Creek”) project is located on a 15.29
acre site covered by the Stadium Area Master Plan (“SAMP”); and
WHEREAS, public improvements required as part of Five Creek include a new storm
drain line and storm water outfall into Hinebaugh Creek; and
WHEREAS, review and approval from several outside agencies were required for the
storm drain and outfall, which included review by the Sonoma County Water Agency
(“SCWA”); and
WHEREAS, SCWA requires an easement be put in place for the portion of the outfall
running through SCWA property as part of their approval process; and
WHEREAS, City and SCWA staff have reviewed and approved the easement agreement
documents and improvement plan documents associated with the storm water outfall;
WHEREAS, the storm water outfall was captured in the initial Environmental Impact
Report (“EIR”) that was approved for the SAMP in 2008;
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved by City Council on January
10, 2017 where the changes in the outfall construction were captured as part of several plan
amendments;
WHEREAS, the proposed action will have no impact on the City’s General Fund,
because the cost of the easement appraisal and SCWA fees will be billed to the developer
through the City’s formal reimbursement agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rohnert
Park that is does hereby approve the easement agreement with SCWA as shown in Exhibit A;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed
to take all actions to effectuate the grant of the easement agreement by and on behalf of the City
of Rohnert Park, including execution and recordation, if necessary, in substantially similar form
to the easement and agreements attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, and incorporated herein by this
reference, subject to minor modifications by the City Manager and City Attorney.
( 2 )
2017-125
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Finance Director is hereby authorized to take
any and all actions necessary to record the transaction in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles (“GAAP”).
DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED this 24th day of October, 2017.
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
____________________________________
Jake Mackenzie, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
JoAnne M. Buergler, City Clerk
Attachment: Exhibit A
AHANOTU: _________ BELFORTE: _________ CALLINAN: _________ STAFFORD: _________ MACKENZIE: _________
AYES: ( ) NOES: ( ) ABSENT: ( ) ABSTAIN: ( )
Exhibit A to Resolution
Page 1 of 10
RECORDED AT NO FEE PER
GOVERNMENT CODE § 6103
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City of Rohnert Park
Department of Public Works
600 Enterprise Dr.
Rohnert Park CA, 94928
Portion of APN: 143-040-017
EASEMENT AGREEMENT
This Easement Agreement ("Agreement") is made by and between the Sonoma County Water
Agency, a body corporate and politic, organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the
State of California (herein after referred to as the “Agency”) and the City of Rohnert Park, a
Municipal Corporation (herein after referred to as the “City”).
R E C I T A L S
WHEREAS, Agency is the owner of certain real property located within the City of Rohnert
Park, County of Sonoma, State of California commonly known as the Hinebaugh Creek Channel, and
being more particularly described as follows:
All that certain real property conveyed to the Sonoma County Water Agency by that
certain Grant Deed recorded on October 15, 1965 in Book 2162, Page 777 Official
Records of Sonoma County, California (herein after referred to as the “Agency
Property”).
WHEREAS, City wishes to obtain a permanent easement interest in portions of the Agency
Property for the purpose of installation and maintenance of storm drain improvements required for
the Residences at Five Creek Project (the “Project”), which property is particularly describe as
follows:
That portion of the hereinabove described real property more particularly described in
Exhibit “A” and shown for reference in Exhibit “A-1 attached hereto, and by this
reference hereby made a part of this Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the
“Easement Area”).
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, and in consideration of the mutual
covenants, terms, conditions and restrictions contained herein, Agency and City covenant and agree
as follows:
Exhibit A to Resolution
Page 2 of 10
A G R E E M E N T
1. Grant of Non-Exclusive Easement. Agency hereby grants to City a non-exclusive
easement over Easement Area of the nature, character and extent, and subject to the conditions, set
forth in this Agreement.
2. Description of Easement over Agency Property. The easement granted over the
Easement Area is a perpetual easement and right-of-way for the purpose of laying down, constructing,
reconstructing, removing, replacing, repairing, maintaining, operating and using the Project, in
accordance with improvement plans entitled: Residences at Five Creek Project dated, March 2017.
Said easement shall exist in, under, along, and across the Easement Area and shall include the right,
at all times to enter in, over and upon said Easement Area for all purposes described above in this
paragraph; provided, however, that said use does not damage or unreasonably restrict Agency’s full
use of the Agency Property. Agency reserves the right to install, construct, operate, and maintain both
its existing improvements and any future improvements on the Agency Property, so long as such future
improvements do not unreasonably interfere with City’s use of the Easement Area and the rights
granted hereunder. This easement is granted on the condition that City’s use of the easement does not
damage or unreasonably restrict Agency’s full use of existing Agency improvements. The grant of
easement herein is subject and subordinate to the rights of Agency, and its successors and assigns, to
use the Agency Property in the performance of its governmental and proprietary functions.
3. Term. The easement herein granted shall continue in perpetuity until termination of
this Agreement.
4. Maintenance of Easement. City shall maintain all City improvements within the
Easement Area at City’s sole cost and expense. Any reconstruction or maintenance activities
performed by City and related to the easement shall not unreasonably interfere with the Agency's
continued use of the Agency’s Property, including the Easement Area, for any purpose. City shall not
materially alter or reconstruct the Project without first obtaining Agency’s written approval of plans
for such alteration or reconstruction, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or
delayed, provided such plans are consistent with the purpose of the easement granted herein and the
Project. City shall promptly repair and restore to its original condition any of Agency’s Property,
including, but not limited to, the engineered channel and access road that may be damaged or destroyed
in connection with City’s use of the Easement Area.
5. Waste or Nuisance; Agency’s Rights in Property. City shall not commit or suffer: (a)
any waste or nuisance within the Easement Area; or (b) any action on the Easement Area in violation
of any law or ordinance. City shall not undertake or permit any activity or use on the Easement Area
that is inconsistent with the purpose of this Agreement, including, without limitation, the following
activities: (a) constructing, reconstructing, replacing, repairing, or maintaining any building, structure,
utilities, or other improvement other than as generally consistent with the Residences at Five Creek
Project, dated, March 2017; (b) altering the surface or contour of the land in any manner not consistent
with the Residences at Five Creek Project, dated, March 2017, including, but not limited to, excavating
or removing soil, sand, gravel, rock, sod, trees, shrubs, plants or vegetation, without Agency’s prior
written approval, except as necessary to maintain and repair the Project in accordance with Paragraph
4; (c) degrading or eroding the soil or polluting any surface or sub-surface waters; (d) dumping,
accumulating, or storing trash, ashes, garbage, waste, junk, non-operative vehicles, or other materials;
Exhibit A to Resolution
Page 3 of 10
(e) damaging the integrity of the surface beyond normal wear and tear; (f) exploring for or developing
and extracting minerals and hydrocarbons by any mining method, surface or otherwise; (g) parking
any vehicle other than for maintenance and repair by the City; and (h) placing or leaving any personal
property of City or City’s tenants, other than is necessary for appropriate uses of the easement, such
as signage.
6. Non-Liability of Agency; Indemnity. Agency and its officers, agents, and employees
shall not be liable to City or any third party for any injury, loss, or damage arising out of or in
connection with the use of the easement by City or its employees or contractors, granted herein. City
agrees to defend, indemnify, hold harmless, and release Agency, and its officers, agents, and
employees, from and against any and all actions, claims, damages, liabilities, or expenses that may be
asserted by any person or entity, including City, relating to the laying down, constructing,
reconstructing, removing, replacing, repairing, maintaining, operating and using the Project, or to the
use of the easement granted herein by City or its employees or contractors, but excluding liability to
the extent of the negligence or sole willful misconduct of Agency, its officers, agents or employees.
This indemnification obligation is not limited in any way by any limitation on the amount or type of
damages or compensation payable to or for the City or its agents under workers' compensation acts,
disability benefit acts, or other employee benefit acts. City agrees to compensate Agency for any
damage to Agency property as a result of the construction, operation, or maintenance of the Project.
If future laws or regulations require a greater separation between the Project and any Agency
improvements, City shall relocate the Project accordingly and be responsible for any costs associated
with the relocation. The obligations of this Paragraph survive termination of the Agreement.
7. Enforcement. If through inspection or otherwise Agency determines that City is in
violation of the provisions of this Agreement or that a violation is threatened, Agency shall give written
notice to City of such violation and demand corrective action sufficient to cure the violation. If City
fails to cure the violation within thirty (30) days after receipt of notice thereof from Agency, or under
circumstances where the violation cannot reasonably be cured within a thirty (30) day period, fails to
begin curing such violation within the thirty (30) day period, or fails to continue diligently to cure such
violation until finally cured, Agency may bring an action to enforce the provisions of this Agreement,
enjoin the violation, recover damages and enforcement costs for the violation, and require restoration
of the easement to the condition that existed prior to the violation. If Agency reasonably determines
that circumstances require immediate action to prevent or mitigate an imminent threat to public health
or safety, Agency may pursue its remedies under this paragraph without waiting for the period for cure
to expire, though Agency shall notify City as soon as possible, either prior to any action or immediately
thereafter.
8. Enforcement Discretion. Enforcement of the provisions of this Agreement shall be at
the discretion of the Parties, and any forbearance by a Party to exercise its rights under this Agreement,
in the event of any breach of any provision of this Agreement by the other Party, shall not be deemed
or construed to be a waiver by the Party of such provision or of any subsequent breach of the same or
any other provision of this Agreement, or of any of the Party's rights under this Agreement. No delay
or omission by a Party in the exercise of any right or remedy upon any breach by the other Party shall
impair such right or remedy, or be construed as a waiver.
Exhibit A to Resolution
Page 4 of 10
9. Access and Control. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as
precluding Agency's right to grant access to third parties across the Easement Area, so long
as any rights so granted are not inconsistent with the purpose of this easement or the rights
granted to City herein.
10. Successors. This Agreement shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of the
parties hereto and their respective successors, heirs, assigns and transferees.
11. Amendment. If circumstances arise under which an amendment or modification of
this Agreement would be appropriate, City and Agency shall be free to jointly amend this
Agreement. Any such amendment shall be recorded in the Office of the Sonoma County
Recorder.
12. Notices. Any notice, demand, request, approval, or other communication that either
party desires or is required to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and may be
given by personal delivery or by mail. Notices, demands, requests, approvals, or other
communications sent by mail should be addressed as follows:
Agency: Sonoma County Water Agency
Attention: General Manager
404 Aviation Boulevard
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
City: City of Rohnert Park
Department of Public Works
600 Enterprise Dr.
Rohnert Park Ca 94928
and when so addressed, shall be deemed given upon deposit in the United States Mail,
registered or certified, return receipt requested, postage prepaid. In all other instances,
notices, demands, requests, approvals, or other communications shall be deemed given at the
time of actual delivery. Changes may be made in the names and addresses of the persons to
whom notices, demands, requests, approvals, or other communications are to be given by
giving notice pursuant to this section.
13. Applicable Law and Forum. Interpretation and performance of this Agreement shall
be governed by California law and any action to enforce the provisions of this Agreement, or
the breach thereof, shall be brought and tried in the County of Sonoma.
14. No Third Party Beneficiaries. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed
to create, and the parties do not intend to create, any rights in third parties.
Exhibit A to Resolution
Page 5 of 10
15. Integration. This Agreement is the final and complete expression of the agreement
between the parties and any and all prior or contemporaneous agreements written or oral are
merged into this instrument.
16. Captions. The captions in this Agreement have been included solely for convenience
of reference. They are not a part of this Agreement and shall have no effect upon its
construction or interpretation.
17. Survival of Agreement. This Agreement, including all representations, warranties,
covenants, agreements, releases and other obligations contained herein, shall survive the
closing of this transaction and recordation of any deed or other document related hereto.
18. Title to Agency Property. It is understood that the City intends to perform its own
title review and obtain title insurance for the easement rights to be acquired from the Agency.
The Agency is authorized to grant and covey this easement, subject to any and all senior rights
that may exist in and to the Agency Property.
Exhibit A to Resolution
Page 6 of 10
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Agency and City have executed this Agreement as set
forth below.
SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY:
Executed by the Sonoma County Water Agency this ________ day of
________________________, 2017, pursuant to authority granted by Agenda Item No.
______________________ dated ______________________________, 2017:
Attest:
By: ________________________________
By:__________________________________
Shirlee Zane Clerk, Board of
Directors
Chair, Board of Directors
Reviewed as to Substance:
By: Date:_______________
General Manager
Approved as to Form:
By: Date:_______________
Deputy County Counsel
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, a municipal corporation:
By: __________________________________ Date:_______________
City Manager
Resolution Number:
Approved as to Form:
Exhibit A to Resolution
Page 7 of 10
By: __________________________________ Date:_______________
City Attorney
Exhibit A to Resolution
Page 8 of 10
Exhibit “A”
Insert Legal Description from City
Exhibit A to Resolution
Page 9 of 10
Exhibit “A-1”
Insert Plat of Legal Description
Exhibit A to Resolution
Page 10 of 10
ITEM NO. 6C3
1
Meeting Date: October 24, 2017
Department: Information Technology
Submitted By: Don Schwartz, Assistant City Manager
Prepared By: Tracy Rankin, Human Resources Analyst
Agenda Title: Consideration of Resolution Authorizing and Approving Elimination of a
Temporary Part-Time Technical Advisor and a Temporary Part-Time
Information Systems Assistant and Addition of a Regular Full-Time
Information Systems Technician I in the Information Technology
Department
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve the attached resolution authorizing and approving elimination of a Temporary, Part-
Time Technical Advisor and a Temporary Part-Time Information Systems Assistant and addition
of a Regular, Full-Time Information Systems Technician I in the Information Technology
Department.
BACKGROUND:
The current staffing structure in the Information Technology Department is comprised of the
following positions:
Current Staffing Structure:
The temporary, Part-Time Technical Advisor performs duties for the Public Safety
Department requiring specialized knowledge and skills related to portable and mobile radio
maintenance, programming, and deployment; mobile data computer support; maintenance of the
digital recorder in dispatch and other tasks. The incumbent was recently promoted to another
position in the City, and in August 2017, the Human Resources Department opened a recruitment
to fill the anticipated vacancy. The recruitment failed, as there were no viable candidates with
the necessary skill set at the current salary.
Mission Statement
“We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a
Better Community for Today and Tomorrow.”
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ITEM NO. 6C3
2
Upon further discussion, staff determined that the current Regular, Full Time Information
Systems Technician I possesses the required skill set and has performed the duties of the Part-
Time Technical Advisor in the past. In addition, the existing Temporary, Part-Time
Information Systems Assistants working 1,456 hours per fiscal year is interested in increasing
his hours and possesses the knowledge and skills to perform the duties of the Information
Systems Technician I.
As set forth in the chart below, staff proposes eliminating the PT Technical Advisor position,
reassigning the duties to the current Information Systems Technician I, and promoting the
existing Part Time Information Systems Assistant (1,456 hours) to a regular, full time
Information Systems Technician I.
Proposed Staffing Structure:
*20 Hours/week performing
Technical Advisor duties
Based on the skill set of existing employees, the desire to create a career track for employees
in the Information Technology Department, and the recent failed recruitment, staff
recommends restructuring the duties of existing employees as the most successful option for
meeting department needs.
ANALYSIS:
As outlined below in the Fiscal Impact section, the net additional annual cost of the proposed
restructuring is $18,795. While we are adding a Full Time Information Systems Technician I
position, the elimination of the Part Time Technical Advisor (20 hours/week) and the Part
Time Information Systems Assistant (30 hours/week) results in a decrease of 10 staff
hours/week. Although the City would be paying more for fewer hours, the City has faced
challenges in filling vacancies in the Information Technology Department, especially part-time
positions, and retaining those employees we do hire. Promoting an existing part time employee
to a higher level full time position will help us keep needed Information Technology talent and is
in the best long term interest for the City’s Information Technology staffing.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
Goal C: Ensure the effective delivery of public services.
Strategies: Deliver the highest quality services in the most cost-effective manner with an
emphasis on excellent customer service.
Restructuring the existing staffing model to best utilize internal employee resources is the most
cost-effective solution available.
ITEM NO. 6C3
3
OPTIONS CONSIDERED:
Option 1: The City would eliminate the Part Time Technical Advisor position, reassign the
duties to the current Information Systems Technician I, and then promote the existing Part Time
Information Systems Assistant to a regular, full time Information Systems Technician I position
to backfill some of the duties of the current Information Systems Technician I. Recommended.
Option 2: The City would run another recruitment to fill the Temporary, Part-Time Technical
Advisor position. Not Recommended. The recent recruitment for this position failed. Based on
the part-time, non-benefitted status, as well as the specialized duties and skills required for this
position, a successful recruitment of a qualified candidate is unlikely.
