Loading...
2000/11/28 City Council Agenda PacketCity of Rohnert Park♦ 6750 Commerce Boulevard ♦ Rohnert Park, California 94928 ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL Community Development Commission Rohnert Park Financing Authority Rohnert Park District CONCURRENT MEETINGS AGENDA Tuesday, November 28, 2000 6:00 p.m. CLOSED SESSION - COUNCIL WILL MEET IN CLOSED SESSION IN THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE PRIOR TO THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING TO CONSIDER: • Personnel matters (G.C. 54957) • Litigation matters (G.C. 54956.9) • Real Estate Negotiations (G.C. 54956.8) 7:15 p.m. REGULAR SESSION - Open Call to Order, Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call (Flores Mackenzie Reilly_Spiro_Vidak-Martinez_) 1. Mayor's Report on Closed Session (G.C. 54957.1) 2. Approval of Minutes - November 14, 2000 3. Council Communications, if any (informational only.) 7:20 p.m. 4. YOUTH REPRESENTATIVE to the CITY COUNCIL from High School 2000-2001 Youth of the Year Program selections 1. Recognizing Youth Representatives: Senior Harjit Banwait, Junior Kaitlin Glass & Junior Laura Lively • Youth report/comments, if any 2. Other Youth comments, if any This time is signified on the Council meeting agenda to provide the opportunity for other youths of the community to ask questions, make announcements &tor share comments on other youth related matters 7:25 p.m. 5. SONOMA STATE UNIVERSITY ASSOCIATED STUDENTS, INC. REPRESENTATIVE • Recognizing SSU Associated Students, Inc. Representative Seann Pridmore, Vice President, University Affairs • SSU Report/comments, if any City of Rohnert Park CONCURRENT MEETINGS Agenda (2) November 28, 2000 for City CounciUCommunity Development Commission/Rohnert Park Financing Authority/Rohnert Park District 7:30 p.m. 6. Unscheduled public appearances: For public comment on items not listed on the agenda, or on agenda items if unable to speak at the scheduled time (limited to 3-5 minutes per appearance & a 30 minute total time limit, or allocation of time based on number of speaker cards submitted) - PLEASE FILL OUT A SPEAKER CARD PRIOR TO SPEAKING - *SEE NOTE ON LAST PAGE OF THIS AGENDA . 8:00 p.m. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR All items on the consent calendar will be considered in toto by one action of the Council unless any Councilmember or anyone else interested in any matter on the consent calendar has a question about same.. A. Acknowledging the City Manager/Clerk's report on the posting of the meeting's agenda B. Approval of Bills/Demands for Payment concurrently for: • City of Rohnert Park/City Council • Community Development Commission C. Resolutions for Adoption: 2000-233 Calling for Sealed Proposals for One (1) Mini Half -Ton Pick -Up for the Department of Public Safety 2000-234 Rejecting the Claim of Lois L. Patyk (re. alleged fall at Spreckels Performing Arts Center) D. Approval of donations of a Summer Family Pool Membership and a one year individual Sports Center Membership for Rohnert Park Chamber of Commerce Auction, Annual Spring Business Showcase, Thursday, May 10, 2001 8:05 p.m. 8. Financial Reporting Awards • Accepting "Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting" Award from the Government Finance Officers Association for the City's Comprehensive Annual financial Report for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1999 '(18th consecutive year) - Sandy.Lipitz, Finance Director • Presentation of the Award of Financial Reporting Achievement to George P. Raymond, Accountant/Auditor J City of Rohnert Park CONCURRENT MEETINGS Aitenda (3) November 28, 2000 for City CounciUCommunity Development CommissionlRohnert Park Financing Authority/Rohnert Park Distinct 8:10 P.M. 9. Skating Rink Relocation to SW Boulevard 1. Staff report on Financing Options for privately owned skating rink 2. Council discussion/direction/action 8:20 p.m. 10. T's Academy Status Report/Extension Request (JR) • Council discussion/action 8:25 p.m. 1.1. Planning and Zoning matters: 1. File No. 1902 - Consideration of Appeal of Jose L. Sanchez Use Permit for a Second Residential Unit at 7835 Burton Avenue a. Staff report b. PUBLIC HEARING c. Council discussion/action • Resolution for consideration: 2000 Denying an Appeal of a Use Permit and Residential Parking Exemption to Allow the Construction of a Second Residential Unit on Property Located at 7835 Burton Avenue (Jose L. Sanchez) 2. Communications Facilities Zoning Ordinance a. Staff report b. Ordinance for introduction: No. Repealing Municipal . Code Chapter 17.64, Wireless Communication Facilities, and Adding a New Chapter 17.64, Communication Facilities 8:40 p.m. 12. Golf Course matters: 1. Results of 11/20/00 Special Meeting held for the purpose of considering alternatives presented by American Golf Corporation for golf course improvements or to consider other options 2. Staff update on progress of any options selected for consideration • Council discussion/direction/action 8:55 p.m. 13. Selection of City Council Officers for 2001 • Council discussion/action 1. Selection of Mayor 2, Selection of Mayor Pro Tempore (Vice Mayor) City of Rohnert Park CONCURRENT MEETINGS Agenda (4) November 28, 2000 for City Council/Community Development Commission/Rohnert Park Financing Authority/Rohnert Park District 9:00 P.M. 14. SSU Possible Partnership with Students (LS) 1. Consideration of new Teen Center joint use by Rohnert Park Teens & Sonoma State University Students 2. Council discussion/direction/action 9:05 p.m. 15. Council Committee &/or Other Reports: 1. Report on Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Executive Board Meeting (WIND 2. Other, if any 9:15 p.m. 16. Communications 9:20 p.m. 17. Matters from/for Council: 1. Senior Center Expansion Request (LS) 2. Park Benches & Containers for Pet Poop (LS) 3. Appointment procedures/City and Regional (LS) 4. Review of Santa Clara Valley 1/2 Cent Transit Sales Tax & Alameda 1/2 Cent Transportation Sales Tax Ballot Measures (JR) 5. Concurrence for Cancellation of December 26th City Council meeting due -to holiday 6. Other informational items, if any 9:30 p.m. 18. City Manager's report 1. Code Enforcement Action Plan 2. Other informational items, if any Other unscheduled public appearances (limited to 5 minutes per appearance with an unrestricted total time limit) Adjournment no later than 10:00 p.m. City of Rohnert Park CONCURRENT MEETINGS Agenda (5) November'28, 2000 for City CouncillCommunity Development Commission/Rohnert Park Financing Authority/Rohnert Park District 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. - PLEASE FILL OUT A SPEAKER CARD PRIOR TO SPEAKING - Any item raised by a member of the public which is not agendized and may require Council action shall be automatically referred to staff for investigation and disposition which may include placing on a firture 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 Offices at (707) 588-2200 at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to ensure arrangements for accommodation by the City. Please make sure the City Manager's office is notified as soon as possible if you have a visual impairment requiring meeting materials to be produced in another format (Braille, audio -tape, etc.) JH-h:agcndas/112800ag NOTICE OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR HOLDING A CLOSED MEETING of the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF ROHNERT PARK November 28, 2000 LOCATION: City Manager's Office at City Hall, 6750 Commerce Blvd., Rohnert Park, Ca. TIME: 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the listed agenda item for the closed session is reached Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54950 et.seq., the City Council will hold a closed session. More specific information regarding this meeting is provided as follows: *Personnel matters (G.C. 54957) Include names/titles of City staff &/or consultants in attendance - City Manager's Annual Evaluation - Composite discussion *Litigation matters (G.C. 54956.9) 1. Consideration of joining amicus brief in Cashman v. City of Cotati 2. Consideration of joining amicus brief in G&G Fire Sprinklers, Inc. v. Bradshaw 3. Possible litigation - one case •Real Estate Negotiations (G.C. 54956.8) Include location (APN, address, generally understood location) of the property; name of City's negotiator; items under consideration; & whether the property is being purchased, sold, or otherwise transferred. - Lands Around the Stadium - A.P. Nos. 143-040-095 and 143-040-098 Negotiator - Joseph D. Netter, City Manager cn_,J�. City ger/City Clerk Attachment to: City of Rohnert Park City Council Agenda Nov. 28, 2000 JH4ragmda/112300ag 4 Ov vc, .4e. e to ro ; , --� yy)-e- COURTESY AGENDA MAILING LIST 11/28/00 JOSE L. SANCHEZ SANDRA LEATHERWOOD 7835 BURTON AVENUE 7821 BURTON AVENUE ROHNERT PARK CA 94928 ROHNERT PARK CA 94928 C% REVEREND THARPE 772 LINDSAY AVENUE ROHNERT PARK CA 94928 CITY COUNCIL SPEAKER CARD Date: / / — Z Name: F,---4/ Address: Cleo 141r g. p Phone: % 1 9 TOPIC: L A-1 ,,;jo p Soiu o Brief Summary of Comments: fou L3. eie�o# JJ `� SK ii di * 5 CITY COUNCIL SPEAKER CA Date: Name: Address: Phone: 7 7, 4, / TOPIC: V --4- 2-r 0,-o Brief Summary of Comments: =* See Reverse CITY COUNCIL SPEAKER CA Date: N UV. 2-E!> Name: P Address: e�0 00 R C)be-�4S L(D.-k-J2� Pd). Phone: S 8 L4 —141 S TOPIC: Go 4-1� ('10 U -N-5 2,. Brief Summary of Comments: =:> See Reverse CIW COUNCIL SPEAKER C RD ?5 0D Date:oz w Name:- " emn Ir Address: as c i o l Phone: 5(ZS- g 7 g3 TOPIC: �lQ,flC- n R-62- "Ji crsckddl Brief Summary of Comments: p �7 ('t, rn => See Reverse CTry COUNCIL SPEAKER CA late: name: 1= --- Address: D rz- Phone: (-t C'2) �y q- 5-- r 3 TOPIC: r-, T -z Al, L Brief Summary of Comments: 7-M Z- !SJ -A —lL/ S 0 N/ 1,- 13 "-f 0 EA eA-,- 7- P -74- 0 �� 4c?- -)- Y- C) C), '-).. => See Reverse CITY COUNCIL SPEAKER CA ane: S,47V LRW-�D ldregs: -AIL, lone: DPIC: M'A CITY COUNCIL SPEAKER Date: Name: Address: Phone: TOPIC: Brief Summary Of Comments: � See Reverse CITY COUNCIL SPEAKER Date: II `2g—o0 Name: MICAA, Address: '191,31 Phone: 00-7) 753-J7,36- I TOPIC:';a,,, 4skcsAoam@ IS -65- 9""-eA AW-, Brief Summary of Comments: I 'PC -sr- =* See Reverse 1 CITY COUNCIL SPEAKER C RD Date: %/^'; bc2 d!�� Name: 91V rr W -c l4^& UGIr`5' Address: Phone: TOPIC: => See Reverse CITY COUNCIL SPEAKER C" Date: //• ����� Name:. j /,I2D A//A,/Address• %aL/�%s� AiIE- Phone• TOPIC: Brief Sum ary of Comments: // CITY COUNCIL Date: R $ —� Name:c� =:> See Reverse KERRO �, /R/ Address: 3 '' 9 Ox4c4a- L Phone:.° TOPIC: Brief Summary of Comments: Tuesday November 28, 2000 City Council Meeting Exchange Students • Dance: We are planning a dance where the exchange students will be honored and will get the chance of being honored. • Pictures: Pictures of the exchange students will be displayed in the front office. COUNCIL MEETING MEMO V TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members FROM: Joseph D. Netter of the City Council City Manager CC: Betsy Strauss, City Attorney Department Heads Administrative Staff Press Correspondents DATE: November 21, 2000 The following matters are among those scheduled for consideration or discussion at the City of Rohnert Park concurrent meetings: City Council, Community Development Commission, Rohnert Park Financing Authority, and Rohnert Park District meeting on Tuesday, November 28, 2000: Closed Session - This session has been scheduled at 6:00 p.m. and is held prior to the regular meeting at the City Offices, 6750 Commerce Boulevard, in the City Manager's Office. This session has been scheduled to update the Council on certain personnel matters (G.C. 54957), litigation matters (G.C. 54956.9) and real estate negotiations (G.C. 54956.8), and to solicit Council's direction and input regarding matters as listed on the notice attached to the meeting agenda. 1. Mayor's Report on Closed Session - The regular session of the Rohnert Park City Council meeting is scheduled to commence at 7:15 p.m. Mayor Vicki Vidak-Martinez will report on the scheduled closed session (G.C. 54957.1) 2. Approval of Minutes - The minutes of November 14, 2000 have been distributed to the Council for its review and formal approval. 3. Council Communications - Time has been allotted on the Council agenda for any Council member to communicate informational items to the City Council. 4. Youth Representatives to the Rohnert Park City Council from High School 2000-2001 Youth of the Year Selections - Youth Representatives will present items of interest and/or concern to the youths of our community. 5. Sonoma State University Associated Students, Inc. Representatives to the City Council - SSU Associated Students, Inc. representative Seann Pridmore, Vice President, University Affairs, will provide reports on items of interest at Sonoma State University. 6. Unscheduled Public Appearances - Time has been allotted on the Council agenda for public comment on agenda items or other matters not on the agenda, or on agenda items if unable to speak at the scheduled time. There is a 30 -minute time limit for unscheduled appearances and, depending on the number of speakers, each speaker may be limited to a 3-5 minute time allotment. Any speakers not having time to speak during the unscheduled public appearances will be deferred to a time allotment at the end of the agenda for additional public comments. CITY OF ROHNERT PARK (2) Council Meeting Memo — November 21, 2000 j 7. CONSENT C A L E N D A R — For this meeting, the Consent Calendar consists of acknowledgment of the City Manager/Clerk's report on the posting of the meeting's agenda approval of bills/demands for payment, and adoption of Resolution Nos. 2000-233 and 2000- 234. Copies of all resolutions, staff reports, and additional backup materials for those items listed have been provided to Council for review prior to the meeting. A. Agenda Posting — Agendas for the City of Rohnert Park concurrent meetings: City Council, Community Development Commission, Rohnert Park Financing Authority, and Rohnert Park District meeting have been posted in locations accessible to the public, to wit: City Offices, Public Safety Building Main Station on City Hall Drive, and the Community Center Building. All postings being done more than 72 hours prior to the meeting. B. Approval of Bills/Demands for Payment — A listing of all the bills/demands for payment for the City and Community Development Commission is being presented for approval and has been provided to each Councilmember. If any Councilmember has questions concerning any items on the bills for approval, please so indicate at the meeting. C. Resolutions for Adoption: 2000-233 Calls for sealed proposals for one (1) mini half -tone pickup for the Department of Public Safety. The Department of Public Safety intends to assign this vehicle to the Department's Community Services Officers. Funds for this truck are available in the Vehicle Abatement Fund. Staff recommends adoption of this resolution. 2000-234 Rejects the claim of Lois L. Patyk, for alleged fall at the Spreckels Performing Arts Center. Upon adoption, this claim will be forwarded to the Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund (REMIF) for follow-up and handling. D. Summer Family Pool Membership — Approves donation of a Summer Family Pool Membership and a one year individual Sports Center Membership for the Rohnert Park Chamber of Commerce Silent Auction held in conjunction with their annual Spring Business Showcase. This event will be held on Thursday, May 10, 2001. ********************************** 8. Financial Reporting Awards: Excellence in Financial Reporting Award — Acknowledging receipt of "Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting" Award from the Government. Finance Officers Association for the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1999. This award will be accepted and presented to Finance Director Sandy Lipitz. This is the 18t" consecutive year the City has received this award. Very few cities in the nation receive this award. E` CITY OF ROHNERT PARK (3) Council Meeting Memo - November 21, 2000 Financial Reporting Achievement Award — Also, Accountant/Auditor George P. Raymond is presented with the Award of Financial Reporting Achievement. This is an individual award presented to the individual most responsible for this exemplary achievement. Compliments are extended to Finance Director Sandy Lipitz, and especially George Raymond for the commitment to excellence, which represents meeting exceptionally high standards of the program in financial reporting. 9. Skating Rink Relocation to Southwest Boulevard — Council has been provided with a summary report from David Tan, representative from Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott, LLP, regarding financing options in connection with the rehabilitation of a building within Rohnert Park for the purpose of constructing a privately owned, for-profit skating rink open to the general public. Unfortunately, Redevelopment Bond Funds cannot be used for private activities without rendering the bonds taxable under IRS regulations. The only way to use redevelopment funds is by the use of tax increment. Unfortunately, all Rohnert Park's tax increment has been pledged for debt service on the bonds, lease payments and reimbursement costs. As for use of General Funds for a private loan, this would over -tax the General Fund without sufficient security to protect the loan and may put the General Fund in jeopardy. Cal Skate representatives will have to seek other options to assist in this project. Time has been allotted for Council's discussion, direction, and possible action on this matter. 