Option 3: The City would hire a contractor to perform the duties of the Temporary, Part-Time
Technical Advisor. Not recommended: This option is expensive and not a viable long term
solution.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE:
The approximate fiscal impact of eliminating two temporary, part-time positions and adding a
regular, full time Information Systems Technician I position is listed below:
Cost Summary
ELIMINATE Annual Salary Benefits Total
Temporary Part-Time (1,000 hours)
Technical Advisor in PERS - $19.00/hour
($19,000) ($5,772) ($24,772)
Temporary Part-Time (1,456 hours)
Info Systems Assistant in PERS - $22.00/hour
($32,030) ($9,748) ($41,778)
Total eliminated ($51,030) ($15,520) ($66,550)
ADD Annual Salary Benefits Total
Regular Full-Time Info Systems Technician I -
$25.80/hour
$53,659 $31,686 $85,345
Total added $53,659 $31,686 $85,345
Net Additional Annual Cost $18,795
If costs cannot be absorbed in the current budget, staff will return with a budget amendment to
address any gap.
Department Head Approval Date: N/A
City Manager Approval Date: 10/17/17
City Attorney Approval Date: N/A
Finance Director Approval Date: 10/17/17
Attachment (list in packet assembly order):
1. Resolution Authorizing and Approving Elimination of a Temporary Part-Time
Technical Advisor and a Temporary Part-Time Information Systems Assistant and
Addition of a Regular Full-Time Information Systems Technician I in the Information
Technology Department
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-126
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
APPROVING ELIMINATION OF A TEMPORARY PART-TIME TECHNICAL ADVISOR
AND A TEMPORARY PART-TIME INFORMATION SYSTEMS ASSISTANT AND
ADDITION OF A REGULAR FULL-TIME INFORMATION SYSTEMS TECHNICIAN I
IN THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
WHEREAS, the incumbent in the Temporary, Part-Time Technical Advisor position was
recently promoted to another position in the City and the recruitment to fill the vacant position
failed; and
WHEREAS, the City has faced challenges in filling vacancies and retaining employees in
the Information Technology Department; and
WHEREAS, staff determined that the current Information Systems Technician I
possesses the required skill set and has performed the duties of the Temporary, Part-Time
Technical Advisor in the past; and
WHEREAS, an existing Temporary, Part-Time Information Systems Assistant currently
working 1,456 hours per fiscal year is interested in increasing his hours and possesses the
knowledge and skills to perform the duties of the Information Systems Technician I; and
WHEREAS, based on the skill set of existing employees, the desire to create a career
track for employees in the Information Technology Department, and the recent failed recruitment,
staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution eliminating the Temporary Part-Time
Technical Advisor position and a Temporary Part-Time Information Systems Assistant position
and adding a Regular Full-time Information Systems Technician I in the Information Technology
Department.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rohnert
Park that it does hereby approve elimination of a Temporary Part-Time Technical Advisor and a
Temporary Part-Time Information Systems Assistant and addition of a Regular Full-time
Information Systems Technician I in the Information Technology Department.
DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED this 24th day of October, 2017.
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
____________________________________
Jake Mackenzie, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
JoAnne Buergler, City Clerk
AHANOTU: _________ BELFORTE: _________ CALLINAN: _________ STAFFORD: _________ MACKENZIE: _________
AYES: ( ) NOES: ( ) ABSENT: ( ) ABSTAIN: ( )
ITEM NO. 6C4
1
Meeting Date: October 24, 2017
Department: Development Services
Submitted By: Mary Grace Pawson PE, Director of Development Services
Agenda Title: Authorize the City Manager to Execute Amendment 1 to Task Order 2017-01
with Green Valley Consulting Engineers for Developer Funded Construction
Review Services
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute
Amendment 1 to Task Order 2017-01 with Green Valley Consulting Engineers for Construction
Management and Inspection Services for the University District Project and Related Actions.
BACKGROUND: The City originally entered into a Master Agreement with Green Valley
Consulting Engineers (Green Valley) for Design Professional Services on January 26, 2011,
pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2011-07. In February 2016, a new Master Agreement
with Green Valley was authorized and approved by Council Resolution No. 2016-16.
Under the 2011 agreement and after a qualifications-based selection process, the City approved
Task Order No. 2014-02 with Green Valley for On-Call Construction Management and
Inspection Services for the University District Project. Because of ongoing development activity,
the City subsequently entered into Task Order No. 2016-01 and Task Order No. 2017-01 to
continue the construction management and inspection services at the University District. Task
Order 2017-01 has a limit of $703,950 and it approaching its funding limit. However there is still
a significant amount of construction work taking place at the University District.
During the 2017 construction season, the developer completed the construction of Twin Creeks
Park; completed the widening of Rohnert Park Expressway from Snyder Lane to Petaluma Hill
Road and is working to complete the construction of in-tract improvements for Vast Oaks Phase
2 consisting of 425 residential lots. All of these improvements require city inspection and
acceptance and the work on Snyder Lane at Petaluma Hill Road requires coordination with the
County of Sonoma. City staff does not currently have the resources to perform the inspection
work and the Development Agreement for the University District provides the City with the
authority to recover its costs, including the costs of outside consultants when they are necessary.
Because of this, the City can use consultants, like Green Valley, to augment our staff resources
without having adverse impacts on the City’s General Fund.
ANALYSIS: While the City has competitively solicited and secured on-call construction
management and inspection services from a number of consultants, Green Valley is considered
the most qualified to continue to provide these services for the University District Project. The
firm has been able to effectively represent the City’s interest while working with the developer to
undertake its work in a reasonably coordinated fashion. In addition, Green Valley has not worked
for the developer and has no conflicts of interest and its hourly rates, particularly for inspection
services, are very competitive.
Mission Statement
“We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a
Better Community for Today and Tomorrow.”
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ITEM NO. 6C4
2
The University District Developer is constructing both onsite and offsite improvements with as
many as six contractors at any time, and City staff is recommending that the construction
management team continue to include a construction manager and between 3 and 5 full-time
inspectors to manage the work that is currently under construction. To provide this level of
oversight for the remainder of the 2017 construction season will cost an estimated $586,550,
bringing the total value of Task Order 2017-01 to $1,209,500. The estimated value of the current
construction at the University District is approximately $15 million, making the construction
management costs equivalent to 8.6% of the costs of construction, which is reasonable based on
industry standards. These costs are covered by developer reimbursements.
This proposed Task Order Amendment with Green Valley is in alignment with Purchasing
Policy Sections 3.6(B) and (D), which allows the city to engage professional services via a
negotiated process and secure their ongoing services via master services agreements.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: By hiri ng outside professionals, the City is ensuring the
effective delivery of public services thus aligning with Goal C of the Strategic Plan.
Additionally, this allows staff to better assist major planned developments which aligns with
Goal D of the Strategic Plan.
OPTIONS CONSIDERED:
1. Authorize the Task Order Amendment with Green Valley Consultants (recommended
option). This option allows staff to retain continuity of inspection services and project
understanding and will allow resources to remain available as work proceeds.
2. Award the construction management and inspection services to another firm. This option
is not recommended because Green Valley is most qualified to continue with this work.
3. Perform construction management and inspection services using city staff. This option is
not recommended as it would require hiring additional staff to perform these services.
The use of a consultant offers flexibility to the City to engage their services only if and
when there is work to be done.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE: The fiscal impact of the proposed action is
$586,550. The expenses incurred under the Task Order Amendment will be reimbursed by the
developer per the Development Agreement for the University District Specific Plan.
Department Head Approval Date: 10/06/2017
Finance Director Approval Date: NA
City Attorney Approval Date: 10/10/2017
City Manager Approval Date: 10/17/2017
Attachments (list in packet assembly order):
1. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Amendment 1 to Task Order 2017-
01 with Green Valley Consulting Engineers for Construction Management and Inspection
Services for the University District Project and Related Actions
2. Exhibit A to Resolution : Amendment 1 to Task Order No. 2017-01
1
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-127
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT 1 TO TASK
ORDER 2017-01 WITH GREEN VALLEY CONSULTING ENGINEERS FOR
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR THE
UNIVERSITY DISTRICT PROJECT AND RELATED ACTIONS
WHEREAS, the City entered into a Master Agreement with Green Valley Consulting
Engineers for Design Professional Services on January 26, 2011, pursuant to City Council
Resolution No. 2011-07 adopted on January 25, 2011;
WHEREAS, under the 2011 agreement and after a qualifications-based selection
process, the City entered into a Task Order No. 2014-02 with Green Valley Consulting Engineers
for On-Call Construction Management and Inspection Services for University District Sheet;
WHEREAS, consistent with the Purchasing Policy, the City entered into a new Master
Agreement with Green Valley Consulting Engineers for Design Professional Services on March
1, 2016, pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2016-16 adopted on February 23, 2016;
WHEREAS, under the 2016 agreement the City entered into Task Order 2016-01 and
Task Order 2017-01 with Green Valley Consulting Engineers to continue construction
management and inspection work at the University District;
WHEREAS, Task Order 2017-01 has reached its funding limits;
WHEREAS, the University District Project is proceeding with additional public
improvements, all of which require city management, inspection and acceptance;
WHEREAS, staff requested and has received a proposal from Green Valley Consulting
Engineers for continued construction management and inspection services; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the first amendment to Task Order No 2017-01
at its duly noticed regular meeting of October 24, 2017.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rohnert
Park that it does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment 1 to Task Order No.
2017-01 by and between Green Valley Consulting Engineers, a California Corporation, and the
City of Rohnert Park, a municipal corporation, for Construction Management and Inspection
Services for the University District Project in an amount not to exceed five hundred eighty-six
thousand five hundred fifty dollars and no cents ($586,550).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed
to take all actions to effectuate the Task Order for and on behalf of the City of Rohnert Park,
including execution, if necessary, in substantially similar form to the Task Order amendment
attached hereto and incorporated by this reference as Exhibit “A,” subject to minor modifications
by the City Manager or City Attorney.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon receipt of developer reimbursements, the
Finance Director is authorized to make appropriations and increase budgeted revenue as
necessary to cover the costs of the Task Order.
( 2 )
2017-127
DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED this 24th day of October, 2017.
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
____________________________________
Jake Mackenzie, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
JoAnne M. Buergler, City Clerk
Attachment: Exhibit A
AHANOTU: _________ BELFORTE: _________ CALLINAN: _________ STAFFORD: _________ MACKENZIE: _________
AYES: ( ) NOES: ( ) ABSENT: ( ) ABSTAIN: ( )
AMENDMENT 1 TO
GREEN VALLEY TASK ORDER NO. 2017-01
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
AND GREEN VALLEY CONSULTING ENGINEERS
AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR ON-CALL
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND MANAGEMENT AT THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT
SECTION 1 – PURPOSE: The purpose of this Amendment 1 to Task Order No. 2017-01 is to
authorize and direct Green Valley Consulting Engineers (“Consultant”) to proceed with the work
specified in Section 2 below in accordance with the provisions of the MASTER AGREEMENT
between the City of Rohnert Park ("City") and Consultant dated March 1, 2016. Task Order No.
2017-01 was for an amount not to exceed $703,950 and was approved on February 14, 2017.
SECTION 2 – SCOPE OF WORK: The additional items authorized by this Amendment 1 to
Task Order No. 2017-10 are presented in Exhibit “A”.
SECTION 3 – COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT: Compensation shall be as provided in
the MASTER AGREEMENT between the parties referenced in SECTION 1 above. The
additional cost for services as set forth in SECTION 2 shall be actual costs (time and materials)
based on Consultants' standard labor charges in accordance with the provisions of the MASTER
AGREEMENT and as shown in Exhibit “B” for an amount not-to-exceed $586,550.00.
Total compensation under this Task Order, inclusive of this Amendment 1, shall not exceed
$1,290,500.
SECTION 4 – TIME OF PERFORMANCE: The work described in SECTION 2 shall be
completed during Fiscal Year 2017-18, or as extended by the City Manager or his designee.
SECTION 5 – ITEMS AND CONDITIONS: All items and conditions contained in the
MASTER AGREEMENT for professional services between City and Consultant are
incorporated by reference.
Approved this 24th day of October, 2017.
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK GREEN VALLEY CONSULTING ENGINEERS
_________________________________________________________________
Darrin Jenkins, City Manager (Date) Elizabeth Ellis, President (Date)
Per Resolution No. 2017-____ adopted by the Rohnert
Park City Council at its meeting of October 24, 2017.
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
City Attorney
Exhibit A to Resolution
ATTACHMENT “A” to Task Order No. 2017-01
SCOPE OF SERVICES
On-Call Construction Management and Inspection Services by Green Valley
Consulting Engineers for the University District Project
Scope of Services
Task No 1 - Pre-Construction and Initial Construction Activities
Green Valley’s pre-construction services will include logistics, coordination, and meetings with the
Contractor, City, utility companies, and other project stake holders. It is our understanding that the
Construction Manager will be responsible for leading the meeting. Additional services to be
provided at this stage include:
Pre-construction digital photos of the project site
Set up the project files in accordance with the City’s standard formats for administration
Development of written and verbal communication protocol (and associated forms) with the
Construction Manager and City Staff
Task No. 2 – Daily Field Inspection & Documentation
Green Valley will provide daily, on-site inspections of the construction activities to ensure that the
contract work conforms to the contract documents and Governing Construction Standards. The
on-site inspector will provide documentation of the work on daily inspection reports. Daily
inspection reports may be submitted to the City on a weekly basis for the previous week’s work.
Green Valley will also document the work in progress with digital photos. Other important tasks of
the on-site inspector include public relations and safety measures, especially traffic control
measures during construction.
If requested, our Inspector will confirm that all design permit requirements are met and will act as
the liaison between the Contractor, Construction Manager, and other stakeholders. Specifically, we
can assist with the following work:
Measurement of work, pay requests, change order support, and related contract issues
Preparation and processing payment recommendations to the City using Microsoft Office
formats
Review of Certified Payroll reports
Coordination of all required testing as specified by the Contract documents
Quality Control/Assurance of construction approach and written communications
We know that documentation and communication is critical to the success of construction projects
and we are committed to keeping the Construction Manager, City staff and other stakeholders
informed regarding critical construction details, progress of the work and costs of the project. We
will document all construction issues with the following reports:
Progress Meeting Minutes
Daily inspection Reports; Weekly statement of Working days
Monthly Status Report
The Monthly Status Report will provide the City with information on construction activities for the
month, change order cost summary, pay estimate cost summary and contract time summary.
Task No. 3 - Requests for Information (RFI)
The Contractor will be required to submit all Requests for Information in writing. The Inspector will
work under the direction of the appointed Construction Manager to follow up as needed with the
Contractor to clarify requests, obtain needed information and provide direction as required to proceed
with the work.
Task No. 4 – Closeout & Record Drawings
We will work with the City and the Contractor to keep a “record set” of drawings to document
changes and as-built conditions of original design plans. Once construction is completed to the
satisfaction of the City, we compile all pertinent files and related information and submit to the City
for their permanent records. We will furnish the City the following:
Record drawings
Project Photos
All contract files and records
Electronic files
Ta
s
k
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
Ta
s
k
T
a
s
k
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
Co
n
s
t
.
Ma
n
a
g
e
r
/
P
E
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
g
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
In
s
p
e
c
t
o
r
I
I
-
OT
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
In
s
p
e
c
t
o
r
I
I
Ad
m
i
n
.
As
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
Di
r
e
c
t
Co
s
t
s
To
t
a
l
Ho
u
r
s
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
s
R
e
m
a
r
k
s
$2
0
5
$
1
8
5
$
1
6
5
$
1
3
5
$
7
5
1
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
37
5
1
8
0
1
2
5
6
8
0
$
1
1
9
,
5
5
0
C
M
a
t
a
p
p
r
o
x
.
5
h
r
/
d
a
y
f
o
r
4
m
o
n
t
h
s
2
D
a
i
l
y
F
i
e
l
d
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
&
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
50
0
2
7
0
0
3
,
2
0
0
$
4
4
7
,
0
0
0
3
-
5
F
u
l
l
a
n
d
p
t
-
t
i
m
e
i
n
s
p
e
c
t
o
r
s
f
o
r
4
m
o
n
t
h
s
In
s
p
e
c
t
o
r
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
$2
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
$
8
0
/
D
a
y
f
o
r
i
n
s
p
e
c
t
o
r
'
s
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
Re
i
m
b
u
r
s
i
b
l
e
E
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
(
p
h
o
t
o
s
,
c
o
p
i
e
s
,
e
t
c
.
)
$0
To
t
a
l
H
o
u
r
s
37
5
1
8
0
5
0
0
2
,
7
0
0
1
2
5
-
$7
6
,
8
7
5
$
3
3
,
3
0
0
$
8
2
,
5
0
0
$
3
6
4
,
5
0
0
$
9
,
3
7
5
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
TOTAL NOT-TO-EXCEED COST
Ba
s
e
d
o
n
F
u
l
l
t
i
m
e
i
n
s
p ec
t
i
o
n
, M
o
n
d
a
y t
h
r
o
u
g h
F
r
i
d
a
y a
t
8
-
1
0
h
o
u
r
s
p er
d
a
y
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
"
B
"
T
O
TA
S
K
O
R
D
E
R
N
O
.
2
0
1
7
-
0
1
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
T
o
t
a
l
$5
8
6
,
5
5
0
.