10.T's Academy Status Report/Extension Request — On October 26, 1999, the City Council authorized Staff to proceed with a site agreement for the possible construction of T's Academy on a 3.3 acre site adjacent to the Animal Shelter. This site agreement commitment was for the period through June 1, 2001. Staff recently contacted Reverand Sam Tharpe requesting a status report on the efforts to date toward raising funds to pay for construction of this proposed facility. Council has been provided with a letter from Rev. Tharpe requesting an extension of the deadline date. Time has been allotted for Council discussion and possible action on this matter. 11. Planning and Zoning Matters: A) File No. 1902 — Consideration of setting Public Hearing date to consider appeal of Use Permit for Jose L. Sanchez, Use Permit for a second residential unit at 7835 Burton Avenue. At its October 26, 2000 meeting, the Planning Commission approved a Use Permit to allow a second residential unit to be constructed on property located at 7835 Burton Avenue. Prior to the meeting, two letters from neighboring property owners were received, one in favor of the project and the other opposing it. These letters were entered into the record and considered by the Commission that evening. In addition, another neighbor, Ms. Sandra L. Leatherwood, 7821 Burton Avenue, spoke in opposition to the project at the hearing. The Use Permit was approved by a 4-1 vote of the Commission. Subsequently, Planning Staff has received a letter from Ms. Leatherwood appealing the Commission's decision, a copy of which has been provided to Council for review. CITY OF ROHNERT PARK (4) Council Meeting Memo — November 21, 2000. On November 14, 2000, the City Council directed Staff to set an appeal hearing date. Additionally, Council asked for clarification regarding the ability of the City to restrict the use of a second unit to a family member and what limitations there were, if any, with respect to the numbers of persons living in a house. Currently the City of Rohnert Park does not have a second unit ordinance and is subject to State Law pertaining to this matter. State Law essentially requires communities to approve second units if they comply with limited conditions, as cited in the Government Code (Sections 65852.150 and 65852.2). Staff Reports and Planning Commission materials pertaining to File No. 1902 have been provided to Council for summary information. Planning Staff will make a presentation on this project. This item has been set for a formal public hearing. Staff recommends denying the appeal and affirming the Planning Commission's approval of the Use Permit and Residential Parking Exemption. B) Communications Facilities Zoning Ordinance — On June 27, 2000, the City Council adopted a 90 -day Urgency Ordinance directing the development of a Telecommunications Ordinance and prohibiting the issuance of encroachment permits for telecommunications purposes in the interim. The Telecommunications Ordinance was approved by the City Council on September 26, 2000. As a companion to the Telecommunications Ordinance, the existing Wireless Communication Facilities regulations contained in Chapter 17.64 of the Zoning Ordinance have been revised and updated to reflect current technologies and to address the aesthetic concerns with ancillary support equipment associated with both wireless and cable or fiber optic facilities. Refer to Council Agenda Item Transmittal Report for summary information. Ordinance for Introduction: No. Repeals Municipal Code Chapter 17.64, Wireless Communication Facilities, and Adds a New Chapter 17.64, Communication Facilities. 12. Golf Course Matters — A special meeting was held on Monday, Nov. 20, 2000 with representatives of American Golf outlining options for improvements at both the North and South Courses. The City Council listened to Staff presentations, as well as details of options proposed. Additional information was requested regarding the financing plan for Council's review and consideration. Various options will be discussed prior to selection of a preferred alternative. 13.Selection - of City Council Officers for 2001 — The City Council generally agendizes' the discussion and/or action for the selection of Mayor and selection of Mayor Pro -Tempore (Vice -Mayor) at the second meeting in November. The selection can be made at the November 28, 2000 meeting or it can be carried over to the first meeting in December for action. Once a determination is made, a date is generally identified for a celebration of the changing of the Mayors with acknowledgement of the outgoing Mayor and celebrating the appointment of the new Mayor and Vice -Mayor. 14. Sonoma State University Possible Partnership with Students — Council has been provided with a copy of Councilmember Linda Spiro's memorandum concerning a possible partnership with SSU students for use of the City's Teen Center. Time has been allotted for Council's discussion and direction on this matter. CITY OF ROHNERT PARK (5) Council Meeting Memo — November 21, 2000 15. Council Committee and/or Other Reports — Time has been allotted for Council Committee and/or other reports as listed on the Council agenda. 16. Communications — Copies of all meaningful communications have been provided to the Council for review prior to the meeting. .A communications outline listing all of .the communications being brought to Council's attention will be provided. If there is any communication that any Councilmember wants to read or discuss, please so indicate during the review of communications. Other matters listed on the agenda are either covered in separate memos and reports or will be discussed and explained at the meeting. CITY OF ROHNERT PARK CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES for: CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION November 14, 2000 Tuesday The concurrent meetings of the City of Rohnert Park for the City Council and the Community Development Commission met this date,.in regular session for a regular meeting commencing at 6:36 p.m. in the City Offices, 6750 Commerce Boulevard, Rohnert Park, with Mayor Vidak-Martinez presiding. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Vidak-Martinez called the :regular session to order at 6:36 p.m. and led the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present: (3) Councilmembers Flores and Reilly; Mayor Vidak-Martinez Absent: (2) Vice Mayor Mackenzie; Councilmember Spiro .Mayor Vidak-Martinez noted that Vice Mayor Mackenzie was out of town -and that Councilmember Spiro was ill. Staff present for all or part of the meeting: City "Manager Netter,.,City Attorney Strauss,- Planning and .Community Development Director Kaufman, City Engineer Gaffney, Public Work's Manager Stephens, and Recreation Director."Barry. T,., CLOSED SESSION: Mayor"Vidak-Martinez reported on,the.closed session which commenced..at approximately 6:0.0 p.m.'to discuss matters listed on the agenda -attachment.,- representing an .update,., Z.—APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.- OCTOBER 24, 2000: ,Upon MOTION -by Council.member.Flores, seconded.by Councilmember Reilly, the Minutes of October,24, 2000, were -APPROVED 3-0 AS SUBMITTED, with Vice Mayor Mackenzie Councilmember Spiro -absent City of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES November 14, 2000 Page(2 ) 3. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS, IF ANY (INFORMATIONAL ONLY): Mayor Vidak-Martinez asked the Councilimembers if there were any informational communications to add to the agenda. *Councilmember Reilly signified one item to add: (1) Transportation ballot measure in Alameda. 4. YOUTH REPRESENTATIVE TO THE CITY COUNCIL FROM HIGH SCHOOL 2000-2001 YOUTH OF THE YEAR PROGRAM. SELECTIONS: 1. Seniors Samantha Tabacco and Alex Teicheria and Junior Ryan Inlow were recognized. The youth representatives shared the contents of a Youth Report to be DISTRIBUTED to Councilmembers. The report provided an update on the progress of the Teen Center and various plans for activities. Highlights included the following: (1) Recreation staff have been meeting with teen leaders in the community to discuss the use of the new Teen Center, named "The Vision." (2) Teen Center will be divided into two separate program areas: West end will be a daytime drop-in area for teens, and East end will be used primarily on weekends to hold dances and other social activities. (3) Specific programs and activities to be held at the Teen Center include tutoring, art, weekend barbeques, dances, bands, poetry reading, and post -game gatherings. (4) Staff and teens have upcoming plans to paint the interior of the building, install signage and basketball poles, purchase supplies, develop a calendar of events, and assign a part-time staff of teen volunteers to monitor the center and activities. Councilmember Flores SUGGESTED that the teens contact local furniture stores to check for donations of furniture, and Councilmember Reilly SUGGESTED that the teens use the Chamber of Commerce's newsletter to get support and donations. *City Council/Community Development Commission 4,. City of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES November 14, 2000 Page ( 3 ) 5. SONOMA STATE UNIVERSITY ASSOCIATED STUDENTS, INC., REPRESENTATIVE: 1. Seann Pridmore, ASU Vice President of.University Affairs at SSU, was recognized. Highlights from the SSU Report included: (1) -Copies of the November 14th issue of SSU.'s newspaper, The Star, were DISTRIBUTED to Council. (2) Storytelling at SSU, Sunday, November 19th at 2:00 p.m. Kids free; $5 for adults. Call 664-2815 for more information. (3) Hunger Awareness Week at SSU: Discussion at SSU on Wednesday, November 15th, at noon; also a Warm Clothing Drive at SSU (hats, blankets, jackets). For more information, call 664-4277. (4) SSU Girls' Basketball team plays Humboldt State at SSU on Friday, November 17. Mr. Pridmore INQUIRED about Greek housing for fraternities and sororities, and Mayor Vidak-Martinez REFERRED him to Planning Director Kaufman. 