0
0
Wo
r
k
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
-
G
r
e
e
n
V
a
l
l
e
y
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
f
o
r
On
-
C
a
l
l
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
&
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
f
o
r
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
CI
T
Y
O
F
R
O
H
N
E
R
T
P
A
R
K
-
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
7
F:
\
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
\
G
r
e
e
n
V
a
l
l
e
y
\
2
0
1
6
M
a
s
t
e
r
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
\
T
a
s
k
O
r
d
e
r
s
\
T
O
2
0
1
7
-
0
1
U
D
S
P
\
A
m
e
n
d
1
\
W
o
r
k
i
n
g
d
o
c
s
\
C
o
p
y
o
f
a
m
d
#
7
i
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
e
e
10/6/2017
ITEM NO. 6D
1
Meeting Date: October 24, 2017
Department: Development Services
Submitted By: Mary Grace Pawson, Director of Development Services
Prepared By: Mary Grace Pawson, Director of Development Services
Agenda Title: Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Assignment and
Assumption Agreements for the Vast Oak East and Vast Oak North
Portions of the University District
RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Minute Order, authorize the City Manager to execute
Assignment and Assumption Agreements for the Vast Oak East and Vast Oak North portions of
the University District.
BACKGROUND: The University District Specific Plan covers approximately 300 acres in the
eastern portion of the City approved for residential and commercial development. The master
developers, Vast Oak LP and University District LLC, are party to a number of agreements with
the City to facilitate construction of their project including an Amended and Restated
Development Agreement and number of Improvement Agreements and Fee Credit Agreements.
As the development proceeds, the master developers’ have been selling finished buildable lots to
other interests, the “merchant builders”, who complete construction of the residential units.
When the property is sold, some Development Agreement obligations, such as the requirement to
pay various fees go with the property. In addition, some benefits, such as fee credits earned by
the master developers, can also be passed along.
The purpose of the requested action is to authorize the City Manager to execute the agreements
that assign these various obligations and benefits, in order to streamline the administration of the
Development Agreement and various Improvement and Fee Credit Agreements, as the
University District project builds out.
ANALYSIS: Council first authorized the use of Assignment and Assumption Agreements when
it approved the final map for the Vast Oak West subdivision. At that time, obligations under the
Development Agreement and fee credits earned by the master developers were assigned to three
merchant builders. The master developers are now working to secure approval of the final map
for the Vast Oak East portion of the subdivision, which, among other things, requires that a
parcel designated for affordable housing located in the Vast Oak North portion of the
subdivision, be transferred to an affordable housing builder. As such, it is appropriate to consider
assignment assumption agreements for Vast Oak East and Vast Oak North at this time.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: The proposed action is consistent with Strategic Plan
Goal D – Continue to Develop a Vibrant Community.
Mission Statement
“We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a
Better Community for Today and Tomorrow.”
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ITEM NO. 6D
2
OPTIONS CONSIDERED: None. Allowing for assignment of the master developers’ various
rights and obligations to merchant builders is necessary to facilitate the build-out of the
University District.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE: None. The assignment and assumption agreements
are a tool for ensuring the master developers’ responsibilities, including fiscal responsibilities,
pass smoothly to subsequent owners engaged in the project. The City’s costs associated with
processing the various assignment and assumption agreements are paid by the benefitting
developers, who have reimbursement agreements with the City.
Department Head Approval Date: 10/05/2017
Finance Director Approval Date: NA
City Attorney Approval Date: 10/09/2017
City Manager Approval Date: 10/17/2017
Attachments (list in packet assembly order):
1. Form of Assignment and Assumption of Development Agreement and Consent of City
2. Form of Assignment of PF Fee Credits and Consent of City
Attachment 1 to Staff Report
OAK #4815-4727-6076 v2 1
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
University District LLC
500 La Gonda Way, Suite 100
Danville, California 94526
Attention: John Ryan
ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
AND CONSENT OF CITY
This ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND
CONSENT OF CITY (the “Assignment”) is made effective as of the date of the conveyance of
the Property (defined below) to Assignee (defined below) (the “Effective Date”), by and between
________________________________, (“Assignee”), and UNIVERSITY DISTRICT LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company (“Assignor”).
R E C I T A L S
A. That certain real property described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference, (the “Property”), is subject to that certain development agreement entered by
and between the City and Seller, which was approved pursuant to Ordinance No 878 and recorded
July 28, 2014 in the Official Records as Document No. 2014051817 together with a first
amendment to the development agreement which was approved pursuant to Ordinance No. 894
and recorded January 19, 2016 in the Official Records as Document No.2016003747 and a second
amendment to the development agreement which was approved pursuant to Ordinance No. 900
and recorded November 17, 2016 in the Official Records as Document No. 2016106715
(collectively the “Development Agreement”).
B. Assignor has now entered into an Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Real
Property and Joint Escrow Instructions with Assignee, dated as of _________________, 20__
(the “Purchase Agreement”), pursuant to which, among other things, Assignor has agreed to
transfer and convey to Assignee all of Assignor’s rights in and to the portion of the Property
described in Exhibit B attached hereto (the “Assigned Property”), and cause Assignor to assign
to Assignee certain rights, title and interest in and to the Development Agreement to the extent
relating to the Property, as described below. Development of a _____________ project on the
Assigned Property in accordance with the Development Agreement and entitlements referred to
therein is referred to herein as the “Project.” That portion of the Property that is not the Assigned
Property or that has not been otherwise assigned by the Assignor in accordance with the
Development Agreement is referred to herein as the “Remaining Property.”
Attachment 1 to Staff Report
OAK #4815-4727-6076 v2 2
NOW, THEREFORE, Assignor and Assignee agree as follows:
1. Assignment. For and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
contained in this Assignment, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy
of which is acknowledged, Assignor assigns to Assignee only the following rights and obligations
(referred to herein as the “Assigned Rights and Obligations”) as these pertain to the Assigned
Property:
(a) Sections 2.02, 2.03, 3.01 – 3.03, 3.05, 3.06 – 3.15, 4.01, 4.02 (except the
obligation to contribute $100,000 to the nexus study) 4.03, 4.06, 5.01-5.03, 5.06, 6.01-6.03,
7.01-7.05, 7.06 (as to the obligation in this Section 1), 7.07, 8.01 – 8.03, 9.01 – 9.04,
9.06 – 9.09, and 10.01 – 10.12, as to the Assigned Property; and
(b) as provided in Section 8.02 of the Development Agreement, an allocation
for _______ (___) residential building permits for the calendar year 20__ under the City of
Rohnert Park’s Growth Management Ordinance (“Building Permit Allocations”) and
__________ (_____) sewer and water capacity allocations pursuant to Section 4.11(C) of
the Development Agreement (“Sewer and Water Allocations”).
Assignee hereby acknowledges that the Assigned Rights and Obligations are subject to the
timing and phasing of the development of the Property as set forth in the Development Agreement.
2. Remaining Obligations. Assignor acknowledges and agrees that it remains subject
to all rights and obligations set forth in the Development Agreement, except the Assigned Rights
and Obligations expressly set forth in Section 1 above (the “Remaining Rights and
Obligations”). The Remaining Rights and Obligations include without limitation the following:
(a) Sections 2.04, 4.04, 4.05, 4.07 – 4.17, 5.07, 5.09, 7.06 (except as set forth
in Section 1(a)), 9.05, Exhibit C and Exhibit D; and
(b) Sections 2.02, 2.03, 3.01 – 3.03, 3.05, 3.06 – 3.15, 4.01 – 4.03, 4.06, 5.01 –
5.03, 5.06, 6.01 – 6.03, 7.01 – 7.05, 7.07, 8.01 – 8.03, 9.01 – 9.04, 9.06 – 9.09, and 10.01
– 10.12, as to the Remaining Property.
3. Acceptance and Assumption. Assignee hereby accepts the assignment of the
Assigned Rights and Obligations from Assignor, and assumes and agrees to perform all of the
Assigned Rights and Obligations.
4. Further Assurances. Assignor hereby covenants that it will, at any time and from
time to time upon written request therefor, execute and deliver to Assignee, its nominees,
successors and/or assigns, any new or confirmatory instruments and do and perform any other acts
which Assignee or its nominees, successors and/or assigns may request in order to fully transfer
possession and control of, and protect the rights of Assignee and its successors and/or assigns in,
all the rights, benefits and privileges intended to be transferred and assigned hereby. Assignee
hereby covenants that it will, at any time and from time to time upon written request therefor,
execute and deliver to Assignor, its nominees, successors and/or assigns, any new or confirmatory
instruments and do and perform any other acts which Assignor or its nominees, successors and/or
assigns may request in order to fully confirm and vest in Assignor and its successors and/or assigns
Attachment 1 to Staff Report
OAK #4815-4727-6076 v2 3
in, all the obligations, rights, benefits and privileges intended to be transferred by the acceptance
and assumption herein.
5. Successors. This Assignment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the
parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns.
6. Counterparts. This Assignment may be executed in counterparts, each of which
shall be deemed an original, but all of which, taken together, shall constitute one and the same
instrument.
7. Amendment. This Assignment may only be amended or modified by a written
instrument executed by all of the parties hereto with the prior written consent of the City of Rohnert
Park.
8. Governing Law. The validity, interpretation and performance of this Assignment
shall be controlled by and construed under the laws of the State of California.
9. Attorneys’ Fees. Should any dispute arise between the parties hereto or their legal
representatives, successors or assigns concerning any provision of this Assignment or the rights
and duties of any person in relation thereto, the party prevailing in such dispute shall be entitled,
in addition to such other relief that may be granted, to receive from the other party all costs and
expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred by the prevailing party in connection with
such dispute.
10. Entire Agreement. This Assignment, together with the Purchase Agreement,
constitutes the entire agreement among the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof,
and supersedes all prior understandings or agreements. In the event of any conflict between this
Assignment and the Purchase Agreement, the terms of the Purchase Agreement shall govern and
control.
11. Severability. If any term, covenant, condition or provision of this Assignment, or
the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall to any extent be held by a court of
competent jurisdiction or otherwise by law rendered invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder
of the terms, covenants, conditions or provisions of this Assignment, or the application thereof to
any person or circumstance, shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected,
impaired or invalidated thereby.
12. Notices. All notices shall be in writing, and shall be given in the manner prescribed
by Section 10.07 of the Development Agreement. Pursuant to Section 10.07 of the Development
Agreement, the address for Assignee is:
Name:
Street Address:
City, State, Zip Code:
Attn:
Telephone:
Electronic Mail Address:
Attachment 1 to Staff Report
OAK #4815-4727-6076 v2 4
13. Authority. Each individual executing this Assignment on behalf of a corporation
or other legal entity represents and warrants that: (a) he or she is duly authorized to execute and
deliver this Assignment on behalf of said corporation or other legal entity in accordance with and
without violating the provisions of its governing documents, and (b) this Assignment is binding
upon and enforceable against said corporation or other legal entity in accordance with its terms.
Any entity signing this Assignment on behalf of a corporation or other legal entity hereby
represents and warrants in its own capacity that it has full authority to do so on behalf of the
corporation or other legal entity.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have entered into this Assignment as of the Effective
Date.
Signatures on the following pages
Attachment 1 to Staff Report
OAK #4815-4727-6076 v2 Signature Page
“ASSIGNOR”
UNIVERSITY DISTRICT LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By:
Name:
Title:
By:
Name:
Title:
“ASSIGNEE”
By:
Name:
Title:
ASSIGNOR”
VAST OAK PROPERTIES L.P.,
a California limited partnership
By:
Name:
Title:
By:
Name:
Title:
(all signatures to be notarized)
Attachment 1 to Staff Report
OAK #4815-4727-6076 v2 City Signature Page
CONSENT OF CITY
The City hereby consents to the foregoing Assignment and Assumption of Development
Agreement, including the assignment of the Building Permit Allocations and the Sewer and Water
Allocations.
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
a Municipal Corporation
By:
Darrin Jenkins, City Manager
Authorized by Minute Order adopted by the
Rohnert Park City Council at their meeting of
October 24, 2017
APPROVED AS TO FORM
By:
Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney
ATTEST
By:
JoAnne M. Buergler, City Clerk
Attachment 1 to Staff Report
OAK #4815-4727-6076 v2
EXHIBIT “A”
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
(To be attached.)
Attachment 2 to Staff Report
WEST\266880021.2
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
University District LLC
500 La Gonda Way, Suite 100
Danville, California 94526
Attention: John Ryan
ASSIGNMENT OF PFFP FEE CREDITS AND CONSENT OF CITY
This Assignment of Fee Credits (the “Assignment”) is made and entered into as of
________________, 20___ (“Assignment Date”), by and between ________ (“Assignee”),
VAST OAK PROPERTIES L.P., a California limited partnership, and UNIVERSITY DISTRICT
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Assignor”), with reference to the following facts.
RECITALS
A. Assignor is the owner of certain real property located in the City of Rohnert Park,
Sonoma County, State of California (the “Overall Property”).
B. Pursuant to that certain Public Facilities Fee Credit Agreement (the “PF Fee
Agreement”) entered into by the Assignor and the City of Rohnert Park (the “City”) dated as of
________________ and recorded on ______________ as document number ___________ in the
Official Records of Sonoma County, Assignor has earned certain fee credits (the “PPFP Fee
Credits”) in the amount of ____________________________ ($XXX) in connection with
Assignor’s construction of facilities or prepayment of fees included in the City’s Public Facilities
Finance Plan (“PFFP Fees”).
C. Assignor has now entered into an Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Real
Property and Joint Escrow Instructions with Assignee, dated as of _______ (the “Purchase
Agreement”), pursuant to which, among other things, Assignor has agreed to transfer and convey
to Assignee all of Assignor’s rights in and to the portion of the Overall Property described on
Exhibit ”A” attached hereto (the “Property”) and cause Assignor to assign PFFP Fee Credits
applicable to each of the ___ lots (each, a “Lot”) comprising the Property
D. In light of the Purchase Agreement, Assignor now desires to assign, transfer and
convey to Assignee, all right, title and interest of Assignor in and to the PFFP Fee Credits
applicable to the Property.
Attachment 2 to Staff Report
WEST\266880021.2
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is
hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Assignment. Effective as of the Assignment Date, Assignor hereby grants,
transfers, conveys and assigns to Assignee all of Assignor’s rights, title, and interests in
and to the PFFP Fee Credits in the amount of __________________ Dollars ($XXXX)
per Lot within the Property to the extent that such PFFP Fee Credits can be applied by
Assignee against Assignee’s PFFP Fees for the Lots acquired by Assignee.
2. Attorneys’ Fees. If Assignor or Assignee bring any action against the
other for the enforcement or interpretation of this Assignment, the non-prevailing party
shall pay to the prevailing party a reasonable sum for attorneys’ fees and costs.
3. Counterparts. This Assignment may be executed in counterparts, each of
which shall be deemed an original, and all of which shall be taken together be deemed
one document.
4. Survival. This Assignment and the provisions hereof shall inure to the
benefit of and be binding upon the parties to this Assignment and their respective
successors, heirs and permitted assigns.
(Signature Page Follows.)
Attachment 2 to Staff Report
WEST\266880021.2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Assignment as of the day and
year first above written.
“ASSIGNOR”
UNIVERSITY DISTRICT LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By:
Name:
Title:
By:
Name:
Title:
“ASSIGNEE”
KB HOME SOUTH BAY INC.,
a California corporation
By:
Name:
Title:
“VAST OAK”
VAST OAK PROPERTIES,
a California limited partnership
By: Quaker Hill Development Corporation,
a California corporation, its general partner
By:
Name:
Its:
Attachment 2 to Staff Report
WEST\266880021.2
CERTIFICATION OF PFFP FEE CREDITS AND CONSENT
TO ASSIGNMENT OF PFFP FEE CREDIT
By its signature below, the City hereby certifies that Assignor has the PFFP Fee Credits
described in the Assignment available for assignment and hereby consents to the assignment of
the PFFP Fee Credits to Assignee as provided herein.
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
a Municipal Corporation
By:
Darrin Jenkins, City Manager
Authorized by Minute Order adopted by the
Rohnert Park City Council at their meeting of
October 24, 2017
APPROVED AS TO FORM
By:
Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney
ATTEST
By:
JoAnne M. Buergler, City Clerk
Attachment 2 to Staff Report
WEST\266880021.2
EXHIBIT “A”
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
(To be attached.)
Item No. 6E
Meeting Date: October 24, 2017
Department: Public Safety
Submitted By: Aaron Johnson, Commander
Prepared By: Angie Smith, Purchasing Agent
Agenda Title: Authorize the Purchase of Four (4) Utility Police Vehicles for the
Department of Public Safety not to exceed $180,000; Authorize the
City Manager to Execute Purchase Documentation
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Authorize the Purchase of Four (4) Utility Police Vehicles for the Department of Public Safety
not to exceed $180,000; Authorize the City Manager to Execute Purchase Documentation.
BACKGROUND:
The approved budget for fiscal year 2017/18 includes funding for the purchase of four (4) Utility
Police Vehicles including Equipment Build-outs for the Department of Public Safety.
Equipment build-outs are necessary to outfit each police vehicle with radios, light bars, sirens,
antennas, cable and wiring, transport cages, weapon brackets, Mobile Data Computer (MDC)
docking stations and department logos.
OPERATIONAL NEEDS:
The City currently has four (4) police vehicles that have reached the end of their useful life cycle
and are scheduled for replacement in the current fiscal year. These vehicles are used by the
Department of Public Safety Patrol Division for daily public safety functions. The four aging
vehicles will be prepared for auction once the new vehicles are put in service. Replacing the old
patrol cars with newer vehicles will provide enhanced vehicle technology, better fuel economy
and additional safety features. All proceeds from the sale of auctioned vehicles will be deposited
in the Vehicle Replacement Fund.
ANALYSIS:
Per City Ordinance 843 and Resolution 2016-51, these vehicles are available for purchase
through a Cooperative Purchase Agreement with the County of Sonoma per Contract #SC001-
221 from Hansel Ford of Santa Rosa, CA.
Four (4) Utility Police Vehicles (Hansel Ford) $127,054
Mission Statement
“We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a
Better Community for Today and Tomorrow.”
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Equipment Build-outs Four (4) vehicles (Pursuit North) $50,056
NOT TO EXCEED $180,000
Staff is recommending the purchase of four (4) utility police vehicles from Hansel Ford of Santa
Rosa, CA and equipment buildouts from Pursuit North of Pittsburg, CA, total amount not to
exceed $180,000.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE:
The purchase of the four (4) vehicles will be funded by the Traffic Safety Fund (1), State Asset
Forfeiture Fund (2) and the Casino City Vehicle Fund (1). The requested not-to-exceed amount
will cover any unforeseen costs for taxes or delivery fees.
VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUNDS:
Per City Council Vehicle Replacement Policy No. 415.37, approved by City Council Resolution
No. 2011-56 on June 28, 2011, replacement funds will be set aside each fiscal year in the Vehicle
Replacement Fund in amounts based on each vehicle’s projected replacement value and expected
service life.
Department Head Approval Date: 10/04/2017
Finance Director Approval Date: 10/17/2017
City Manager Approval Date: 10/18/2017
City Attorney Approval Date: N/A
Attachments: Public Safety Vehicle Quotes
Attachment 1
ITEM NO. 7
Meeting Date: October 24, 2017
Department: Development Services
Submitted By: Mary Grace Pawson, Director of Development Services
Prepared By: Mary Grace Pawson, Director of Development Services
Agenda Title: Discussion and Direction on Permitting Policies to Support Recovery
from the Sonoma Complex Fire
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide direction to staff to analyze potential modifications to
the City’s ordinances and policies to support recovery from the Sonoma Complex Fire.
Specifically staff is considering:
1. Modifying portions of the City’s Camping Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 9.41) to
accommodate short-term use of recreational vehicles for evacuee shelter under certain
conditions
2. Deferring the requirement for the developer of the Southeast Specific Plan to construct a
water storage tank before the issuance of the 51st building permit in order to accelerate
delivery of approved housing products
BACKGROUND: According to the State Office of Emergency Services, the Sonoma Complex
Fires, which began late on Sunday October 9, 2017 have destroyed over 3,000 homes and
approximately 5,700 total buildings. Rohnert Park was spared direct losses during the fires but
there are opportunities for the City to take actions that will support evacuees from the fires and to
accelerate its contribution to long-term housing stock in the County.
ANALYSIS: Based on requests received and direct observations throughout the City, staff is
proposing a program of actions for Council’s consideration. The actions fall into three categories
including:
1. Short-term location of service providers in temporary buildings
2. Short-term location of temporary evacuee housing on private property
3. Acceleration of the delivery of long term housing stock.
Each of these is discussed below.
Short-term location of service providers in temporary buildings: To date staff has received
requests from three insurance providers to locate short term service locations on private property.
The requests have included portable structures and large hard-walled tents. These requests can be
accommodated within the City’s existing Temporary Use Permit process and can generally
managed at the staff level, without the need to schedule planning commission or City Council
review. These requests are subject to our normal permit fees and planning, building and fire
review. Staff is not proposing any changes to this process. While staff believes that relief
Mission Statement
“We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a
Better Community for Today and Tomorrow.”
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ITEM NO. 7
services are best located at the established Local Assistance Center in Santa Rosa, we are
working to accommodate the short-term location of service providers in Rohnert Park.
Short-term location of temporary evacuee housing on private property. Staff has received
requests to permit temporary “camps” for recreational vehicles and has also observed an influx
of recreational vehicles in our residential neighborhoods, likely because evacuees are sheltering
with family and friends. Staff is considering allowing each of these activities, for a limited time,
with some controls. Due to the time of year and concerns about public health and safety, staff is
not recommending that tent camping or car camping be allowed under any circumstances. At this
time staff is not recommending that this type of use be allowed on public property.
Temporary Recreational Vehicle Camps: this type of use is currently not allowed. If
Council would like to allow this use temporarily, it should consider modifying portions of
Municipal Code Section 9.41 to allow the operation of recreational vehicle camps with an
administrative use permit under the following conditions:
Demonstrated consent of the property owners
Site with paved surfaces, lighting and fire protection (accessible hydrants)
Site specific parking, security, solid waste and liquid waste management plans
Site signage that clearly outlines the limit and term of the temporary camp
operation.
If Council would like to consider this use, staff recommends that the temporarily
permitted use could include approval of temporary common buildings (such as showers,
laundry) provided that site specific management plans demonstrate that these uses can be
operated without risk to public health and safety.
Temporary Use of Recreational Vehicles in Single Family Neighborhoods for Shelter:
the City currently allows the storage of recreational vehicles on private property. If
Council would like to consider this use, staff recommends that it be limited to one (1)
recreational vehicle on a single family lot for evacuee shelter for up to 90 days. Staff also
recommends that this use be limited to private property and that recreational vehicles
used for temporary shelter not be allowed on the public streets. If Council would like to
pursue this temporary use, staff is envisioning that the City’s code enforcement officers
would work with property owners to ensure that reported recreational vehicle shelters are
properly equipped and serviced. Staff is recommending that this practice end after 90
days.
Assuming that the City rescinds the current emergency proclamation, the City Attorney would
need to analyze whether the above actions may be taken pursuant to an urgency ordinance;
otherwise such actions would require amendment of existing City ordinances pursuant to the
normal process. Imposition of a new administrative use permit, with accompanying permit fee,
may be a requirement that cannot be adopted on an urgency basis.
Accelerating the Delivery of Long Term Housing Stock: Currently the City has home-
building plans approved in the University District and Southeast Specific Plan Area.
The University District has fewer than 100 unbuilt lots left in its first phase (Vast Oak West).
Staff is scheduled to bring the second phase final map (Vast Oak East) to Council for approval
on November 14. Currently staff is limiting builders to permit releases of no more than 10
permits. Staff will be coordinating with the builders to increase the limits on permit releases from
10 permits at a time to 30 permits at a time in order to accelerate construction.
ITEM NO. 7
The Southeast Specific Plan (Willowglen Subdivision) currently has approximately 80 unbuilt
lots left in its first phase. As with the University District, permit releases are limited to no more
than 10 at a time. In addition, the development agreement for this subdivision requires
commencement of construction of a water tank serving the subdivision by the 50th building
permit and the developer has posted a bond securing the construction of the tank. Analysis of the
City’s water system confirms that the first phase of the subdivision can be adequately served
without the water tank and that long-term, there may be a more efficient way to serve the area
with transmission system improvements and a second tank located on the Anderson 128
property. For these reasons, staff is recommending that the building permit restriction for the first
phase of the Willowglen subdivision be lifted in order to accelerate the construction of the
remaining 80 approved homes.
The City Attorney would need to review the relevant development agreement(s) as well as any
applicable requirements under the City’s zoning ordinance in order to determine whether such
actions may be taken. These actions may require amendment of the development agreement(s).
Additionally, the appropriate procedural mechanism for adopting such actions would first need
to be determined; such actions may first require approval by the Planning Commission.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Any of these proposed actions would be consistent with
Strategic Plan Goal A- Practice Participative Leadership at All Levels.
OPTIONS CONSIDERED: The set of actions outlined above are the options that staff believe
are feasible and viable for near-term and medium-term support of fire victims. Council may
choose to direct staff to implement any or all of these options. Staff will continue to monitor
requests to support fire victims and may bring forward additional options for Council’s
consideration in the future.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE: None. While staff is recommending policies that
could provide for temporary evacuee housing and accelerate delivery of approved housing
projects, staff is not recommending that permit fees be waived. All proposed actions will
continue to be subject to permit fees consistent with the City’s cost recovery ordinance and
approved fee schedule.
Department Head Approval Date: 10/18/2017
Finance Director Approval Date: NA
City Attorney Approval Date: 10/18/2017
City Manager Approval Date: 10/18/2017
ITEM NO. 8
1
Meeting Date: October 24, 2017
Department: Development Services
Submitted By: Mary Grace Pawson, Director of Development Services
Prepared By: Jeffrey S. Beiswenger, AICP, Planning Manager
Agenda Title: Discussion and Direction on the City’s General Plan Update, Proposed
Scope of Work
__________________________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide direction on the proposed General Plan scope of work
prior to soliciting consultant interest through the request for proposal (RFP) process.
BACKGROUND: Prior to the end of the calendar year, city staff seeks to retain the services of a
consultant team experienced in the preparation of General Plans, fiscal/economic development
planning, and environmental review to prepare a strategic update of the City of Rohnert Park
General Plan and accompanying Environmental Impact Report. The City Council would be
asked to approve a contract in early 2018.
The last comprehensive update of the Rohnert Park General Plan was completed in 2000. The
goal of this update project is to respond to changes in the community and in circumstances that
affect the future direction of the city. The General Plan update will provide a blueprint to achieve
the community’s vision for the future of Rohnert Park through 2040. This update is not
envisioned to be a wholesale rewrite, but rather a refreshing of the 2000 General Plan. Staff
assumes that the vision, goals and a majority of policies of the 2000 General Plan remains valid
and that only a strategic update is needed.
The updated General Plan will include all mandatory General Plan elements required by State
law, and may include new focus areas addressing economic development, sustainability, and
other important areas not adequately addressed by the current General Plan. The updated General
Plan will be based upon the results of a comprehensive visioning process and public engagement
program to ensure that all facets of the community participate fully in shaping Rohnert Park’s
future.
The City of Rohnert Park has relied upon the creation and adoption of planned developments and
specific plans to ensure that growth of the City, infrastructure and services occur in a deliberate,
guided, and intentional fashion. The current General Plan focuses planned growth within specific
plan and planned development areas. Many of these planned areas have been approved and
construction has begun. The most recent updates to the current General Plan include amendments
the Stadium Land Master Plan area and incorporation of the Central Rohnert Park, Priority
Mission Statement
“We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a
Better Community for Today and Tomorrow.”
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ITEM NO. 8
2
Development Area plan. Any new General Plan will acknowledge the existing planning efforts
and concentrate on areas that require additional focus.
DISCUSSION: Prior to issuing an RFP to consultants, staff is seeking input from the City
Council to help us determine the scope and focus of the General Plan effort. The intent is to
ensure that city resources are used wisely and that the General Plan is robust enough to
effectively guide the development of the community over the next 20 years. The General Plan is
required to have certain components according to State Law, but the city has a great deal of
flexibility in the overall focus of the plan. In order to help staff finalize the RFP, the following
questions are presented to guide Council discussion:
Question 1. Should the City seek to maintain the current growth limits or consider changes?
Recommendation. Staff recommends that the new General Plan stay within the current urban
growth boundary (UGB) with some minor adjustments. Much of the anticipated growth in the
current General Plan has not occurred and it is not necessary to add a significant amount of new
land within the UGB. The City may want to consider minor amendments to the UGB to match
up with property lines.
Cost Considerations: Minor
Question 2. Should the new General Plan include an Economic Development Element?
Recommendation. Staff recommends that the new plan includes an Economic Development
Element. The current General Plan is largely silent on economic development issues and this
leaves the community without a clear General Plan vision or strategy for economic growth.
Cost Considerations: Moderate
Question 3. Should the new General Plan focus on individual neighborhoods or sections
within the community.
Recommendation. Staff recommends that the Community Design Element of the General Plan be
expanded to include a section on each neighborhood. The Specific Plan and Planned
Developments already do this to some extent in the new growth areas, but older neighborhoods
are treated with the same broad brush and are not identified separately in the current General
Plan. It would be useful for future planning efforts to identify goals and policies based on
specific locations within the community.
Cost Considerations: Minor to Moderate
Question 4. Should the city focus on specific parts of the community in the General Plan
update process?
ITEM NO. 8
3
Recommendation. Staff recommends that alternatives for the area west of Highway 101 be
studied as part of the General Plan update. The current General Plan would allow a significant
amount of residential development in northwest and several apartment complexes have been
constructed. Many of the residential services (e.g. parks, schools, community centers) that are
enjoyed by residents on the east side of Highway 101 on not present on the west side.
Cost Considerations: Moderate to High
Question 5. Should a General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) be used as part of the
General Plan public involvement process?
Recommendation. Staff recommends a advisory body be formulated that is similar to a GPAC
but has a limited scope and decision-making authority. Staff recommends more focus on work
sessions (and joint work session) with the Planning Commission and City Council to guide the
development of the General Plan.
Cost Considerations: Moderate to High
Question 6. Any other topics or ideas for the General Plan update that should be
considered?
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Goal D: Continue to develop a vibrant community.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE: The General Plan update project is paid for by the
General Plan maintenance fund. As of October 17, 2017, this fund had over $550,000. The
General Plan budget for this fiscal year is $1,000,000. Contributions to this fund are made with
each building permit issued, so with on-going development activity, the amount available to fund
a new General Plan is expected to increase significantly over the next few years.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Discussion and direction is requested from the City Council,
but no formal action is needed at this time. Comments from the City Council will help staff
finalize the proposed scope of work to be included as part of a General Plan request for proposal
(RFP). The RFP will be used to solicit interest from consulting firms that specialize in General
Plan updates.
Department Head Approval Date: 10/17/17
Finance Director Approval Date: n/a
City Attorney Approval Date: n/a
City Manager Approval Date: 10/18/17
From: Teri Shore [mailto:tshore@greenbelt.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 2:12 PM
To: Jake Mackenzie <blumacjazz@aol.com>; Belforte, Gina <gbelforte@rpcity.org>; Stafford, Pam
<pstafford@rpcity.org>; Ahanotu, Amy <aahanotu@rpcity.org>; Callinan, Joseph <jcallinan@rpcity.org>
Cc: Planning <Planning@rpcity.org>; Beiswenger, Jeffrey <JBeiswenger@rpcity.org>; Jenkins, Darrin
<dajenkins@rpcity.org>
Subject: Greenbelt Alliance Comments - Rohnert Park General Plan Update and UGB - Item 8
Dear Mayor Mackenzie and Rohnert Park City Council,
Please accept these comments from Greenbelt Alliance into the public record for the scoping of
the General Plan and renewal of the UGB.
We generally support the staff report and recommendations, but urge you to consider adding
renewal of the UGB by a vote of the people before it expires in 2020 to the consultant's work
plan.
Additional comments on updates to the state General Plan guidelines, our new Greenprint Tool
and other information is also offered for your consideration in our comment letter.
So sorry but it does not appear that I will be able to attend in person tonight due to last-minute
conflicts. I hope you will accept these written comments instead.
I have also asked Rohnert Park resident Christina Meyer to represent Greenbelt Alliance tonight.
Thank you,
Teri Shore
--
Teri Shore
Regional Director, North Bay
Greenbelt Alliance
555 Fifth Street, Suite 300 A | Santa Rosa, CA 95401
1 (707) 575-3661 office | | tshore@greenbelt.org
greenbelt.org | Facebook | Twitter
Bay Area greenbelt lands are at risk of being lost to sprawl development. Get the facts here.
General Plan 2020 -2040
City Council
Discussion and Direction
October 24, 2017
Goals for Tonight
1.Provide a brief overview
City’s current General Plan
State Requirements
Budget
2.Determine Council Preferences
Optional Elements
Focus areas
Public participation options
Why does the City need a General Plan?
Blueprint for city’s growth
Establish a foundation for governance
Action plan for community’s aspirations
State mandated
◦Seven required elements
◦Housing element
◦Recent state law changes (e.g. climate change)
◦Requirement of state funds \grants
Proposed Timeline
City Council Direction 10-23-17
Finalize Request for Proposals, 11-17-17
Select a consultant team, Jan/Feb, 2018
Kick-off! March, 2018
◦Scope refinement
◦Finalize public involvement plan
◦Initiate data research
First Tasks
Components of a General Plan
Vision Statement
Community Data (History, Census, Economics, etc.)