6. SCHEDULED APPEARANCES/PRESENTATIONS: 1. Sister Cities Committee Report and Requests, by .Rebecca Rishe, President: Ms. Rishe shared her report which included the following highlights: (1) 30 students from Hashimoto, Japan; will be coming to Rohnert Park in August 2001. Homes are needed for the students during their stay. Contact Ms. Rishe at 795-3860 if you can,help. (2) Sister Cities Festival changed from February 2001 to March 3rd, 2001. (3) Electronic.penpalling with the middle school and highschool in Hashimoto; art and mail are"being sent to Tag.atay in the Philippines. (4) Thanks to the Council for the City staff appointee, Kathy Kelez, to the Sister Cities Committee.. Ms. Rishe ASKED for -an update from Council on the progress of the Japanese Garden. Council CONCURRED to have staff provide`Ms. Rishe with a timeline. 2. Lynne Conde for New,Library Steering Committee - Update: Ms. Conde discussed the progress of the Steering Committee. She noted that work is in *City Council'/Community-Development Commission City of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES November 14, 2000 Page(4 ) progress to implement a tutoring program for grades K-12 at the current Rohnert Park Library. She thanked Council for the recent groundbreaking ceremony for the new library, and she PRESENTED each Councilmember with a framed photo of the event. She also extended thanks to Next Level Communications for their $10,000 donation for computers and equipment to the new library, and to Summers & Oates for purchasing a new garden entry to the library. Finally, she remarked that the grant deadline has been extended to February 15, 2001, as the committee seeks more funding for the library. 7. UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES: Mayor Vidak-Martinez stated that in compliance with State law (The Brown Act), citizens wishing to make a comment may do so at this time (limited to 3-5 minutes per appearance with a 30 -minute limit). 1. Grecs Brogdin, 8471 Lancaster Drive, was recognized and reported on the November 2nd meeting he -and members from six households on Lancaster Drive had with City Engineer Gaffney and Public Safety Sergeant McNair. He noted that City Engineer Gaffney would be investigating alternative traffic -calming measures to speed bumps and stop signs. He REQUESTED to meet with the Council subcommittee in the near future, and he SUGGESTED that his two -block area be considered a test area for developing better traffic methodology, traffic -calming devices, and traffic policies. 2. Robin Bleckwehl 5000 Roberts Lake Road, was recognized and shared information about Rohnert Park's 18th Annual Holiday Lights Celebration on Thursday, November 30th, from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. at the Rohnert Park Community Center. She PROVIDED Council with informational fliers, and she noted that Santa Claus will be there, as well as RP Children's Choir, RP Community Chorale, RP Community Band Sing -along, Ballet Califia, and free refreshments. 3. Charles Kitchen 4457 Hollingsworth Circle, was recognized and ASKED if members of the audience could give input on Item 11, "Golf Course Matters." Mayor Vidak-Martinez indicated that Item 11 would be an informational item that would disclose the date of another meeting which will include public input. *City Council/ Community Development Commission City of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES - November 14, 2000 Page ( 5 ) 8. CONSENT CALENDAR: Mayor Vidak-Martinez asked if there were any questions regarding the matters.on the Consent Calendar, which were explained in the City Manager's Council Meeting Memo. Acknowledging the City Manager/Clerk's report on the Posting Of 'the meeting's agenda Approval of Bills/Demands for Payment concurrently for: *City of Rohnert Park/City Council in the amount of $752,117.18 *Community Development Commission in the amount of $829-,804.97 Resolutions for Adoption: 2000-223 AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF A GRANT APPLICATION, THE INCURRING OF AN OBLIGATION, THE EXECUTION OF A GRANT_ AGREEMENT AND ANY AMENDMENTS.THERETO, AND ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO SECURE'A CODE ENFORCEMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2000-224 APPROVING,AND RATIFYING -PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR ASSISTING GRANT PREPARATION FOR THE WATERSHED PROTECTION/WATER BOND 2000 2000-225 ESTABLISHING CHANGES TO DROP-IN FEES AND MEMBERSHIP POLICIES AT CALLINAN'SPORTS AND ✓ FITNESS CENTER 2000-226 APPROVING LEASE AGREEMENT WITH SENIORS.' CRAFT SHOPPE FOR CONSIGNMENT SALES OF CRAFTS AT 5800 HUNTER DRIVE, SUITE A 2000-227 APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT WITH SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY (SCWA) FOR WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM 2000-228 AWARD OF CONTRACT, COMMERCE BOULEVARD/LACUNA BIKE PATH, PROJECT NO. 1997-02 200.0-229 CALLING FOR SEALED PROPOSALS FOR A TREADMILL FOR THE PETER M. CALLINAN SPORTS CENTER *City Council/Community Development Commission City --of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES November 14, 2000 Page(6•) 2000-230 REJECTING THE -CLAIM OF CASSANDRA CAMACHO, ON BEHALF OF HER CHILDREN, ANGELICA, ROBERT JR., AND CAROLINA CAMACHO, MINORS (RE ALLEGED SHOOTING INCIDENT) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MATTER: CDC Resolution for adoption: 2000-08 APPROVING AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO THE AGREEMENT WITH COMMITTEE ON THE -SHELTERLESS (COTS) TO PROVIDE FUNDING TO SUPPLEMENT MANAGEMENT OF AN ADDITIONAL TRANSITIONAL HOME FOR VERY LOW-INCOME. MOTHERS WITH CHILDREN Upon MOTION by Councilmember Reilly,,seconded by Councilmember Flores, the Consent Calendar as outlined on the meeting's agenda was APPROVED 3-0, with Vice.Mayor Mackenzie and Councilmember Spiro absent. 9. OTHER RESOLUTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION: 2000-231 AWARD OF CONTRACT, ROHNERT PARK TEEN CENTER, BATHROOMS, PROJECT NO. 1998-08 City Manager Netter shared the contents of the staff report, and he and City Engineer Gaffney responded to - Council inquiries. Mayor Vidak-Martinez noted that she has asked City Manager Netter to look into the possible use of union labor. Upon MOTION by Councilmember Flores, seconded by . Councilmember Reilly, with a friendly amendment to use an allocation of bond monies to make up for the difference in the bids, Resolution No. 2000-231 was APPROVED 3-0, with Vice Mayor Mackenzie and Councilmember Spiro absent. Resolution for consideration: 2000-232 MODIFYING RECORDSRETENTION/DESTRUCTION, MANAGEMENT POLICY PERTAINING TO MAINTAINING VIDEOTAPES OF CITY MEETINGS FOR A LIMITED PERIOD OF TIME NOT TO EXCEED TWELVE (12) MONTHS *City Council/Community Development Commission City of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES a November 14, 2000 Page(7 ) City Manager Netter gave a report on the retention and destruction policies for videotapes of city meetings, and he and City Attorney Strauss responded to.Council. questions. Upon MOTION.by Councilmember Flores, seconded by Mayor Vidak-Martinez, Resolution No. 2000-232 was APPROVED 3-0, with Vice Mayor Mackenzie and Councilmember Spiro absent. 10. PLANNING AND .ZONING MATTER: I. File No 1902•- Consideration of Setting Public Hearing Date to consider Appeal of Use Permit fo L: Sanchez Use Permit for a Second'Unit at 7835 Avenue: City Manager Netter and Planning and Community Development Director -Kaufman discussed the contents of the staff report and Council discussion ensued:, Upon MOTION by Councilmember Flores, seconded by Mayor Vidak-Martinez, a motion to hear the appeal regarding. File No. 1902 at the November 28th Council meeting and to have staff formally notice that hearing, Was-APPROVED- .3- . 0, as APPROVED -3-0, with Vice Mayor Mackenzie and Councilmember Spiro absent, -and with a direction for staff to'come back with more information -about the procedures to follow.for use permits for second units. 