Seven Required Elements
◦Land Use
◦Circulation
◦Housing
◦Safety
Optional Elements
◦Community Design
◦Economic Development
◦Sustainability
◦Community Health
Implementation Strategies
Environmental Impact Report
◦Noise
◦Open Space
◦Conservation
Rohnert Park Growth Pattern
City’s Current General Plan
•Land Use and Growth Management
•Community Design
•Transportation (a.k.a Circulation)
•Open Space, Parks and Public Facilities
•Environmental Conservation
•Health and Safety
•Noise
•Housing
1999 2020
Prediction
2016
Total Population 41,000 50,400 42,622
Housing Units 15,540 19,990 16,551
Jobs 2015
Employed Residents 21,200 26,100 20,706
Build-out: Prediction versus Reality
General Plan 2000 –what’s missing
Economic development policies
Sustainability
Clarity west of 101
Fully integrated Downtown policies
CEQA issues
◦Update population/employment data
◦Transportation model (LOS versus VMT)
◦Greenhouse gas analysis
Robust
Public Involvement
Optional Elements
Focus Areas
Support new development
General Plan Maintenance Fund
$1,000,000 (FY 17/18 Budget)
$550,000 (10-17-17)
New residential permits
New hotel permit 0.5%
New commercial permits
Adequate
Public Involvement
Required Elements
Environmental
(CEQA)
???
General Plan Priorities / Discussion
Where should we prioritize limited $$?
6 Questions
??????
Question 1. Should the City seek to maintain the
current growth limits or consider changes?
Cost: $
Question 2: Include an Economic Development
Element?
Staff Recommends:
◦Goals and policies that focus on job creation
◦Company attraction strategies
◦Other commonly used techniques
Cost: $-$$
Question 3: Focus on individual sections?
Staff Recommends goals / policies
Cost: $-$$
Question 4: Should the City focus on specific parts
of the community?
Staff Recommends:
◦Focus west of 101
Community services
Parks
Schools
Etc.
Consider alternatives
◦Continued focus on
Downtown
Cost: $-$$
Question 5: Should a GPAC be formed?
Staff Recommends:
◦Form advisory body but limit scope
◦Focus on work sessions / joint work sessions
Cost: $-$$
Question 6: Any other topics?
??
Cost: $-$$$$
ITEM NO. 9
1
Meeting Date: October 24, 2017
Department: Development Services
Submitted By: Mary Grace Pawson, Director of Development Services
Prepared By: Zach Tusinger, Planner II
Agenda Title: Discussion and Direction on the City’s Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance and Affordable Housing Fees
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide direction on proposed modifications to the City’s
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and Affordable Housing Fees. Specifically staff recommends:
Revising the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to provide a mix of affordable
housing that better matches the City’s adopted Housing Element and Regional Housing
Needs Allocation;
Adopting an in-lieu fee for “for sale” residential development, which applies only to
smaller projects (staff is suggesting 50 units or less) and which will incentivize including
affordable housing within these projects;
Establishing an impact fee for new rental housing projects, which have not been subject
to the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance, at a level that matches other jurisdictions in
the area; and
Maintaining the existing “affordable housing linkage fee” for non-residential
development at the current level but reinstating an annual escalator to keep up with
inflation.
GENERAL BACKGROUND: In August 2016, staff presented a discussion and direction item
on affordable housing in Rohnert Park. Broadly stated, affordable housing serves residents with
“extremely low” up to “moderate” household incomes as outlined in Table 1.
Mission Statement
“We Care for Our Residents by Working
Together to Build a Better Community for
Today and Tomorrow.” CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ITEM NO. 9
2
Table 1
2017 Household Income Levels Definitions
(percentages are the percent of area median household income or MHI)
Persons in
Household
Extremely
Low
(30%)
Very Low
(50%)
Low
(80%)
Median
(100%)
Moderate
(120%)
1 $18,550 $30,850 $49,350 $61,700 $74,040
2 $21,200 $35,250 $56,400 $70,500 $84,600
3 $23,850 $39,650 $63,450 $79,300 $95,160
4 $26,450 $44,050 $70,500 $88,100 $105,720
5 $28,780 $47,600 $76,150 $95,200 $114,240
Historically, the City funded its affordable housing initiatives through its redevelopment agency.
Since the state’s unilateral dissolution of redevelopment in 2011, the City’s primary tools for
securing affordable housing have changed and now include:
The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 17.07.020.N), which
requires that new housing developments of more than 5 units include affordable housing
units within the development plan;
Development Agreements which have included “affordable housing plans” that often go
beyond the minimum requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance;
The existing Affordable Housing Linkage Fee, which ensures that non-residential
development contributes to the cost of affordable housing; and
Historic housing agency funds, which can only be used for housing benefitting persons
with incomes under 60% of area MHI.
In its simplest form, the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires that at least 15% of all units in
a new development of five or more units meet the affordability criteria outlined below.
For developers building “for sale” units: 50% affordable to low incomes and 50%
affordable to moderate incomes.
For developers building rental units: 50% affordable to very low incomes and 50%
affordable to low incomes.
The ordinance allows developments of ten or fewer units or smaller than one acre to pay a fee
instead of “including” affordable housing units within the development. However, the City has
not established this fee. Also, while the ordinance was written to be applicable to both new rental
ITEM NO. 9
3
and new for-sale housing, case law (Palmer/Sixth Street Properties LP v. City of Los Angeles)
had prohibited the City from imposing its inclusionary requirements on new rental housing.1
As a result of the August 2016 study session, Council requested that staff study the City’s
options related to housing fees. The City’s consultant, Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
(EPS), has completed its preliminary analysis which is the subject of this staff report. Council
feedback will be integral in determining the next steps related to housing fees and in finalizing
the ordinance revisions, nexus studies and fee resolutions to be brought back to the City Council
for consideration and possible adoption.
BACKGROUND ON THE CITY’S AFFORDABLE HOUSING ALLOCATIONS: The
City’s housing allocations, including its affordable housing allocations, are established through
the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA). RHNA is a state-mandated process that
identifies the total number of housing units (by affordability level) that each jurisdiction must
accommodate in its Housing Element. The City’s RHNA numbers have been translated into its
Housing Element, a section of the General Plan. These affordable housing allocations cover the
period from 2015 through 2023.
Figure 1 illustrates both the City’s RHNA numbers and the “quantified objectives” from the
Housing Element. The figure illustrates that while the RHNA numbers and Housing Element
objectives are similar for new construction, the Housing Element identifies additional numerical
objectives for preserving and rehabilitating existing affordable housing stock and assisting
homeowners with incomes in the low and moderate income range.
1 Because of the Palmer decision, new apartment complexes such as Fiori Estates and the Reserve
at Dowdell, were not subject to the City’s ordinance and have been constructed without
contributing to the City’s housing allocations or objectives.
ITEM NO. 9
4
As noted above, the City’s primary tool for securing affordable housing construction has been
the negotiation of development agreements. The City currently has four development agreements
with affordable housing plans, which are described below.
University District Specific Plan: The housing plan for the University District includes a
218 unit apartment complex with 109 rental units targeted at low incomes and 109 rental
units targeted at very low incomes. The housing plan requires that the apartment complex
to be located within the boundaries of the University District Specific Plan. This
affordable housing complex is currently under planning review.
Southeast Specific Plan: The housing plan for the Southeast Specific Plan includes 18
ownership units targeted at moderate incomes, 18 ownership units targeted at low
incomes, 18 rental units targeted at low incomes and 18 rental units targeted at very low
incomes. This housing plan requires that all of the units be located within the boundaries
of the Southeast Specific Plan. Four of the 18 units targeted at moderate incomes are
nearing construction.
Sonoma Mountain Village Planned Development: The housing plan for Sonoma
Mountain Village includes 254 affordable units. The affordability mix of these units has
not been defined. Again, this housing plan requires that all of the units be located within
the boundaries of Sonoma Mountain Village.
Stadium Lands Planned Development (Five Creek): This project includes a 135 unit
apartment complex. The development agreement for this project requires that the
developer make a $50,000 contribution to be used for affordable housing. This project is
does not require any affordable units to be provided onsite.
In addition, the approved 90 unit Avram House apartment complex, located next to City Hall,
includes 7 rental units targeted at very low incomes. This project, which has been entitled,
includes seven units which will be located within the project.
As part of preparing for this study session, staff compared the City’s RHNA numbers and
Housing Element objectives to the affordable housing programs approved for the University
District, Southeast Specific Plan and Avram House project, where the income distribution is
known. Figure 2 illustrates the results of this comparison and demonstrates that these three
projects provide an important contribution towards the City’s allocation of new affordable
construction.
ITEM NO. 9
5
This background review reveals several important points that could inform the Council’s
deliberations with respect to affordable housing fees.
1. The housing programs outlined in development agreements provide a powerful tool for
meeting the City’s affordable housing goals. In fact, the planned complex in the
University District, which provides 109 very low income units and 109 low income units,
allows the City to meet its RHNA numbers for low and very low income housing.
2. The housing programs outlined in the development agreements will create a substantial
amount of new housing on land within the Southeast Specific Plan, the University
District Specific Plan and Sonoma Mountain Village Planned Development. The City
would have a difficult time creating this housing without the land available in the specific
plan and planned developed areas.
3. The development agreements only apply to large scale development and the absence of a
fee for smaller in-fill housing projects has allowed several projects to develop without
contributing to the City’s affordable housing goals.
4. While the housing programs outlined in the development agreements do a reasonable job
of creating new affordable housing, these agreements don’t provide a way to fund the
preservation, rehabilitation and homeowner assistance programs described in the Housing
Element. Afforable housing fee revenue could be a helpful funding source for these types
of programs.
5. Some of the development agreements provide large developers with the option of paying
a fee instead of constructing inclusionary housing, if the City adopts a fee that is
applicable to their project. Because the City would have a difficult time finding land
available for large amounts of affordable housing outside of the specific plans and
planned development areas, it may be advisable for any affordable housing fee program
be limited to relatively small residential projects. (The current ordinance limits fee
payments to projects of less than ten units).
ITEM NO. 9
6
6. Any affordable housing fee program should recognize that the City must do additional
work to administer the housing fee program. As a result, the Council should consider
these costs in the overall fee program.
7. Neither the development agreement housing programs nor the City’s Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance address the extremely low income category. The Council may wish
to amend the ordinance to address this issue. In addition, this is one area where the City’s
housing fund balances could provide an important funding source.
8. The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance was designed to create a mix of very low, low and
moderate income housing by requiring developers of “for sale” projects to construct low
and moderate income housing and the developers of rental projects to construct very low
and low income housing. However, the Palmer case, described above, limits the City’s
ability to require anything from rental project developers. Because of this t he Council
may wish to amend the ordinance to allow for the creation a mix of affordable housing
that better reflects the City’s housing allocations from “for sale” developers.
ANALYSIS: Based on its review of the Housing Element, RHNA numbers and development
agreements, staff has concluded the following.
Affordable housing programs and fees could be an important component of an overall
housing strategy and help ensure that all new development supports the City’s affordable
housing goals and contributes its share to affordable housing.
Because land is limited, any affordable housing fee program should be designed to
complement the housing programs in the development agreements, not substitute for
them. The fee program should encourage the construction of inclusionary housing within
large planned developments, if for no other reason than land is available within these
developments.
The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance should be carefully reviewed and perhaps amended
to ensure that as development is implemented, the City creates a mix of housing types
that allow it to satisfy its RHNA allocations and Housing Element objectivees either
through the construction of affordable housing by developers themsleves or through the
payment of in-lieu fees that could be spent on housing projects.
The current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance limits the fee program to projects of ten
units or less. The Council may wish to increase this unit count. Providing a fee option for
slightly larger projects, perhaps up to 50 units in size, may make some “infill” projects
more feasible and provide the City with revenue for some of the housing preservation and
assistance programs outlined in the Housing Element. As a matter of policy, the City
allows developments of 50 units or less to pay park fees, rather than construct park
facilities. A comparable program for affordable housing would create a consistent scheme
for smaller projects.
Because an affordable housing fee program could be helpful, the City’s consultant, EPS, was
tasked with developing the financial and feasibility analysis necessary to evaluate three types of
affordable housing fees.
1. An “in-lieu” fee applicable to “for sale” housing projects to be implemented through the
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance;
2. A fee applicable to rental housing projects, which currently do not contribute to the
City’s affordable housing goals except on a voluntary basis; and
ITEM NO. 9
7
3. A fee applicable to non-residential development, which is essentially an evaluation of the
City’s current affordable housing linkage fee.
The consultant’s analysis and staff’s recommendations, which are discussed in detail below,
indicate that the City could make some changes to its current ordinance, affordability
requirements, and fee practices without significantly deterring development.
The “For Sale” Housing Inclusionary Ordinance and Fee Option: The City’s Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance requires that 15% of all new dwelling units in for-sale developments of five
units or more be affordable. The ordinance currently requires that 7.5% be affordable to low
income earners (80% MHI) and that 7.5% be affordable to moderate income earners (120%
MHI). Developers of small projects (ten units or less) have the option of paying a fee rather than
building the required affordable housing, which means that, at a minimum, the fee should cover
the costs of constructing the units that the developer avoided constructing. Staff and its
consultant explored four options for modifying the ordinance and the fees that could complement
each ordinance option. For all options, staff is recommending some baseline changes to the
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance including:
Eliminating the existing inclusionary requirement for rental housing projects. This
requirement has been invalid due to the Palmer decision for several years now. While
recent legislation may make it valid again, staff does not believe this is a good way to
fulfill the City’s housing needs as it potentially disincentives the construction of market
rate rental complexes. Staff discusses and recommends an affordable housing impact fee
on rental housing developments later in this agenda report.
Change the threshold of unit counts where the fee option is allowed for “for sale housing”
developments. A strict reading of the current ordinance would only allow the fee option
in developments with five units up to ten units. This is a very narrow range. The City
currently allows a fee option for parkland dedication for housing developments of 50
units or less. Staff believes that setting the fee option for the Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance at this same threshold is reasonable for practicality and consistency.
Staff and EPS developed the following four options for inclusionary requirements.
Option 1 – Current Affordability Requirement at 15% (7.5% Low; 7.5% Moderate); In-
Lieu Fee at $12,477. This option retains the current affordable housing percentage level and mix
for “for sale” projects (15% with an emphasis on the low and moderate affordability levels).
Based on fiscal model of this option, EPS has determined that an in-lieu fee of $12,477 per
market-rate, for sale unit or greater could be adopted. A fee of $12,477 would create a funding
stream that covers the cost of constructing the required number of new affordable units. This
calculation assumes land is available and program management costs are minimal. This is the
lowest fee that could reasonably be expected to cover at least most of the cost of constructing the
affordable units that the developer avoided constructing. However, land is not readily available
outside of the specific plan and planned development areas, so this level of affordability and
applicable fee would present the City with the burden of finding land and administering a
program, potentially without adequate funding. Setting affordability at this level, with the
applicable fee, could incentivize payment of the fee rather than the construction of the units
because it would shift risk and management burden to the City. The option is not recommended.
Option 2 – Affordability Requirement at 20% (10% Low; 10% Moderate); In-Lieu Fee at
$16,637: This option would increase the percentage of affordable housing required to be built
on-site and when EPS modeled this option, it resulted in a fee of $16,637. This higher fee could
ITEM NO. 9
8
incentivize developers to satisfy the affordable housing requirement by building their own
affordable units, which is preferred. This option would also provide the City with additional
revenue if it needed to construct units offsite. This is a reasonable option for Council’s
consideration, though it would increase the amount of required inclusionary housing in future for
sale developments and would not, inherently, result in a mix of affordable housing that included
the very low income level.
Option 3 – Affordability Requirement at 15% (3.75% Very Low; 7.5% Low; 3.75%
Moderate); In-Lieu Fee at $20,182: The third option that EPS studied and modeled calculated
a proposed fee option on a mix of units where 3.75% are affordable to very low incomes, 7.5%
affordable to low incomes and 3.75% affordable to moderate incomes, which would help create a
blend of housing types that includes housing affordable to very low income earners. This fee
would be $20,182. This option would also incentivize construction units onsite and is a
reasonable option for Council’s consideration. One advantage of this option is that it would
explicitly create a mix of affordable housing types that currently cannot be created under the
existing ordinance.
Option 4 – Affordability Requirement at 20% (5% Very Low; 10% Low; 5% Moderate);
In-Lieu Fee at $26,909: This options combines the previous two options, by calculating the fee
at 20 percent of all units and including very low, low, and moderate income units. At 5% very
low, 10% low, and 5% moderate incomes, the fee would be $26,909 per market-rate unit. This
fee level would again incentivize constructing units onsite and would result in good mix of
affordable housing types but staff believes it is approaching a level where it may serve as a
deterrent to development
Inclusionary Requirement Comparison: EPS surveyed the inclusionary requirements of
neighboring jurisdictions. Those results are summarized in Table 2 below.
ITEM NO. 9
9
Table 2 - Inclusionary Requirements of Neighboring Jurisdictions
Total Very Low Low Moderate
Sonoma County 20% 10% 10%
City of Sonoma 20% 0-10% 10-20%
Cloverdale 15% 15%
Cotati 15% 5% 5% 5%
Healdsburg 15% 5% 5% 5%
Petaluma 15% 7.5% 7.5%
Rohnert Park 15% 7.5% 7.5%
Santa Rosa 15% 15%
Sebastopol 20% 20%
Windsor 5-10% 5% 7.5% 10%
Fee Comparison: Similar to affordability requirements, when establishing the fee option it is
important for the City to “benchmark” the fee rate against neighboring jurisdictions. A survey of
surrounding jurisdictions found that fees vary significantly. On the low end of the Sonoma and
Marin jurisdictions surveyed is Cloverdale at a fee per unit of $4,895. On the high end, Novato
has set a fee of $35,242. The median fee for all jurisdictions surveyed by EPS is roughly $9,000.