2. Meeting with Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Board, Oakland November 16, 2000,7:30 p.m., on RHDN Appeal: City Attorney Strauss discussed the contents.,of her October 31, 2000, memo to Council regarding ABAG's November 16th meeting. Upon MOTION by'.Councilmember Reilly, seconded by Mayor Vidak-Martinez, a motion that Mayor Vidak-Martinez attend the meeting was APPROVED 3-0, with Vice Mayor Mackenzie and Councilmember Spiro absent. 11. GOLF COURSE MATTERS:, 1. Staff Report/Update on discussion. -with American Golf_: City Manager-Netter,and Councilmember Flores gave a brief update on the $5 million in renovations needed for the two local golf courses. Councilmember Flores ANNOUNCED that there will be a Special Meeting on Monday, November 20th,.at.the_City Building, from *City Council/Community Development Commission City of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES November 14, 2000 Page ( 8 ) 6:O0'p.m. to 7:30 p.m. to hear the Council's perspectives, to have American Golf come forward with firm funding proposals, and to make the decisions necessary to adopt a time line that calls for the prompt and orderly renovation of the golf courses. Members of the community are invited to attend. 12. SKATING RINK RELOCATION TO SOUTHWEST BOULEVARD; 1. Staff report on Financing Options for privately -owned skating rink": City Manager Netter explained the contents of the staff report. Council discussion ensued, and City Attorney Strauss responded -to Council inquiries. At this time, Mayor Vidak-Martinez called forward those citizens who submitted speaker cards on this item: 1. Jeff Joseph, 8152 Olaf Street, Cotati, was recognized and noted that the skaters and supporters of Cal Skate are looking for the City's financial assistance in helping them obtain.a building to put the skating rink into. He clarified that -the. ' funding for interior renovations to such rink would becoming from outside sources. He encouraged, the City to continue to review all options, and he commented on the value of a new rink as'a neighborhood resource, particularly in the Southwest area. 2. Bob Cassanova Cal Skate, and Buck Oates, Sommers, Oates & Associates, were recognized and stated that the $500,000 figure.is firm as far as a loan. -They discussed how this private enterprise will actually benefit the community at large through the traffic .it generates to.the Southwest area businesses, through its multi -uses for churches and schools, and through the reasonable price it offers for family entertainment._ Mr. Cassanova PROVIDED Council with letters from Sonoma State University and Geissler Properties in support of Cal Skate. 3. Samantha Pearson, 641 Wilford Circle, Cotati, was recognized and indicated that she was speaking on behalf of all the youth in the Aikido class located. at Traditional Aikido on Southwest Boulevard. She noted that she has studied -Aikido for six years and that she is currently working on her junior black belt. She discussed her experiences in studying the art of peace as taught through Aikido. She remarked *City Council/Community Development Commission City of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES November 14, 2000• Page(9 ) '4 that although she.likes to skate, her.heart is with Aikido, and she ASKED the Council to help,Traditional Aikido should they be forced to relocate due to the possible Cal Skate relocation to their present facility. 4". 'Julie Pearson `641 Wilford Circle-, Cotati, was recognized and noted that she was the mother -of Samantha Pearson, the previous speaker. She noted that Samantha studies. Aikido and is an "A" student as well. She commented on the benefits of Aikido for her daughter in terms of confidence and self-esteem. She indicated that the Traditional Aikido facility is non-profit, and'she ASKED Council's, consideration for their plight as'well should they have to relocate due to Cal Skate's.need for a new facility. 5..Barry Tuchfeld 2017 Terrace Way Santa Rosa, was recognized and indicated that he has been a student of Aikido at Traditional Aikido for the last seven years. He discussed the positive impact in the, -Southwest area after the improvements went into the facility. He noted that the.Sensei,,the teacher of the art of -Aikidd.-is not paid to teach the 16 classes a week. He explained the'financial impact a relocation would have on theAikido facility, and he ASKED Council to help them find and -afford a new facility until they could manage it themselves. Councilmember Flores SUGGESTED that the supporters of the Traditional Aikido facility contact Recreation -Director Barry to discuss'various options for facilities to hold their classes in. Council discussion concluded with Council CONCURRENCE to direct staff to come back with additional legal and financial information,on the,loan issues with'Cal Skate for a full Council discussion at, an upcoming Council meeting. 13. PARKS AND RECREATION MATTERS: 1. Scooter Workshop Results: Recreation Director Barry discussed the staff report stemming from the October 26th workshop regarding motorized -scooters. He•noted .the recommendation of a public education program on safe scooter use from the Department of Public. Safety. 2. Founders' Day Events Report: Recreation Director Barry shared his report on the Founders' Day -Events held on September 23, 2000. He PRESENTED the Council ,.*City Council/Community Development Commission City of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES November 14, 20-00 Page(10) . f with an award which he received from the California State Horsemen's Association in appreciation of the work -put into the Founders' Day Parade. 14. WASTE MANAGEMENT REQUEST FOR ANNUAL RATE ADJUSTMENT: City Manager Netter discussed the contents of the staff -report regarding an annual rate adjustment. Council CONCURRED to proceed with the "Garbage Rate Increase Calendar Schedule" calling for a public hearing and adoption of a resolution on this matter°at the Council meeting on January 9, 2001. 15. TRANSPORTATION MATTERS: 1. Sonoma County transportation Authority (SCTA) 11/13 meeting: Councilmember Flores DISTRIBUTED a brief report to.Council on the November 13th SCTA meeting. He noted two matters: (1) The availability of $1.3 million in funds for cities to apply for; specifically, for Rohnert Park to make needed road improvements; and (2) Approval of the."Welfare to Work Transportation Plan" which will provide assistance to low-income individuals who need transportation plans to gain employment. 16. COMMISSION/COMMITTEE/BOARD APPOINTMENTS: 1. Council review of terms to expire December 31, 2000: and 2: Council consideration of letter to current members, induiring about interest in being reappointed: Council CONCURRED to send a letter to current members, inquiring about their interest in being reappointed. 17., GENERAL PLAN,IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM - MATTERS RELATED TO THE GENERAL PLAN PROCESS: 1. Growth Management Ordinance Draft: *Proposal for Workshop with City Council & Planning Commission: *Select Date & Time for City Council/Planning Commission Workshop: *City Council/Community Development Commission City of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES November 14, 2000 Page(11) Council CONCURRED (1) to hold a workshop with the City Council and -the Planning Commission for the Growth Management Ordinance Draft; (2) to'invite the public to'the workshop; and (3) to direct staff to coordinate a date and time for the workshop. 18. SSU POSSIBLE PARTNERSHIP WITH STUDENTS: City Manager Netter shared a memorandum from Recreation Director Barry regarding use of "The Vision" Teen Center for -SSU students. Council CONCURRED TO DEFER this item for a full discussion by the Council., 19. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND/OR OTHER REPORTS: 1. Sonoma County Tourism Investors Committee meeting: Mayor Vidak-Martinez reported on the meeting, discussing four issues: (1) The Tourism Committee still wants $200,000 from Rohnert Park, despite the City's request to see more return on such an - investment; (2) The 1999-2000 Highlights of the Sonoma County Tourism Program were shared with Council; (3). A consultant hired by the County will be coming to discuss tourism issues; (4) The problem of residential. homes being converted into Bed & Breakfasts. Mayor Vidak-Martinez REQUESTED that staff 'look into formulating an ordinance that clarifies this residential housing matter as far as conversion into Bed & Breakfasts. 2. Mayors' & Councilmembers' General Membership meeting, 11/9:, Mayor Vidak-Martinez reported that the Mayors' and Councilmembers' group decided to hold over various appointments until the January meeting, including the Golden Gate Bridge District appointment. She also reported on the Mayors' and Councilmembers' Water Task Force meeting held on November 2nd. She noted that the group decided to focus on conservation, identification of the limits of the current system, and re -use. She indicated that at the next meeting on November 16th, each city and water district will come back and report on its current system. 