The comparison is illustrated in Figure 3. It is important to note that several cities including
Windsor and Petaluma are currently conducting a fee study, so their numbers are likely to
increase.
ITEM NO. 9
10
Given that inclusionary construction by developers provides the best solution for ensuring that
new affordable housing stock is constructed, staff recommends baseline changes to the
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and pursuing a fee option that incentivizes onsite construction.
Options 2 or 3 satisfy this criteria. Staff also recommends retaining an ordinance provision that
limits the applicability of the fee to smaller or midsize projects, mostly because of the limited
land supply available outside of large development areas. Based on a review of available
residential properties within the City, staff would recommend 50 units as the maximum sized
project eligible for the fee option. As noted above, this is consistent with the fee option for park
land dedication.
The Rental Housing Fee. The fee calculation for rental housing developments is based on the
idea that new apartment renters stimulate economic activity through spending patterns, which
ultimately leads to new lower-income workers. These new workers increase the demand for
affordable housing units. Based on EPS’ calculations the maximum fee that could be justified for
new rental housing developments would be $29.00 per square foot, provided there is no other fee
in place that collects funds to address the same impacts. Further, Council has the discretion to set
a fee at this level or lower.
As with the “for sale” housing fee option, EPS surveyed other local jurisdictions and determined
that the median fee in other cities and counties is just $3.23 per square foot. Locally, most
jurisdictions’ fees are currently set somewhere between $2 and $4 per square foot. The
comparison is illustrated in Figure 4 below.
Recomme
nded
Recomme
nded
ITEM NO. 9
11
As discussed above, because the City does not have a fee, several new rental projects have been
developed without contributing to the City’s affordable housing goals. While staff’s goal is to
ensure that new rental housing projects continue to be viable, because they are an inherently
more affordable option, the City does need to make progress towards meeting its affordable
housing goals and it is fair for all new market rate housing developers to assist in meeting these
goals by paying a fee reasonably related to the impacts of its projects. Staff recommends
establishing a fee at the median level for our area, or approximately $3.23 per square foot. As
this is less than could be charged based on EPS’ preliminary analysis, the City could then
address impacts through the collection of other fees, as recommended in this staff report.
Recent State Law Effecting Rental Housing Fees. In late September, the Governor signed
AB1505, which is intended to “fix” the Palmer decision by clarifying that inclusionary
requirements on rental projects do not constitute “rent control”. This new law will take effect on
January 1, 2018 and could allow the City to apply its inclusionary housing ordinance and fees to
rental projects. Staff believes that this would be a significant deterrent to new development and
recommends establishing a rental housing impact fee at median impact fee level for our area,
rather than require rental housing through the City’s Inclusionary Ordinance. This would require
amendments to the City’s Inclusionary Ordinance to clarify that it does not apply to rental
projects.
Non-residential Linkage Fee. The concept behind linkage fees is similar to the concept behind
rental housing fees. As new businesses locate in Rohnert Park, they generate jobs. The linkage
fee is intended to subsidize the cost of providing affordable housing to lower and moderate
income employees of these new businesses. Rohnert Park established a linkage fee in 2008 and
included an annual escalator in its approval. In 2009, Council suspended the escalator due to the
economic conditions at the time and the fee has subsequently remained at $0.69 per square foot
for commercial/office developments, $1.19 per square foot for retail developments, and $0.71
per square foot for industrial developments.
Recomme
nded
ITEM NO. 9
12
EPS conducted an analysis of the City’s fees and surveyed the fees of other comparable
jurisdictions, and found Rohnert Park’s fees to be significantly below the median. Figure 5
illustrates this.
Although EPS’ analysis indicates the City could charge a higher fee, as the City is currently
trying to promote increased commercial and retail development, it would seem inappropriate to
enact a large fee increase at this time. Such a fee increase could significantly affect the bottom
line of retailers, restaurants, hotels, and other developments that the City is currently trying to
attract. Our low fees currently give the City an advantage in attracting these sorts of commercial
retail developments, and a large increase in fees, even to the median level as identified in the
survey, could prove significantly disruptive. In addition, as noted above, staff is also
recommending a rental housing impact fee to address some of the impacts of commercial
development on affordable housing. However, staff does recommend reinstating the escalator in
order to keep up with inflation.
Possible Use of Housing Fee Funds. While staff believes that continued emphasis on
inclusionary construction in large planned developments is the best way for the City to meet its
allocations for new affordable housing, the City’s Housing Element also outlines programmatic
actions to preserve and rehabilitate existing affordable housing stock. The revenue collected
from the proposed fee programs would provide the City with the funds to conduct these types of
programs, as well as support new construction where appropriate. Unlike historic redevelopment
or housing agency funds, fee revenue can be used to support programs for moderate income
earners as well as extremely low, very low and low income earners.
OPTIONS CONSIDERED:
Recommended Option: Staff recommends the following actions to better support the City’s
affordable housing allocations and goals.
ITEM NO. 9
13
1. Revise the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to provide a mix of affordable
housing that better matches the City’s adopted Housing Element and Regional
Housing Needs Allocation.
2. Adopt a “for sale” residential development fee option as part of the inclusionary
Housing Ordinance, which applies only to smaller projects (staff is suggesting 50
units or less) at an equivalent level based on the recommended affordability mix.
3. Establish an impact fee for new rental housing projects, which have not been subject
to the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, at approximately $3.25 per square foot
which is consistent with other jurisdictions in the area. This will result in more
equitable contribution to the City’s housing goals.
4. Maintain the existing “affordable housing linkage fee” for non-residential
development at the current level but reinstate an annual escalator to keep up with
inflation.
Staff recommends this option because it is a tailored and feasible program that should allow the
City to better meet its affordable housing goals.
Alternative: Direct staff to set the affordable requirement, unit mix, or fees at lower levels than
recommended. Staff does not recommend this option because the limited new affordable units
and/or fee revenue would constrain the City’s ability to meet its RHNA numbers and the
objectives in its Housing Element, which could potentially have consequences for the City’s
discretionary land use authority. Also, setting a lower for sale fee may incentivize developers to
pay the fee rather than constructing units onsite. This would create additional burden on the City
and may limit the amount of new affordable housing constructed because of constraints on land
availability.
Alternative: Direct staff to develop affordability requirements and/or housing fees that will
generate maximum construction of and funding for affordable housing. Staff does not
recommend this option as it may significantly discourage development and eventually result in
less affordable housing.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: The recommended action is consistent with Strategic
Plan Goal D – Continue to Develop a Vibrant Community.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE: This item has no immediate fiscal impact. Long
term, any revenue generated by housing in-lieu fees would be used for the preservation and
creation of affordable housing.
Department Head Approval Date: September 29, 2017
Finance Director Approval Date: NA
City Attorney Approval Date: October 17, 2017
City Manager Approval Date: October 17, 2017
Discussion and Direction:
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and
Affordable Housing Fees
City of Rohnert Park
City Council
October 24, 2017
0
Staff Recommendations
Update the Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance to better match City’s
numerical goals
Adopt an “in-lieu” for new, smaller, “for-
sale” residential projects
Establish a housing impact fee for new
rental projects
Retain current commercial linkage fee but
add annual escalator
1
Affordable Housing Goals
◦Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
State mandated process that establishes affordable
new housing allocations for each local jurisdiction
Current allocations are for 2015-2023
◦Housing Element
Locally-adopted element of the General Plan
Translates RHNA numbers to local sites and
programs
Covers the same 2015-2023 time period
Affordable Housing Goals
3
90 91
107
127
50
125
29
100
50
70
15
125
60
40
Housing Allocations
RHNA Housing Element
Affordable Housing Tools
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
Development Agreements
Commercial Linkage Fee
Historic Housing Agency Funds (limited to
households with less than 60% Area
Median Income)
4
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
Requires Developments of more than 5 units
to construct 15% of units as “affordable”
Requires “for sale” projects to provide 7.5%
affordable to low incomes and 7.5% affordable
to moderate incomes
Requires rental projects to provide 7.5%
affordable to low incomes and 7.5% affordable
to very low incomes
◦Rental requirements not enforceable since Palmer
Decision
5
Development Agreements
6
Affordabilit
y Level
University
District
SP
Southeas
t SP
Sonoma
Mountain
Village
PD*
Avram
House
Stadium
Lands
PD
Very Low 109 18
Low 109 36
Moderate 18
Total 218 72 254 7
Other $50,000
*affordability mix is not defined
Development Agreements
Compared to Allocations
7
90 91
107
127
50
125
100
125
134
145
18
EXTREMELY LOW VERY LOW (NEW)LOW (NEW)MODERATE (NEW)
RHNA Housing Element Planned Units
Initial Staff Assessment
Using the land available within the Specific
Plan and Planned Development Areas is
necessary to meet housing numbers
Development Agreements are a powerful
tool
In-lieu fee could be helpful for smaller
projects
Impact fee is necessary to have rental
projects contribute to housing needs
8
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.9
1.Calculating the Affordable Housing “Gap”
2.“For Sale” or Ownership In-lieu Fee
Options
3.Rental Housing Fee Options
4.Commercial Linkage Fee Options
Overview
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.10
Calculating the Affordable Housing “Gap”
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.11
Sonoma County 2017 Income Limits
Family of 3
•>30% to ≤50% AMI
•$39,650
Very Low
Income
•>50% to ≤80% AMI
•$63,450Low Income
•>80% to ≤100% AMI
•$75,500
Median
Income
•>100% AMI to ≤120% AMI
•$90,650
Moderate
Income
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.12
Financing Gap to Build Affordable Housing
Very Low Income
(50% AMI)
•Cost per Unit =
$358,000
•Supportable
Unit Value =
$107,182
•Affordability
Gap =
$250,818
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.13
Financing Gap to Build Affordable Housing
Very Low Income
(50% AMI)
•Cost per Unit =
$358,000
•Supportable
Unit Value =
$107,182
•Affordability
Gap =
$250,818
Low Income
(80% AMI)
•Cost per Unit =
$358,000
•Supportable
Unit Value =
$237,000
•Affordability
Gap =
$121,000
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.14
Financing Gap to Build Affordable Housing
Very Low Income
(50% AMI)
•Cost per Unit =
$358,000
•Supportable
Unit Value =
$107,182
•Affordability
Gap =
$250,818
Low Income
(80% AMI)
•Cost per Unit =
$358,000
•Supportable
Unit Value =
$237,000
•Affordability
Gap =
$121,000
Moderate Income
(120% AMI)
•Cost per Unit =
$358,000
•Supportable
Unit Value =
$312,636
•Affordability
Gap =
$45,364
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.15
Ownership In-Lieu Fee
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.16
Provide 15% Inclusionary
Housing Units (Low-and
Moderate-Income)
Pay In-Lieu Fee
*never formally used
or calculated and limited to
small projects
OR
For Ownership Housing, developers may…
Rohnert Park’s Current Housing Requirements
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.17
Ownership Housing -In-Lieu Fee Scenario 1
Implement a 15% Affordability Requirement with
Low and Moderate Income Mix
Cost of inclusionary
requirement
(7.5% low-income units +
7.5% moderate-income units)
EPS calculation of
$12,477 per market-rate unit
or $6.24 per sq.ft.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.18
Ownership Housing -In-Lieu Fee Scenario 2
Cost of inclusionary requirement
(10% low-income units +
10% moderate-income units)
Implement a 20% Affordability Requirement with
Low and Moderate Income Mix
EPS calculation of
$16,636 per market-rate unit
or $8.32 per sq.ft.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.19
Ownership Housing -In-Lieu Fee Scenario 3
Cost of inclusionary requirement
(3.75% very-low income units +
7.5% low-income units +
3.75% moderate-income units)
Implement a 15% Affordability Requirement with
Very Low, Low and Moderate Income Mix
EPS calculation of
$20,182 per market-rate unit
or $10.09 per sq.ft.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.20
Ownership Housing -In-Lieu Fee Scenario 4
Cost of inclusionary requirement
(5% very-low income units +
10% low-income units, +
5% moderate-income units)
Implement a 20% Affordability Requirement with
Very Low, Low and Moderate Income Mix
EPS calculation of
$26,909 per market-rate unit
or $13.45 per sq.ft.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.21
Fee Comparison –Surveyed Jurisdictions
Healdsburg
Windsor
Calistoga
St. Helena
Santa Rosa
YountvilleSebastopol
Cotati Rohnert Park
Petaluma
Sonoma
Napa
American Canyon
Fairfield
Davis
Sacramento Folsom
Rancho
Cordova
Elk Grove
Cloverdale
Comparative Affordability
Requirements
22
Total Very
Low
Low Moderate
Sonoma County 20%10%10%
Sonoma 20%0-10%10-20%
Cloverdale 15%15%
Cotati 15%5%5%5%
Healdsburg 15%5%5%5%
Petaluma 15%7.5%7.5%
Rohnert Park -Current 15%7.5%7.5%
Rohnert Park –Option 2 20%10%10%
Rohnert Park –Option 3 15%3.75%7.5%3.75%
Santa Rosa 15%15%
Sebastopol 20%20%
Windsor 5-10%5%7.5%10%
Comparative In-Lieu Fees
23
$26,909
$20,182
$16,637
$12,477
$1,554
$35,242
$9,022
OPTION 4
OPTION 3
OPTION 2
OPTION 1
LOW FEE FROM SURVEY
HIGH FEE FROM SURVEY
MEDIAN FEE FROM SURVEY
Staff Recommendation
24
Pursue Option 2 or 3 for projects less
than 50 units
◦Results in inclusionary requirement and fee
that is in the range for our geographic area
◦Provides a fee path for smaller projects that
parallels the park in-lieu fee
◦Retains the inclusionary requirement for
larger projects
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.25
Rental Housing Nexus Fee
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.26
Rental Housing –Nexus-Based Fee Calculations
New
apartment
renters
Stimulate
economic
activity
through
spending
patterns
Generate
additional low-
or moderate-
income
workers
Increase in
Demand for
Affordable Housing
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.27
Rental Housing Nexus –Maximum Fee Levels
Market-Rate
Apartment Size Per Sq.Ft.
Studio $24
1 Bedroom $29
2 Bedroom $25
3 Bedroom $22
Maximum Impact Fee
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.28
Rental Housing Nexus Fee –Feasibility Analysis
Item Rental Housing Nexus
Fee (per sq.ft.)
Rohnert Park - Current Cost None
EPS-Calculated Fee $29.00
Required % Increase above
Current Rent/Price 5.8%
High Fee from Survey $6.47
Required % Increase above
Current Rent/Price 1.3%
Median Fee from Survey $3.23
Required % Increase above
Current Rent/Price 0.6%
Other Jurisdictions
29
Fee per Sq.
Ft.
Fee per Unit
Sonoma County $2.47 $2,521
Cloverdale $3.54 $3,613
Healdsburg --
Santa Rosa $3.23 $3,290
Windsor --
Median $3.23 $3,290
Options
Continue to not impose a fee on rental
housing
Establish a rental housing impact fee at
the regional median
Reinstate the in-lieu fee
30
Recommendation
Develop impact fee at the area median
level of $3.23 per sq. ft.
31
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.32
3. Commercial Linkage Fee
Fee Calculations, Comparisons, and Feasibility
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.33
Rohnert Park’s Current Housing Requirements
Fee levels
•Commercial Linkage Fees unchanged since 2008
1. Retail Fee: $1.19/sq.ft.
3. Industrial Fee: $0.71/sq.ft.
2. Office and Hotel Fee: $0.69/sq.ft.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.34
New
businesses
Additional job
creation
Lower income
employees
need
affordable
housing
Commercial Linkage –Fee Calculations
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.35
Commercial Linkage –Maximum Fee Levels
Maximum Fee Current Fee
Land Use Category per sq. ft.per sq. ft.
Commercial Office $71.84 $0.69
Retail $134.76 $1.19
Industrial $52.01 $0.71
Lodging $93.92 $0.69
Assisted Living $69.57 $0.69
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.36
Commercial Linkage -Fee Comparison
Hotel Retail Commercial
Office
Light
Industrial/
Warehouse
Industrial
Rohnert Park (Current Cost)$0.69 $1.19 $0.69 $0.71 $0.71
Rohnert Park (EPS Max)$93.92 $134.76 $71.84 $52.01 $52.01
Low Fee $0.69 $0.68 $0.69 $0.26 $0.51
High Fee $15.39 $18.47 $18.47 $18.47 $18.47
Median Fee $2.08 $3.50 $2.21 $1.50 $1.57
Commercial Linkage Fee (per sq.ft.)
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.37
Commercial Linkage Fee –Feasibility Analysis
Item Office Retail Light
Industrial/
Rohnert Park - Current Fee $0.69 $1.19 $0.71
EPS-Calculated Maximum Fee $72.00 $135.00 $52.00
Required % Increase above
Current Rent/Price 26.6%51.8%29.8%
High Fee from Survey $18.47 $18.47 $18.47
Required % Increase above
Current Rent/Price 6.6%6.7%10.3%
Median Fee from Survey $2.21 $3.50 $1.50
Required % Increase above
Current Rent/Price 0.6%0.9%0.5%
Fee History
38
Approved in 2006 to take effect in 2008
Originally designed to escalate over time.