3. Other, if any: a. The Early Learning Institute/Parents & Communities Together kick-off meeting: Mayor Vidak-Martinez commented on a meeting she attended with The Early Learning.Institute, which is working with Parents & *City Council/Community Development Commission City of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES November 14, 2000 Page (12) Communities Together, which is -in itself part of a larger organization that is funding a pilot project in Rohnert Park on support for first-time parents of newborn infants. She noted the various local groups which were at the meeting to talk to the funders about how to make a community -wide proposal to implement this program for $50,000 a year. 20. COMMUNICATIONS: Communications per the attached outline were brought to the attention of the City Council. *Mayor Vidak-Martinez directed Council to No. 13, "B. Strauss/City Attorney: Automatic Gas Shut-off Valve: Mobilehome Parks," and asked the City Attorney to comment on the City's follow-up on this matter. City Attorney Straussexplained how the State decides what kind of improvements are made to'mobilehome parks, and automatic gas shut-off valves are not among those improvements as they present a potential nuisance problem related to the need to relight every pilot light when the shut-off valves are turned off,.whether intentionally or mischievously. She noted -that she has spoken to the citizen who initially brought this matter up. At.the suggestion of Councilmember Flores, Council CONCURRED to send this information to the Mobilehome Residents' Council to see if there would be enough interest in pursuing this matter with.the mobilehome park owners as a capital improvement pass-through. 21. MATTERS FROM/FOR COUNCIL: 1. Debris Boxes at the Doubletree: and 2. Senior Center Expansion Request: and 3. Park Benches & Containers for Pet Poop: and 4. Appointment procedures/City and Regional: Council -CONCURRED TO DEFER these four items for a full Council discussion at the next Council meeting. *City Council/Community Development Commission City'of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES ` November 14, 2000 Page(13) 5. T's Academy 'Status Report /Extension Request: Upon MOTION by Councilmember Reilly., seconded -by Mayor Vidak-Martinez, a motion to AGENDIZE a review of a request for an extension of the deadline date of June 1, 2001, for T's Academy, was APPROVED 3-0, with Vice Mayor Mackenzie and Councilmember Spiro absent. 6. Selection of Officers & Ceremonial Event: Council discussed -City Manager.Netter's suggestion of having a short business meeting followed by the ceremonial event at the Council meeting on December 12th. Council CONCURRED to have staff"come back with suggestions for the date and time of the ceremony and for its placement before or,after the business meeting. City Manager Netter noted that he will. AGENDIZE the rotation for the Council for the November 28 Council meeting. 7. Other informational items, if any:. a. Transportation Ballot Measure in Alameda: Counci.lmember=Reilly DISTRIBUTED,documents to the., Councilmembers about the County,of Alameda's Measure B. He suggested that staff take a look at Alameda's highly successful transit measure. Council CONCURRED with Councilmember Reilly's REQUEST TO AGENDIZE the matter of the funding of transit improvements -under "Transportation Matters" for the next meeting. 22. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT: 1. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME)',Program Policies - Update: City Manager Netter reported on the progress made by the Technical Advisory Committee members and the Community Development Committee members at the _Sonoma County Community Development Commission. .He - discussed the contents of the November 2, 2000., report provided to Councilmembers, and he commented on the -timeline for the completion of programs. 2. Holiday Lights Celebration: City Manager Netter referred to Robin Bleckwehl's presentation earlier this evening. Ms. Bleckwehl, representing the local Chamber of Commerce, invited members of the community to the Holiday Lights Celebration on Thursday, November 30th, from 6:00-7:30 p.m.,- at the Rohnert Park Community Center. *City Council,/Community Development Commission City of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES November 14, 2000 Page(14) 3. Employees' & Commissioners' Appreciation Events: City Manager Netter reminded Councilmembers of two dates: (1) Employee Appreciation Event, Friday, February 23rd; and (2) Commissioner Appreciation Event, Friday, March 30th. He also noted.the Retirement Dinner for Chuck Raye on January 6, 2001. 23. OTHER UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES: At this time, Mayor Vidak-Martinez called forward any citizens wishing to speak. No one responded. There being no further business, Mayor Vidak-Martinez. ADJOURNED the meeting at approximately 9:18 p.m. Katy Leonard, Certified Shorthand Reporter CSR No. 11599 Vicki Vidak-Martinez, Mayor City of. Rohnert Park *City Council/Community Development Commission Ii. CITY OF ROHNERT PARK BILLS FOR APPROVAL November 28, 2000 Hand Check Numbers 111272-111288 Dated November 8-14, 2000 Computer Check Numbers 111289-111461 Dated November 17, 2000 Computer Check.Numbers 111462-111596 Dated November 22, 2000 Less Previously Approved (11/14) Total $416,201.98 $1,278,929.12 $365,165.18 ($113,669.81) $1,946,626.47 16 1$ ID VALUE S3FA3401 CITY OF ROHNERT PARK 'ME 14:53 DEMAND LIST EWAWDSA-TEIf7`F7- 7TT0- T C -H E -C } ##- V EXUO -#7 NAME T E'C­R--M-TWE - 111272 09068 CA APPLICANT EXPEDITE SVC 42.00 111273 12044 FRIENDS OF SRJC-PETALUMA 28.00 .-1-1-1`27-9 030 �# 8 E"M P7IR E-– W A -S TE–MAIM A-GE M T—�31-G r '3-83-93 111275 06592 ACTOR'S EQUITY ASSOCIATION 22.20 111276 09254 CITY OF *ROHNERT PARK 450.00 —1-1-1 c 0 0364E F€oZ E PI -OYES S–I N'1` hTI 1 111278 00324 REDWOOD CREDIT UNION 30,215.59 111279 00323 UNITED WAY 173.50 —1-1 2 0 -L 91 C A—E-M P- O'Y M EN T -D E'VECO P �` El Wr-GE-P X9-5 c 111281 00363 ROHNERT PARK PEACE OFFICERS 3,900.00 111282 12064 NATIONAL DEFERRED COMPENSATION 1,355.01 11--E93 i.063 N WT-rGWA- DEFER-REU-0MP-EN -S- 4; i6-9-3 -6-- 111284 00757 CITY OF *ROHNERT PARK 275.89 1112$5 00325 KAISER FOUNDATION 884.72 `1`1-12 26 -3E5- ----F-p I -S -ER -F (YU NU -A -T-1 t 9`2A` 111287 00325 KAISER FOUNDATION 22,942.18 111288 00310 UNITED STATES POST OFFICE 3,509.53 -1lc V3 4b I N F E RNAT IO{ c 111.294 10940 GAYE *ABBOTT 468.00 111295 09134 ACCOUNTEMPS 820.00 �1`1-129 G 0 A M -PW ITV T I -N G G 0T4P­XN 24-4-7S6 111297 12046 AMERICANd CONCRETE PUMPING 345.00 111298 08769 AMERICAN LINEN 181.21 iTtZ 9 9 078P-4 4 AM E12T4A N -R I VER-C+ECCE G -E 105.00 111300 05370 ANIMAL HOSPITAL OF COTATI 392.08 11130102029 ASSOCIATED 'BUSINESS PRODUCTS 226.141 A-T-�fT 111303 09379 AT&T LANGUAGE LINE LLC 35.00 111304 014477 WENDY *AUDISS 201.13 --l-rF3-iYb 10 47 AVAYA -T-,797.42 111306 11002 MICHAEL *HATES 150.00 111307 122058 BAVCO 429.63 1-TT3-0 8 0 O -95 BTi & T -T -TN C . 5-.-4-1 _ 111309 10632 BEST WESTERN 411.76 111310 01872 BINKLEY ALARM 133.54 �1T1 4-31-1-U57 a BR-ENNERcl- OTTS 4 fOti(ER-S F3 E -c 111312 00929 THOMAS *BULLARD 144.140 111313 09886 C.J.M. PRODUCTIONS 123.30 `1-1-1-3-1 0-{F1 8Sc F l -CER S- A S� $7 -Ci 111315 02805 CA SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 286.90 111316 00058 PETER M. *CALLINAN 154.15 1,1-'F3-1'1 -0 0 03 2 A CTEST-A N -XL -'T T -I L RL LAB OR -AT U R 2W1-50 111318 12017 CANDELA CORPORATION 101.51 111319 09725 RACHEL *CAREY 300.00 —"-1-32-0 0 03T6-D7a W1VG ER -I1 I1"35`0 111321 11826 CG BUILDERS 53,235.28 111322 12070 CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS 57,982.05 --1-17-32"3 00 C HE V R-O7N-KI7"1"TrMA L -TRA VE L-C7t R U 0 92. 78 111324 11418 PEGGY *CHMIELEWSKI 226.00. 1113225 06366 NANETTE *COATS 250.00 >B ID/VALUE S3FA3401 CITY OF ROHNERT PARK iME 14:53 DEMAND LIST MAWD-DWT_E-1-17 77'C 0`0 0 CHE_CTK_ -#rVE1ND 4R -#/N -A E _C­HE­C­K_TO­T_A_L_ 111326 05527 COPY CENTRAL ROHNERT PARK 243.05 111327 10335 CORNERSTONE ENGINEERING 630.00 4ST FR A tai t r N- C"O VE -Y- E Y"111329 111329 06528 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP 455.00 111330 11223 CROCKER NETWORKING SOLUTIONS 99.00 1-1-1-3'T F-0131 C CI -&s 111332 09690 CULLIGAN 33.00 111333 12043 DAILY REPUBLIC 28.98 65-0-0 111335 12050 ANGIE *DENBESTE 50.00 111336 08758 KAJIRA *DJOUMAHNA 98.80 1-1-r337T -076-8-1- 4- D_IA N -A _* D CfY_UE 1-6-579-0- b-570 a-111338 111338 00149 DUST-TEX SERVICES, INC. 25.50 111339 12068 JACKIE *EMERY 284.86 1-1-1-3-4-9 0 7 -4 El - EGf t3TTY-CEAG-U E 111341 12061 ETR ASSOICATES 20.50 111342 08064 MICHELLE *FAHY 390.00 -"-1-1-1-31430 S-11 F A I TS -FG S - E. c 111344 01485 ROBERT *FLANNERY 104.00 111345 10317 FLYING MONKEY MEDIA, INC 11020.00 --i-f-1341 0-1-W9-8 FRI'E-D M-. iN-B-R 0 S .- 111347 111347 11465 PAMELA *GAFFNEY 11305.00 111348 12056 GETAGOVJOB.COM 75.00 0_O -r71 GH -I- Q TTI -Bk 0 S C 0 N"STR . i1tiTC . 5-2 , OWG . 0 0 111350 07357 GOLDEN PACIFIC, INC. 384.42 111352 00173 GRAINGER, INC. 913.22 1Ji-1353 - 0 1 7 9 H R{>TSE L FOR B T2 : 0- 111354 10878 HAWTHORN SUITES 420.00 111355 12057 BRAIN *HERNDON 325.00 ��L35 2369 FfI_L-T_O W_H T - c 77-.-E 111357 03532 THE *HITMEN TERMITE & PEST 358.00 111358 05227 HOLIDAY INN 271.83 1`1-1-35 0b_854 HOME -CFE P"a T - ^550-79-9- 0- 9-9111360 111360 10879 HOTSY CLEANING EQUIPMENT 80.00 111361 08341 AMANDA *HOUSEMAN 250.00 111363 02422 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 138.79 111364 11603 CHERIE *JONES 329.00 111366 12075 KIRKWOOD 2,016.00 111367 10078 KOEFRAN SERVICES 175.00 1Ti-1-3G $ 0-1 31 T Ric ft 14`141 EF 9 OF -. (F0 111369 11018 LASON, INC 761.71 111370 00212 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 140.00 -1-1-T-371 9 S�__EU'rRE FSB U R_ A Id K S A V -I N G S5 r 1 . O 4 111372 11305 MARIN INDEPENDENT JOURNAL 64.20 111373 12073 YVONNE *MAURITSON 400.00 1 1-1-37- 0 �7 � i�A'(Dll7a �M ERTC�N-B-US�hfE 5�� � 5-i-�5 111375 11415 MC DONOUGH, HOLLAND, & ALLEN 7,322.70 111376 03746 MESA BEVERAGE CO., INC. 105.95 )B ID VALUE S3FA3401 CITY OF ROHNERT PARK. ME 14:53 DEMAND LIST DEMAND DATE 11/17/2000 CAEG�ZJ# "_CIECVTSZfR #�hTi4T'iE CF�-ECK T0TAL 111377 02178 METAL SERVICE CENTER 214.57 111378 12065 JOHN *METRAS 250.00 ___M9_1_0 ------- M-MROF CE ", EDSI C -A L yC� R P . 44 Y7_70_0__ 111380, 11582 JEFF *MILLER 140.00 111381 10719 MYERS-STEVENS & CO, INC 150.00 1-1-i-382 -X124-1 -0RTH-TA_Y C`KMlWI C-ATI0 , 4 111383 03508 NORTH SAY CORPORATE HEALTH 45.00 111384 05790 NORTHBAY VENDING WEST 108.75 -1-1-138 -'0-8-57 6 A16UA­O3 XD 0 A-WCE 1 8. 111386 01275 O'DELL PRINTING COMPANY 116.10 111387 08499 OFFICE DEPOT 1,971.74 1-1-1-3-$-S I -2 -T67- -L0 6 7 111389 111389 07080 OPPERMAN & SON, INC. 427.37 111390 08197 PACE SUPPLY 337.34 -i -l`1-39_1_ 0'034"0 P A C_1-F_I C -BELL 9-9-4-0 111392 00253 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 54.76 111393 03010 PACIFIC SOFTWARE SERVICES 125.74 - 1-1 139 1 1 -0"O -i 9 P A_C­I­F_rC7_7S`UNc 4 0^ 0 111395 00259 PETTY CASH 226.67 111396 046145 PETTY CASH 92.75 �1_17i0 �k 8 -""P ETi'i CA y H ��4"6-8-: 8" 111398 09503 PETTY CASH 554.01 111399 11425 PINKERTON SECURITY, INC. 33.00 --1-1-14-0-0 0-0-339- P -ITN ET-&'O'W E'S 7 L c-0-0 111401 10710 PITNEY BOWES CREDIT CORP 13.05 111402 00269 THE. *PRESS DEMOCRAT 3,128.01 O 4} 7-6-7 P U R M -F R-OD-U'CTS-C-O M' P -AIS Y 9-4a-.8-0�-- 111404 11339 RCDCSS 153.00 111405 00265 REDWOOD EMPIRE MUNICIPAL INS. 314,167.00 -1-" 0 6 1-0-3-1-h RED -IMOD -E QTJTP M E N -T -C -CFM P -A N"Y- I C. 71.29 111407 04908 REDWOOD LOCK 6.72 111403 00263 REDWOOD OIL COMPANY 1,016.91 -""1-1-1-4-0-9 -2-67 5 --REQ HN ER-T`P-s R K -A UTO -P A R -TS -1-97.6- 111410 00372 ROHNERT PARK CAR WASH 47.00 111411 00644 ROHNERT PARK CHAMBER OF 4,570.60 1-1-1-412 U"G9-" -OHN ERT -PAR K -OPT O M ETRTC C E_NT 1192.00- 111413 00636 ROHNERT PARK TOW SERVICE 131.00 111414 05958 DAVID *SALDANHA 1140.00 _1_1 0 7"'f�A i R AL A N t> OiTA1 "Oy0-0 0 111416 00081 CITY OF *SANTA ROSA 465,193.00 111417 00297 SANTA ROSA FIRE EQUIP. INC. 35.98 - 1-1-1-4"1 0 7 6 65 S -A -N -T A-R"O-S A-UNTF CiR-M-& E-QU-I-P-M h t 1-43-9- 111419 07204 SHUTTERBUG 6.99 111420 08699 SIERRA SPRINGS WATER COMPANY 49.30 0.8 22 8 $'MZT H"C 0 -MP A 2 , G 9T`7 8 111422 014045 SO CO FAMILY SUPPORT DIVISION 431.00 111423 00322 SO CO WATER AGENCY 87,211.34 -1 1 1424 _9 - 0O CARL -*Sa 52�o- 111425 12075 JESSICA *SOLIS 400.00 111426 04470 CITY OF *SONOMA 100.00 ]B ID VALUE S3FA3441 CITY OF ROHNERT PARK (ME 14:53 DEMAND LIST DEMAND DATE 11/17/2000 SHE CK-#VEN - - /NAME EEK-'T_GTT 111427 06184 SONOIMA COUNTY INDEPENDENT 160.00 111428 04989 SO'NOMA INDEX TRIBUNE 234.00 111430 03058 HENRY L. *STEWART, M.D. 110.00 111431 06454 SUGAR BOWL SKI RESORT 2,016.00 2 0-78 5 TAP PUA"-STIC5, INC. 270.43 111433 10339 JEFFREY K. *TAYLOR 150.00 111434 01384 JOHN *THOMPSON 114.75 OF" 4 —RB E ­C�C A* T IP ON 1 0. 0 111436 09003 STEPHEN *THRUSH 450.00 111437 12051 TIMES -HERALD 25.46 —i -'i I-4 _0264 TR-U-G-R-EETf-CANU-C-A 111442 11340 UNISOURCE 472.35 111443 07928 UNITED RENTALS 60.00 --1-1-1-44-4--0-9 f) �2 UN-1TE D-"ST-A-TE-S-P-USTA—SE R'C1TC X0`0-0 . 0F0 111445 10492 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 649.70 111446 10753 VETERINARY REFERRAL SURGICAL 175.00 ---"-1W4-7 0-53-0'1 V -I -C -T -C R-IMED I -CAL -C -0 -MP -AN 111,442 01100 VINTAGE WATER WORKS SUPPLY 49.34 111449 06449 VISION HEALTH OPTOMETRY CENTER 1,123.61 1-1-1-450 3V-4-1- 111451 08061 WASHINGTON STATE 414.46 1114SE 00327 WESTERN HIGHWAY PRODUCTS, INC. 371.38 -W ESTE R -N -STA -TES -A SSO-O F 50. 0 111454 046322 WHEELER & ZA1MARONI 1,075.00 1 11455 02111 LEAIdNE *WHITE 90.71 -1-1-456 0-0-3,0-8 E-R�iC-C-C R P­O"RA17`0 N1 -8-67v 0 111458 07518 YAMAS CONTROLS, INC. 2,071.66 111460 04715 YARDBIRD'S 383.03 0 7 6 FE 17NAN D -O -*LA R -C O 3'7�-.-0-0 Total Demand: 1,278,929.12 B ID VALUE •S3FA3401 CITY OF ROHNERT PARK ME -1-4-2 D€MA N D--L-I-S DEMAND DATE 11/22/2000 CHECK # VENDOR #/NAME CHECK TOTAL 1.1146.6 09134 ACCOUNTEMPS i14-67 .. QE_7-0-8�• nANLEL T. CADAM E57-.-0� 111468 0720$ ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC. 202.19. 111469 07242 AM ' PR I NT I,NG , COMPANY 723.47' -1-1-1 00 7 AMERI-C.RAF_T 61 49 111471 10542 AMERICAN CONGRESS ON SURVEYING 139.00 111472 08769 AMERICAN LINEN 41.72- -1_1_147-3 0.0.0-1 S AM E R_I_r_ 1N iED- EROS a , 00 111474 .02029 ASSOCIATED BUSINESS PRODUCTS 345.32 111475 00039 'BAY AREA BARRICADE SERVICE 21.29 x_1_14 T6 U-032 R I C H_A RD -B_- * BW_LF ,-n n -;JA 0.0 1 1' ] 477 09628 - SALLY *BRIAN 11929.00 111478 02364 BUTLER'S UNIFORMS' 231.98 -]J_f 479 09_A&6 _ C_3 . m1- P LOD_UCJ ONS 24 _G 0 111480 02513 CA EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT 464.00 111481 01951 CA'LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSO OF 50.00 t"14,82 '_2.0_7.2 CALLBO.ARD D_ISP_LA`__ADVE_RTISING 3c:__ 0.0 111483 04003' CALTEST ANALYTICAL LABORATORY. 1,098.00 1114.84 08543- CENTRAL COAST POLYGRAPH INC.' 280.0.0 -1 1 4A 02272 CNEM.._QUJ_F I NC_0"_O.R.ATED 2:63. ] 0 1114$6 07160- COMMUNITY VOICE 756.00 111487 05527 COPY CENTRAL ROHNERT PARK 277.36 1 1 1 4$$ 043 '47 C R_ A T i V1~C.ERA @'I ICS 1_S_4_. 77 1]1459 11223 MOCKER NET11JORKING SOLUTIONS 941.00, 111490 120.43 DAILY REPUBLIC - 138.60 1.1 91 118 86 D.AY W_RELE5S�Y STEMS 9 C 0.0.0 111492 11220 ` DELL FINANCIAL SERVICES 214.56 111-493 05626 DIRECT MAILING SYSTEMS 766.65 1 1 1494 49 DUST-TFX S-ER_!_LC:E.S_,_I_N_C_ ' 24 _ 25 111495 04442.1. ENCORE RIBBONS 494.18 111475 12077 STEVE *ENOS 50.00` 1,1 1493 098.07 '- - EXT_ ENDED__RE_&OU_RCER 123_ 7r 111498: 10950. EXTRA'TEAM 2,430.00 111499 .08108 FASTSIGNS. 181.48 1 1 1 5 0 0 Q$EO 6 EE S_TLVAL-O_F-HAR P S 6_,-35_7 _ 0 0 111501 11998 MARY JO *,GOSS 6-0.00 1 1 15Q8 00173 GRAINGER, ANC , 440.82 Q3 - 0.8_41_4 G-ROEN�G.ER--C_O_MP_ANY P5s__f 1 '111504 00179 HANSEL FORD 95.33 111505 10991 'TOR *'HANSEN 176.00 -L1 t S QA 0.2 7 7 6 HE T_H PLAN-Oi.F__T H E_EtED.W-OO.D S 1 1, 816 -0-0 1IIS07 10583 HERTZ -EQUIPMENT RENTAL 222. Ob 111508 02369 HILTON HOTEL 277;20 1 109 a 0326 N INESZS 620 28 1]1510 03532 THE *HITMEN TERMITE PEST 187.00 111511 05227 HOLIDAY INN 271.83 -1-1_-5-1_3 O68.54.. HOMEDEPOT65c 35 111514 .1.1866 IBM CORPORATION •63`6.0.0 111515-1 10337 IOS CAPITAL 2,686.50' 11 -S-1-6 -S-1_6 12-0-82 CR.A-I. r• R* J F S S I E P 6 E0 _0 0 B ID'VALUE.S3FA3401 CITY OF RAHNERT PARK ME- -4A 2--5 - —DEMAND -t IST DEMAND_.DATE- _1 1122J2.00.0� CHECK # VENDOR #/NAME CHECK TOTAL 11,1517 OSg64, JOBS AVAILABLE INC.. 101.20'` 1 -1 -i -r1$' 1=1-439 dEN I=FERC *JOHNSON` $]-0-0 r, 11]519 07470" JUSTICE:TRAINING INSTITUTE 416.00 111520 00533 KELLY-MOORE PAINT COMPANY INC. 68.1.6- 1-1-1-5 1 ' OAA3-1 T E-R R-Y=*K$AM'E-R 111522 - 09828 LANI'ER WORLDWIDE INC.' 263.93" 111523 11.472 JACK *LAWRENCE 39.00'. E-S--&-ASSO-Cl TES 1 f 1525 11305 -. MARIN INDEPENDENT JOURNAL- 797. 6S , 11.1526 03102' 'MARY'S,.PIZZA SHACK 46.92, --IA4-5,^c 7 ; t?.0 8] ^- MSC-^MY—E N7 -E R -P -R -I S CIS. a 0 n 11152$ 120$0 NAPA VALLEY REGISTER 116.52 1l']5E9` 00234 NAT'L .FIRE PROTECTION-ASSO 49.'01 —i-1 1 �s3fi0" q84 NAUT-LUv-I NERNA-I ONPrL : • 22-4-87 . 111531 08025- 'NORCAL BUILDING MATIERIALS, 93.53„ 111532 00241. NORTH BAY COMMUNICATIONS 25.00 ---)-1-]-5-3.3 O Qi -9 3,- - -NOR T -H ER -N -CQ A -S T -OF -F -I C -I -A L--S-AS, S O C - --1-r8-1- • . 0 0— 1-1 53 0 i 275: , O' DELL .PRINTING COMPANY 6 05:. 23 " . 1 1' i 53b 0899 OFFICE DEPOT... =2, 459. 6-2 —144 —7 1-0959- =OLD-ADOBE-BANtD 1 B,r�WQO 1]1538 081'97 PACE SUPPLY 697.69 111541 00340 PACIFIC BELL 3,032.74 --444-54-S n n 25 3 P -A -C4 F-IZ-.GAS-AND-E-L € C -T R -I -C 11=1546 03010 PACIFIC. -SOFTWARE 'SERVICES.; 1,300.40` 11 ]547'' 10750 ERIC -*PARFITT: ;37.56 ' ---i i--1 SA8 013-51 EDWARD=C -*PEAtOCK4,=-D-. M-I-N--MFCC' 5&0-.0d 111549 11549 PETERSON TRACTOR CO 111550 002SS PETTY CASH .64.54. -=-^1-1 1-SS4 042-6-0 - _ P -E -T -T -Y -GASH " 1-8,6-.