Council suspended the escalator in 2008
due to recession and slow job growth
Options
39
Eliminate non-residential fee
Leave fee as is but reinstate escalator
Raise fee to area median level
Recommendation
40
Reinstate the escalator beginning in Fiscal
Year 2018-19
Separate out two new fee categories:
◦Assisted Living
◦Hotel/Lodging
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.41
Questions?
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.42
Extra Background slides if needed:
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.43
Summary of Feasibility Findings
Item
Rental
Housing
For-Sale
Housing
(In-Lieu)
Commercial
Office Retail
Light
Industrial /
Warehouse
Rohnert Park - Current Fee None $6.24 $0.69 $1.19 $0.71
EPS-Calculated Maximum Fee $29.00 $10.09 $72.00 $135.00 $52.00
Required % Increase above Current Rent/Price 5.8%1.5%26.6%51.8%29.8%
High Fee among Surveyed Jurisdictions $6.47 $17.62 $18.47 $18.47 $18.47
Required % Increase above Current Rent/Price 1.3%3.0%6.6%6.7%10.3%
Median Fee among Surveyed Jurisdictions $3.23 $4.51 $2.21 $3.50 $1.50
Required % Increase above Current Rent/Price 0.6%-2.2%0.6%0.9%0.5%
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.44
Commercial Linkage –Nexus Calculations
Approach to Calculating Affordable Housing "Nexus" Relationships
Household Spending per
Market-Rate Unit
Jobs Created per Market-
Rate Unit
Worker Households
Created
Affordable Housing
Development Cost
-
Income-Qualified Work
Households
Maximum Value of
Income-Restricted Units
=
Affordable Housing
Demanded by Income
Level X
Financing Gap by Income
Level =Maximum Nexus-Based
Fee per Market-Rate Unit
*Figure format based on A.F. Cray's "The Use of Residential Nexus Analysis in Support of
California's Inclusionary Housing Ordinances: A Critical Evaluation"; November 2011
Jobs based on size of
Commercial Space
Maximum Nexus-Based
Fee per
C/O/I Square Foot
Typical Sq. Ft. per
Worker
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.45
Commercial Linkage –Example
Item Example
Employment Category Lodging
Industry Accommodation (NAICS Code 721000)
Occupation Category Buildings and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance
Nationwide Median Income for Occupation $25,050
Regional Wage Adjustment Factor for Occupation 117.9%
Median Wage Estimate for the Santa Rosa MSA $29,531
Workers per Household 1.78
Median Income per Household $52,657
Income Category for 3-person Family Low Income - up to 80% AMI
Item No. 10
Meeting Date: October 24, 2017
Department: Public Works and Community Services
Submitted By: John McArthur, Director of Public Works & Community Services
Prepared By: Angela Beran, Management Analyst
Agenda Title: Discussion and Direction for 1) Recreational Courts Rehabilitation
and Resurface Plan, and 2) Pickleball Courts
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff seeks the City Council’s direction for 1) the proposed tennis, basketball, and soccer court
rehabilitation and resurface plan, and 2) pickleball courts.
BACKGROUND:
Courts Rehabilitation and Resurface Plan
The City has over 116 acres of community, neighborhood and mini-parks parks. Many City parks
include amenities such as lighted tennis and basketball courts as well as paved soccer courts that
were previously tennis courts. Below, Table 1 shows a complete inventory of the City’s tennis,
basketball, and soccer (converted tennis) courts.
Table 1: City of Rohnert Park Courts Inventory
Park Tennis Basketball Soccer
Alicia 2
Dorotea 2 1
Eagle 2
Gold Ridge 2
Golis 2 2 1
Honeybee 2 2
Ladybug 2
Magnolia 8* 2
Rainbow 1 1
Sunrise 4** 2
Total 23 12 3
*The Magnolia Park tennis courts were excluded from staff assessment because all 8 courts were recently rehabilitated.
**The April 19, 2017 Parks and Recreation Commission included pickleball recommendation.
Mission Statement
“We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a
Better Community for Today and Tomorrow.”
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Item No. 10
With the exception of Magnolia Park tennis courts, all city courts need some form of rehabilitation
or resurfacing. The 2017-18 infrastructure reserve budget includes $200,000 for court resurfacing
which will only fund a limited number of court resurfacing projects. Preliminary estimates to
restore all city courts is $534,000. Thus, staff has developed a multi-year plan to resurface all
courts as funding becomes available. On September 21, 2017, staff presented this rehabilitation
and resurface plan strategy to the Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission). This report
brings the Commission and staff’s recommended multi-year court replacement plan strategy.
Pickleball Courts
Pickleball is a racquet sport that combines elements of badminton, tennis, and table tennis. Two,
three, or four players use solid paddles made of wood or composite materials to hit a perforated
polymer ball, similar to a whiffle ball, over a net. The sport shares features of other racquet sports;
the dimensions and layout of a pickleball court is like a badminton court, and the net and rules are
similar to tennis, with a few modifications. Pickleball was invented in the mid-1960s as a children's
backyard pastime but has become popular among adults as well.
Pickleball is currently offered as a drop-in sport at the Callinan Sports and Fitness Center (Sports
Center) on Tuesday and Thursday mornings. A group of participants from this drop-in program
approached the City Council about the potential of creating outdoor pickleball courts. The City
Council directed the group to the Commission for issue evaluation and recommendation. On April
19, 2017, the Commission received a report and testimony from the group about pickleball options.
This report contains the Commission’s recommendation for pickleball at Sunrise Park.
ANALYSIS:
Courts Rehabilitation and Resurface Plan
Staff developed court evaluation criteria to thoroughly assess and prioritize courts resurfacing
projects. Each measure (criterion) is scored on a 0 to 3 scale, 3 being the highest score and 0 the
lowest score. The scores from all of the criteria are added and become a total score. Based on the
court evaluation criterion which are summarized in Table 2 below, the total score of all criteria
shows staff ranking of each court. Using this information, along with rehabilitation cost, staff is
able to prioritize court rehabilitation work based on the evaluation criterion and cost.
Table 2: Evaluation Criteria
Criteria Explanation
Greatest Improvement Need Courts that need the most rehabilitation
Court Isolation How far the court is from other City, School District, or
private courts (high score would indicate that there are very
few alternative courts in close proximity)
Complimentary Amenities Parking lots, lights, adjacent popular fields
While court use is an important criteria for determining priority of repair work, staff determined
that this was strongly connected to a court’s current condition and quality (captured in “Greatest
Improvement Need”). To avoid potentially double counting the same qualities, court use was
omitted from the final evaluation criteria.
Item No. 10
Rehabilitation Methods and Cost Estimates
The courts’ rehabilitation needs range from topcoat and striping work to a more extensive
rehabilitation work including an asphalt overlay plus topcoat and striping. The City’s park courts
use and rehabilitation methods are distinctly different; therefore, the tennis, basketball, and soccer
courts were evaluated and ranked separately. Preliminary construction cost estimates for the
rehabilitation ranged from $15,000 to $37,500 for a single tennis court, $12,000 to $18,000 for a
single basketball court, and $7,200 for a single soccer court (converted tennis court) depending on
the scope of work needed. Actual costs may vary as the projects go out for design and bidding.
Item No. 10
Table 3: Tennis Courts Assessment
Analysis
Greatest
Improvement
Need1
Court
Isloation2
Complimentary
Ammenities3
Total
Community
Benefit
Rehabilitation
Method
Estimated
Total Cost
($)4
# of
Courts
Estimated
Cost/Court
($)
Cost/Court
/Benefit
($)
Ladybug Park 1 2 1 4 S 30,000 2 15,000 3,750
Sunrise Park 3 2 3 8 DO 150,000 4 37,500 4,688
Golis Park 1 1 3 5 S 48,000 2 24,000 4,800
Eagle Park 2 0 1 3 S 36,000 2 18,000 6,000
Rainbow Park 2 2 1 5 O 30,000 1 30,000 6,000
Dorotea Park 0 0 2 2 S 30,000 2 15,000 7,500
Honeybee Park 0 1 1 2 S 30,000 2 15,000 7,500
High 3 3 3 S - Top coat & stripe Priority Tier
Medium 2 2 2 O - Overlay, top coat, & stripe 1
Low 1 1 1 DO - dig-out repair, overlay, top coat, & stripe 2
None 0 0 0 3
Footnotes
1 Courts that need rehab the most
2 Location adjacent to other courts (i.e., City, School District, or Private Courts)
3 Parking, lights, popular fields
4 Paint expenses vary (low: black and white vs high: multi-color)
Community Benefit Rehab/Retrofit Cost
S
C
A
L
E
Item No. 10
Table 4: Basketball Courts Assessment
Analysis
Greatest
Improvement
Need1
Court
Isloation2
Complimentary
Ammenities3
Total
Community
Benefit
Rehabilitation
Method
Estimated
Total Cost
($)4
# of Courts
Estimated
Cost/Court
($)
Cost/Court
/Benefit
($)
Sunrise Park 2 1 2 5 S 24,000 2 12,000 2,400
Honeybee Park 3 1 2 6 O 33,600 2 16,800 2,800
Dorotea Park 1 2 1 4 S 12,000 1 12,000 3,000
Gold Ridge Park 2 0 2 4 S 24,000 2 12,000 3,000
Rainbow Park 3 2 1 6 O 18,000 1 18,000 3,000
Magnolia Park 1 1 2 4 S 26,400 2 13,200 3,300
Golis Park 1 0 2 3 S 26,400 2 13,200 4,400
High 3 3 3 S - Top coat & stripe Priority Tier
Medium 2 2 2 O - Overlay, top coat, & stripe 1
Low 1 1 1 2
None 0 0 0 3
Footnotes
1 Courts that need rehab the most
2 Location adjacent to other courts (i.e., City, School District, or Private Courts)
3 Parking, lights, popular fields
4 Paint expenses vary (low: black and white vs high: multi-color)
Community Benefit Rehab/Retrofit Cost
S
C
A
L
E
Item No. 10
Table 5: Soccer Courts Assessment
Analysis
Greatest
Improvement
Need1
Court
Isloation2
Complimentary
Ammenities3
Total
Community
Benefit
Rehabilitation
Method
Estimated
Total Cost
($)4
# of Courts
Estimated
Cost/Court
($)
Cost/Court
/Benefit
($)
Alicia Park 3 1 0 4 C 14,400 2 7,200 1,800
Golis Park 2 0 2 4 C 7,200 1 7,200 1,800
High 3 3 3 3 C - Crack seal, stripe Priority Tier
Medium 2 2 2 2 1
Low 1 1 1 1 2
None 0 0 0 0 3
Footnotes
1 Courts that need rehab the most
2 Location adjacent to other courts (i.e., City, School District, or Private Courts)
3 Parking, lights, popular fields
4 Paint expenses vary (low: black and white vs high: multi-color)
Community Benefit Rehab/Retrofit Cost
S
C
A
L
E
Item No. 10
Multi-Year Implementation Plan
A multi-year approach for implementing the court rehabilitation and surface repairs would allow
staff to develop a comprehensive schedule for completing the projects. The implementation plan
can be generated using the Priority Tiers established from the assessments summarized in Table
3, Table 4, and Table 5 above.
Table 6 below summarizes a proposed three-year court rehabilitation plan which schedules most
priority Tier 1 projects first. After Priority Tier 1 projects, depending upon funding, staff would
move on to scheduling Priority Tier 2 and Priority Tier 3 projects.
Table 6: Proposed Three-Year Court Rehabilitation Plan
Schedule Location # of Courts Cost Estimates
Year 1
1. Honeybee Park – Basketball 2 $ 33,600
2. Sunrise Park – Tennis 4 $ 150,000
3. Dorotea Park – Basketball 1 $ 12,000
Total $ 195,600
Year 2
4. Sunrise Park – Basketball 2 $ 24,000
5. Golis Park – Basketball 2 $ 26,400
6. Rainbow Park – Basketball 1 $ 18,000
7. Ladybug Park – Tennis 2 $ 30,000
8. Golis Park – Tennis 2 $ 48,000
9. Alicia Park – Soccer 2 $ 14,400
10. Golis Park – Soccer 1 $ 7,200
Total $ 168,000
Year 3
11. Magnolia Park – Basketball 2 $ 26,400
12. Eagle Park – Tennis 2 $ 36,000
13. Rainbow Park – Tennis 1 $ 30,000
14. Gold Ridge Park – Basketball 2 $ 24,000
15. Dorotea Park – Tennis 2 $ 30,000
16. Honeybee Park – Tennis 2 $ 30,000
Total $ 176,400
Pickleball Courts
Staff reviewed options for adding pickleball courts in City park tennis courts, and Sunrise Park
was suggested as a location for new pickleball courts. Staff presented their findings to the
Commission on April 19, 2017. The Commission recommended to City Council that Sunrise Park
be home to future pickleball courts.
In this report staff is recommending to City Council that one current tennis enclosure at Sunrise
Park be converted into four permanent pickleball courts, and the second enclosure be two
permanent tennis courts. If the City Council approves the multi-year rehabilitation plan, staff
could include pickleball courts at Sunrise Park in the project design.
Item No. 10
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
Adopting a plan to prioritize the rehabilitation of recreational courts is in alignment with
Strategic Plan Goal D: Continue to Develop a Vibrant Community.
OPTIONS CONSIDERED:
The total of all court repairs exceeds the established $200,000 budget for Fiscal Year 2017-18.
Staff requests direction for identifying which recreational tennis, basketball, and soccer courts to
rehabilitate and has identified the following options:
Option 1: Dividing up the projects into Priority Tiers. A multi-year plan would break up the court
rehabilitation projects into multiple tiers. Priority Tier 1 projects would be addressed first,
followed by Priority Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects. Priority Tiers are determined by calculating the
cost per court per community benefit point based upon evaluation criteria. Staff and Parks and
Recreation Commission Recommend this Option.
Option 2: Modify evaluation criteria, generate new priority project list and timeline. Staff believes
the criteria in this report capture the current benefit to the community and provide an accurate tool
for establishing courts priorities. Depending upon funding, the City’s entire court infrastructure
could be rehabilitated in four years or less. Staff does not recommend adjusting the evaluation
criteria and work plan.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE:
City Council has established a $200,000 budget for court repairs during the Fiscal Year 2017-18
budgeting process. Cost estimates have been provided by the Deputy City Engineer based upon
photos and staff accounts of court conditions.
Department Head Approval Date: September 29, 2017
Finance Director Approval Date: N/A
City Attorney Approval Date: N/A
City Manager Approval Date: October 2, 2017
Attachments (list in packet assembly order):
1) FY2017-18 Recreational Courts Rehabilitation and Surface Repair Assessment
2) Map of City Courts
1 | P a g e
FY2017-18 Recreational Courts Rehabilitation
and Surface Repair Assessment
Total FY 2017-18 Budget = $200,000
Proposed Three-Year Court Rehabilitation Plan
Schedule Location # of Courts Cost Estimates*
Year 1
1.Honeybee Park – Basketball 2 $ 33,600
2.Sunrise Park – Tennis 4 $ 150,000
3.Dorotea Park – Basketball 1 $ 12,000
Total $ 195,600
Year 2
4.Sunrise Park – Basketball 2 $ 24,000
5.Golis Park – Basketball 2 $ 26,400
6.Rainbow Park – Basketball 1 $ 18,000
7.Ladybug Park – Tennis 2 $ 30,000
8.Golis Park – Tennis 2 $ 48,000
9.Alicia Park – Soccer 2 $ 14,400
10.Golis Park – Soccer 1 $ 7,200
Total $168,000
Year 3
11.Magnolia Park – Basketball 2 $ 26,400
12.Eagle Park – Tennis 2 $ 36,000
13.Rainbow Park – Tennis 1 $ 30,000
14.Gold Ridge Park – Basketball 2 $ 24,000
15.Dorotea Park – Tennis 2 $ 30,000
16.Honeybee Park – Tennis 2 $ 30,000
Total $ 176,400
*Court repair cost estimates have been provided by Deputy City Engineer as of Summer 2017.
Attachment 1
2 | P a g e
Courts Status
Tennis
# of Courts Lights Type of use
(Resident/League) Parking Condition
Dorotea Park 2 Yes R Street Good
Eagle Park 2 Yes R Street Fair
Golis Park 2 Yes R Lot Fair
Honeybee Park 2 Yes R Lot Good
Ladybug Park 2 No R Street Fair
Magnolia Park* 8 Yes L Lot Excellent
Rainbow Park 1 Yes R Street Fair
Sunrise Park 4 Yes R Lot Poor
*The Magnolia Park tennis courts were excluded from repair assessment because all eight courts were
recently rehabilitated.