-6 4 11i552. -10Q63. POWER INDUSTRIES, INC:., 45.04. 111553` 11884, R & T.SP€CIALTY, 286.02 —=1 1=1554 049d$'. °;. REDtQ4D—LOCI _ b1': 9-5 111555 10430 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC 2;986.00 111556 ,08759 PAMALA *ROBBINS 450.00 1 1-155 $`. 05-6 5 R-OHNE_R T_P-AR K_AU T-O—P_AR T w 7,,-6-07,67 11'°15S9' 00337,"- ROHNERT PARK ;VETERINARY CLINIC 215.-00 11'1560. 04554 DUANE eROSENG'REN 10.00 424Gq__:SAF_ET-Y=.res_;E_EN CO 111562 05955 DAVID *SALDANHA 140.00 111563 04797. SAN FRANCISCO NEWSPAPER AGENCY 887.04'`. —1-1-1-56-4n 0,2 J7 . _ SAN-'i'A—R-O-SA—F_LR.E—E-Q-U- P__I-N.C, 25 X0 0 1:1 156S SANTA ROSA UNIFORM ,6 EQUIPMENT . 286".81 1 # 1566 07058 DEBORAH '*SCHWANKE - - 50.'00•; 1_11.567 n1 -0G2 SHA_#R-O-CK—MATERLlRL_S-,-- NC .� : 2-31 ]1)568 12084 SHARON *SHERLOCK 10.00 111569 11773 SHERMAN GOLF ASSOCIATES INC. 3,750.00 -i-1 5.0 1_lAA7 �. SH.OR=L_LN 111571, 07204 -SHUTTERBUG 95.66: 1#157 , 08699 SIERRA SPRINGS'W"ATER COMPANY - 13-.9,5, -#-11-5�3 09L47.1 Sb O-OP�f'-S_LCE-=ARENA -0 B ID VALUE S3FA3401 CITY OF ROHNERT PARK ME -1-4-:-5 DE-MAND—L—I-ST DEMAND DATE 11/E212000 CHECK # VENDOR #/NAME CHECK TOTAL 111574 07261 SO CO PARAMEDIC ASSO 125.00 —1-1-1-5-7-5 0-4-9-8-9— SONOMA—I-NDE-X TR-I-BUNE 89-. 8-0 111576 04294 STEVEN *STAYROOK 211.74 111577 02590 SUNSET LINEN SERVICE 121.26 —1-1-1-5-7-8 —0 7-59-2 T -A MS=W I T M A R-K—MUS-I C—L-I-B R -A R-Y—I-N C 9-.-5-0 111579 07405 TARGET STORES 71.97 111580 02618 THREE T EQUIPMENT COMPANY 2,226.33 111381 4 -SE -32 TOWN—OF—W-I-NDSOR 2-4-3-0-0 111582 11946 TREADWAY GRAPHICS 326.80 111583 11340 UNISOURCE 1,_723.73 1-1-1584 0-031-2 UN-I-T-ED—P-AR-GEL---SER-V-I-CE 69-,-89 111585 07928 UNITED RENTALS 166.71 111586 00310 UNITED STATES POST OFFICE 64.32 —1-1-1-58 , 0-53-05 V-I-CTOR—MED-I-CAL—COMP-ANY 38-9-.-34 111588 06449 VISION HEALTH OPTOMETRY CENTER 400.00 111589 06638 WALMART 71.56 --1-1-1-59-0 0,4-0-13 W E -S TA M E -R -I -C A—BANK 111591 00328 WESTERN FARM CENTER 221.32 111592 11727 WINSTAR 59.64 —1-1-1-5-9-3 0-03-9-0 DR -.—S -T -EW A R-T--I-.--*-W-O L F -E 1-0--0-0- 0-.0-0111596 111596 04715 YARDBIRD'S 572.41 Total Demand: 365,16'5.18 CONUVIMTY DEVELOPMENT. AGENCY CITY OF ROBNERT PARK BILLS FOR APPROVAL AL November 28 2000 REVISED For Pre -approval: Noll & Tam (Library) $32,568.35 Petaluma Pe6ples Servibes Center (Homeless Prev) $57370.00 771 Total $37,938.35 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF ROBNERT PARK BILLS FOR APPROVAL November 28, 2000 For Pre -approval Noll & Tam/Oct. 2000 New Library Design Architectural Services _ $32,568.35 ' ��� • Af . Z000 - 133 CITY OF ROHNERT PARK nnTrn7f"" . A (_F.X-n A TTFM TR ANSMITTAL REPORT 001 101 0000 0004 (Submitted By: Angie Smith Purchasing Assistant 11 * * *City Clerk Use Only * * * Meeting Date Held Until 11-28-2000 Item No. 2000 - Agenda Title: Call for Sealed Proposals for Date of Action: One (1) Mini Half -Ton Pick-up Deadline Date for for the Department of Public Safety Council Action: Requested Council Action: Pass Resolution Calling for Sealed Proposals for One (1) Mini Half -Ton Pick-up for the Department of Public Safety. Summary: The Department of Public Safety is requesting one (1). mini half -ton pick-up, to be used by the Department's Community Service Officer's. The money for this truck is available in the Vehicle Abatement Fund. Therefore, it is stafs.recommendation to Call for Sealed Proposals for One (1) Mini Half -Ton Pick-up for the Department of Public Safety. CIY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Approval ( )Public Hearing Rf ( ) of Recommended () Submitted with Comment ( )-Policy Determination by Council O City Comments: City Manager's Signature: Item ( _)Regular Item City Clerk Use Council Action (If Other than Requested) Vote: . ` 'fo Date: RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 233 RESOLUTION CALLING FOR SEALED PROPOSALS FOR ONE (1) MINI HALF -TON PICK-UP FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Rohnert Park, California, as follows: That sealed proposals for One (1) Mini Half -Ton Pick-up for the Department of Public Safety are hereby solicited and the City Manager is directed to post as required by law a Notice Inviting Sealed Proposals for said service referring to the specifications on file in the City Offices, the first posting of which shall be at least ten (10) days prior to the -time fixed for opening bids. Said sealed proposals shall be delivered to the City Manager of said City on or before 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, December 19, 2000 said time, being not less than ten (10) days from the time first posting of said notice. Bids will be publicly opened, examined and declared on said day and hour referred to and considered by the Council at its meeting at 7:00 p.m. on January 9, 2001. DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED this 28th day of November, 2000. CITY OF ROHNERT PARK Mayor ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk RESOLUTION N0.2000- 234 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK REJECTING THE.CLAIM OF Lois L. Patyk [Re: Alleged Fall at Spreckels Performing Arts Center] BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park that that Claim for alleged damages dated October 18, 2000, and received October 27, 2000, is hereby rejected. DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED this 28P day of November, 2000. CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, Maur_ ATTEST: Deputy.City-Clerk.. October 18, 2000 City of Rohnert Park Claims Department 6750 Commerce Blvd. Rohnert Park, CA 94928 RECEIVED OCT 2 7 2000 CITY OF RT PARK RE; SPRECKEL'S THEATRE - SATURDAY, JULY 22, 2000 MATINEE Gentleperson: I attended the Kitchen Kutups matinee at the Spreckel's Theatre on Saturday, July 22, 2000. I came with a group from the Simply Friends Club of the Church of the Roses Our seats were about the 3rd or 4th row up on the balcony. We usually buy the first row center, but we were too late in ordering them to get the best selection of seats. As I was leaving the theatre after the performance, I stepped into the aisle to transcend the stairs when the rush of people coming down from the upper balcony descended upon me and caught me off balance. I fell backwards hitting the back of my head on one step and my left shoulder on the next step down. One of the ladies in my group (Maybelle Weller) called for someone to help me up from the floor. Finally, a man coming out of one of the aisles came to my rescue. He helped me to my feet and took me down the stairs and into the lobby where I found some of my friends from our group. My friends asked me how I felt after my fall. I told them through my tears, that I thought I would be alright, but I felt dazed and empty=headed. They felt satisfied that I told them that I would be okay and didn't seem to have any broken bones. We then gathered the rest of our group and left the theastre. I wasn't feeling too good on Sunday because I felt sore all over from falling. By, Monday, (I decided I had better be checked out by my doctor ( Nicholas Anton, M.D.). I called his office and found his father had died and hewould be gone all that week: I asked to see Dr. Davis, who was sitting in for him that day, but could not because that was her first day back to work and no one else was available. I then asked to see Dr. Bisbee who was on call Tuesday, but his schedule was full because there were so many doctors on vacation or on emergency leave from that office. They told me that Dr. Tucker could possibly fit me in on Wednesday. I thought since I had to wait so long for an appointment, I might just as well see Dr Elizabeth Kramer with whom I had an appointment on Thursday. I told Dr. Kramer about my accident and where it hurt me (my head, shoulder and neck), and after she examined me, said that I had a large black and blue mark on my left shoulder and she could not see any dangerous swelling where I , told her I had hit my head. She said that she thought with time the pain would go away eventually, but I should see Dr. Anton and get checked more thoroughly. I did see Dr. Anton shortly after he came back and he had an x-ray taken of my neck, prescribed some pain pills and said it was okay to see the chiropractor as long as .he didn't twist my neck, and Dr. Gromala does not do that. The pain in my shoulder and my neck seemed like it was getting worse, so the next Monday I called my chiropractor (Dr. Kenneth Gromala) and he was also on vacation and would not be back until the following week, but his secretary gave me a name of a chiropractor, Dr. Michael Dolan,.with whom I could make an appointment. I saw Dr. Dolan twice that week, but the following Monday, I called Dr. Gromala telling him the excruciating pain I was in and he immediately booked me in to see him that day. I have been seeing him twice a week since that day until about a week ago. I now see him once a