Basketball
# of Courts Lights Parking Condition
Dorotea Park 1 Yes Street Good
Gold Ridge Park 2 Yes Lot Fair
Golis Park 2 Yes Lot Fair
Honeybee Park 2 Yes Lot Poor
Magnolia Park 2 Yes Lot Fair
Rainbow Park 1 Yes Street Poor
Sunrise Park 2 Yes Lot Poor
Soccer
# of Courts Lights Parking Condition
Alicia Park 2 No Street Poor
Golis Park 1 Yes Lot Fair
3 | P a g e
Courts Analysis
Tennis Analysis
Analysis
Greatest
Improvement
Need1
Court
Isloation2
Complimentary
Ammenities3
Total
Community
Benefit
Rehabilitation
Method
Estimated
Total Cost
($)4
# of
Courts
Estimated
Cost/Court
($)
Cost/Court
/Benefit
($)
Ladybug Park 1 2 1 4 S 30,000 2 15,000 3,750
Sunrise Park 3 2 3 8 DO 150,000 4 37,500 4,688
Golis Park 1 1 3 5 S 48,000 2 24,000 4,800
Eagle Park 2 0 1 3 S 36,000 2 18,000 6,000
Rainbow Park 2 2 1 5 O 30,000 1 30,000 6,000
Dorotea Park 0 0 2 2 S 30,000 2 15,000 7,500
Honeybee Park 0 1 1 2 S 30,000 2 15,000 7,500
High 3 3 3 S - Top coat & stripe Priority Tier
Medium 2 2 2 O - Overlay, top coat, & stripe 1
Low 1 1 1 DO - dig-out repair, overlay, top coat, & stripe 2
None 0 0 0 3
Footnotes
1 Courts that need rehab the most
2 Location adjacent to other courts (i.e., City, School District, or Private Courts)
3 Parking, lights, popular fields
4 Paint expenses vary (low: black and white vs high: multi-color)
Community Benefit Rehab/Retrofit Cost
S
C
A
L
E
4 | P a g e
Basketball Analysis
Analysis
Greatest
Improvement
Need1
Court
Isloation2
Complimentary
Ammenities3
Total
Community
Benefit
Rehabilitation
Method
Estimated
Total Cost
($)4
# of Courts
Estimated
Cost/Court
($)
Cost/Court
/Benefit
($)
Sunrise Park 2 1 2 5 S 24,000 2 12,000 2,400
Honeybee Park 3 1 2 6 O 33,600 2 16,800 2,800
Dorotea Park 1 2 1 4 S 12,000 1 12,000 3,000
Gold Ridge Park 2 0 2 4 S 24,000 2 12,000 3,000
Rainbow Park 3 2 1 6 O 18,000 1 18,000 3,000
Magnolia Park 1 1 2 4 S 26,400 2 13,200 3,300
Golis Park 1 0 2 3 S 26,400 2 13,200 4,400
High 3 3 3 S - Top coat & stripe Priority Tier
Medium 2 2 2 O - Overlay, top coat, & stripe 1
Low 1 1 1 2
None 0 0 0 3
Footnotes
1 Courts that need rehab the most
2 Location adjacent to other courts (i.e., City, School District, or Private Courts)
3 Parking, lights, popular fields
4 Paint expenses vary (low: black and white vs high: multi-color)
Community Benefit Rehab/Retrofit Cost
S
C
A
L
E
5 | P a g e
Soccer Analysis
Analysis
Greatest
Improvement
Need1
Court
Isloation2
Complimentary
Ammenities3
Total
Community
Benefit
Rehabilitation
Method
Estimated
Total Cost
($)4
# of Courts
Estimated
Cost/Court
($)
Cost/Court
/Benefit
($)
Alicia Park 3 1 0 4 C 14,400 2 7,200 1,800
Golis Park 2 0 2 4 C 7,200 1 7,200 1,800
High 3 3 3 3 C - Crack seal, stripe Priority Tier
Medium 2 2 2 2 1
Low 1 1 1 1 2
None 0 0 0 0 3
Footnotes
1 Courts that need rehab the most
2 Location adjacent to other courts (i.e., City, School District, or Private Courts)
3 Parking, lights, popular fields
4 Paint expenses vary (low: black and white vs high: multi-color)
Community Benefit Rehab/Retrofit Cost
S
C
A
L
E
6 | P a g e
Dorotea Park – Tennis
West court cracking – minor East court cracking – mild Minor to severe cracking. Sealant needed.
Court top coat and cracking – minor Court top coat and cracking – minor
7 | P a g e
Eagle Park – Tennis
Perimeter severe cracking and trip hazard, outside of courts.
Top coat and restripe needed.
Root and severe cracking starting Fencing, fence line uneven & needs replacement.
8 | P a g e
Golis Park – Tennis
Top coat and cracking
9 | P a g e
Honeybee Park – Tennis
Top coat needed
Severe cracking
Perimeter severe cracking, outside of courts.
10 | P a g e
Ladybug Park – Tennis
Top coat and restripe needed
Severe cracking around perimeter
11 | P a g e
Rainbow Park - Tennis
May need an overlay, top coat, and restripe.
Possible subgrade issues resulting in mild to severe cracking.
12 | P a g e
Sunrise Park – Tennis
Poor condition, needs dig-out repair, overlay, top coat, and striping
13 | P a g e
Dorotea Park – Basketball
Crack sealant and a topcoat with a restripe.
Currently its blacktop with striping
14 | P a g e
Gold Ridge Park – Basketball
Striping needed and cracking
15 | P a g e
Golis Park – Basketball
Top coat and striping needed
Crack sealing
16 | P a g e
Honeybee Park – Basketball
Top coat and cracking – severe
Needs crack sealing, overlay (maybe) topcoat and striping
17 | P a g e
Magnolia Park – Basketball
Crack sealant, topcoat, and restriping
18 | P a g e
Rainbow Park – Basketball
Overlay may be needed, but definitely crack sealing, topcoat, and restripe
19 | P a g e
Sunrise Park – Basketball
20 | P a g e
Alicia Park – Soccer
Crack sealing and restripe required.
21 | P a g e
Golis Park – Soccer
Crack seal, black top only.
Public Courts
City Tennis Court—23
City Basketball Court— 12
City Soccer Court— 3
Gold
Ridge
Golis
Honeybee
Eagle
Dorotea
Sunrise
Rainbow
Magnolia
Ladybug
Alicia
Attachment 2
Presenters: John McArthur, Director of Public Works and Community Services
Angela Beran, Management Analyst
Key Issues and Repair Strategies
Evaluation Criteria and Priority Setting
Multi-Year Implementation Plan
◦Pickleball Recommendation
Next Steps
Park Tennis Basketball Soccer
Alicia 2
Dorotea 2 1
Eagle 2
Gold Ridge 2
Golis 2 2 1
Honeybee 2 2
Ladybug 2
Magnolia 8*2
Rainbow 1 1
Sunrise 4 2
Total 23 12 3
*Magnolia Park tennis courts excluded from
assessment
Courts Inventory –Locations
Most courts need some form of
resurfacing
◦Dig-out repair + asphalt overlay + topcoat + striping
◦Asphalt overlay + topcoat + striping
◦Crack seal + topcoat + striping
◦Crack seal + striping
Note: Topcoat could be ATA standard,
multi-colored or black
Example: Sunrise Tennis Court
Dig-out repair + asphalt overlay + topcoat + striping
Example: Ladybug Tennis Court
Crack seal + topcoat + striping
Total estimated cost to resurface 30 courts is
$534,000
Current budget is $200,000
Strategy and approach:
◦Prioritize projects
◦Implement multi-year plan
Consider Cost and Benefit to the Community
Cost –varies by type of resurfacing technique
Benefit to the Community:
◦Greatest improvement need (usability)
◦Court isolation –how far from other courts
◦Complimentary amenities –parking lots, lights,
adjacent fields
Tennis, basketball, and soccer prioritized separately
Numerically scored community benefit criteria
Cost/community benefit ranking score
Priority tiers established
Priority tiers inform multi-year resurfacing plan
Schedule Location # of
Courts
Cost
Estimates
Year 1
(Funded)
1.Honeybee Park –Basketball 2 $ 36,300
2. Sunrise Park –Tennis 4 $ 150,000
3. Dorotea Park –Basketball 1 $ 12,000
Total $ 195,600
Year 1: Sunrise Tennis Court
Tennis & Pickleball Enclosures
Schedule Location # of
Courts
Cost
Estimates
Year 2
(Not
funded)
4. Sunrise Park –Basketball 2 $ 24,000
5. Golis Park –Basketball 2 $ 26,400
6. Rainbow Park –Basketball 1 $ 18,000
7. Ladybug Park –Tennis 2 $ 30,000
8. Golis Park –Tennis 2 $ 48,000
9. Alicia Park –Soccer 2 $ 14,400
10. Golis Park –Soccer 1 $ 7,200
Total $ 168,000
Schedule Location # of
Courts
Cost
Estimates
Year 3
(Not
funded)
11. Magnolia Park –Basketball 2 $ 26,400
12. Eagle Park –Tennis 2 $ 36,000
13. Rainbow Park –Tennis 1 $ 30,000
14. Gold Ridge Park –Basketball 2 $ 24,000
15. Dorotea Park –Tennis 2 $ 30,000
16. Honeybee Park –Tennis 2 $ 30,000
Total $ 176,400
Recommendation: Multi-year Plan
◦Address some Priority 1 projects this year
Include Pickleball courts at Sunrise Park
◦Address remaining courts in the following two years
Alternative Approach
◦Develop alternative evaluation criteria, priorities,
and timeline.
ITEM NO. 11
1
Meeting Date: October 24, 2017
Department: Development Services
Submitted By: Mary Grace Pawson, Director of Development Services
Prepared By: Mary Grace Pawson, Director of Development Services
Agenda Title: Informational Update on the Status of the Sonoma Mountain Village
Development Agreement and All-Weather Soccer Field
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive informational update.
BACKGROUND: In 2010, the City entered into a development agreement with Sonoma
Mountain Village LLC (Developer) that governed the development of a 175-acre mixed use
project. Within the development agreement, the Developer committed to constructing an all-
weather soccer field on one of two sites located within the development. The soccer field was to
be completed by the earlier of (i) December 31, 2012 or (ii) the issuance of the 200th residential
building permit.
In December of 2012, the City and Developer entered into a second amendment to the
development agreement, which, in exchange for valuable consideration, extended the deadline
for completing the soccer field until December 2016. The field was not completed by December
2016 and in December 2016, the City and Developer entered into a letter agreement that allowed
the developer to construct the all-weather field at the City’s Sunrise Park, in exchange for two
payments of $250,000. The first payment was made in December 2016 and the City and
Developer began to coordinate on the design of the field.
By spring of 2017, the City and Developer realized that the design of the soccer field in Sunrise
Park would impact the adjacent softball field and that additional site work was necessary. Also in
the spring of 2017, the Developer requested that the City execute a partial assignment of the
development agreement, so that the developer could obtain additional financing.
In May of 2017, the City entered into a partial assignment of the development agreement that:
1. Required the developer to deposit $2.55 million with the City as a good-faith deposit
towards the construction of the soccer field and attendant baseball field improvements;
2. Required the developer to deposit the second $250,000 payment with the City;
3. Committed the developer to using the loan proceeds to advance the project that was the
subject of the development agreement;
4. Committed both parties to completing negotiations and executing a third amendment to
the development agreement that further detailed roles and responsibilities around the
soccer field construction.
Mission Statement
“We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a
Better Community for Today and Tomorrow.”
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ITEM NO. 11
2
Staff has been working to complete the draft of the third amendment to the development
agreement. Because the City has a large deposit to secure the construction of the soccer field and
is better positioned to manage and execute a public works construction project, the Developer
has requested that the third amendment shift the responsibility for construction to the City. Staff
is negotiating with the Developer on the terms of the third amendment to address this request.
ANALYSIS: Since 2010, the Developer has focused its activities on rehabilitating and leasing
the existing industrial buildings on the site. For various reasons, the mixed-use residential
portions of the project have not been constructed and the developer has not initiated, much less
completed, the all-weather soccer field.
Through the partial assignment agreement, the City was able to negotiate a substantial deposit
($2.55 million) towards the construction of the soccer field. The current estimate for construction
of the field is approximately $2.4 million and includes modifications to the adjacent baseball
field. The City has also retained a landscape architect with experience in all-weather field design
to provide peer review for the developer’s design. As noted above, staff is working with the
Developer on the terms of a third amendment to the Development Agreement to address
Developer’s request to have the City construct the soccer field.
NEXT STEPS: Staff is working to finalize a proposed third amendment to the Sonoma
Mountain Village Development Agreement. In accordance with the municipal code, the
amendment will be scheduled for review by the Planning Commission and final approval by the
City Council. Staff anticipates that this can be completed by the end of the year. Staff will also
reinitiate design of the soccer field with a goal of constructing the project in 2018.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: The proposed action is consistent with Strategic Plan
Goal D – Continue to Develop a Vibrant Community.
OPTIONS CONSIDERED: None. This is an informational item.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE: None. This is an informational item.
Department Head Approval Date: 10/16/2017
Finance Director Approval Date: NA
City Attorney Approval Date: 10/18/2017
City Manager Approval Date: 10/18/2017
ITEM NO. 12
1
Mission Statement
“We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a
Better Community for Today and Tomorrow.”
Meeting Date: October 24, 2017
Department: Administration
Submitted By: Darrin Jenkins, City Manager
Agenda Title: Adoption of Ordinance – Consideration of Adjustment of City Council
Compensation
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt an ordinance increasing City Council compensation by 17.73%, the same percentage
increase employees received since the last council member compensation adjustment (2006).
BACKGROUND:
At the August 8, 2017, City Council Meeting the City Council directed staff to prepare an
ordinance adjusting councilmember compensation. The amount of the adjustment was to be
consistent with the rate of increase in employee salaries between the last City Council
compensation adjustment in 2006 and the effective date of the adjustment which will be at the
beginning of a council member’s new term of office which will occur in December 2018.
At the October 10, 2017, City Council Meeting the City Council introduced the Ordinance
increasing City Council compensation by 17.73%, the same percentage increase employees
received since the last council member compensation adjustment (2006).
DISCUSSION:
Pursuant to the direction from the City Council, staff researched the historic employee salary
increases including the scheduled July 1, 2018 increase. The increases varied by bargaining unit
over the study period. To find an average increase, the numbers of full-time equivalent positions
covered by each bargaining group were used to calculate a weighted average. Using this method,
the average increase is 17.73%.
Adjusting the existing council member compensation of $411.16 up by 17.73% yields a monthly
compensation amount of $484.06.
The attached ordinance, if approved, would set council member compensation at $484.06 per
month which will be effective at the beginning of a council member’s new term of office which
will occur in December 2018.
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ITEM NO. 12
2
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
Serving as a council member is time consuming and requires significant attention to best serve
the community. Providing compensation consistent with state law limits supports the Strategic
Plan Goal A – Practice Participative Leadership at All Levels.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impact would be $5,751 per year including PERS retirement costs. There is no impact
on the Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget as it ends in June of 2018, before the effective date of the
increase.
Department Head Approval Date: N/A
Finance Director Approval Date: N/A
City Attorney Approval Date: 9/18/2017
City Manager Approval Date: 9/29/2017
Attachments (list in packet assembly order):
1. Ordinance 911
1
Ord. 911
ORDINANCE NO. 911
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
AMENDING SECTION 2.12.020, POPULATION, AND SECTION 2.12.030, SALARIES,
OF THE ROHNERT PARK MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADJUST CITY COUNCIL
COMPENSATION
WHEREAS, Section 36516 of the Government Code authorizes the council to provide
by ordinance that each member of the council shall receive a prescribed salary;
WHEREAS, the last council member compensation increase was adopted in 2006 setting
the amount at $411.16;
WHEREAS, the prescribed salary may be increased within limits set by Section 36516
of the Government Code;
WHEREAS, staff calculated the maximum permissible compensation to be $637.29 per
month;
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to set council member compensation at a rate that
is lower than the maximum permissible, to be consistent with general employee increases during
the time period between council member adjustments;
WHEREAS, staff calculated the general employee average increase to be 17.73% over
the specified time period;
WHEREAS, a 17.73% increase to the $411.16 compensation yields a monthly
compensation of $484.06;
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to update its codified population of the City of
Rohnert Park since it has increased from 29,674 to 42,067 as of January 1, 2017.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park ordains as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 2.12.020, of the Rohnert Park Municipal Code is amended in its entirety
to read as follows:
Population. As of January 1, 2017, the latest estimate of population of the city
made by the California Department of Finance is forty-two thousand sixty-seven.
SECTION 2. Section 2.12.030, of the Rohnert Park Municipal Code is amended in its entirety
to read as follows:
Salaries. Each council member shall receive a salary of four hundred eighty-four
dollars and six cents per month, as authorized by Government Code 36516 and
which shall be payable at the same time and in the same manner the salaries are
paid to the other officers and employees of the city.
2
Ord. 911
SECTION 3. This change in compensation shall become effective whenever one or more
members of the City Council begins a new term of office, in accordance with Government Code
section 36516.5.
This ordinance was introduced on October 10, 2017, and adopted by the Council of the City of
Rohnert Park on October 24, 2017 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
________ _____________
Jake Mackenzie, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
JoAnne Buergler, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney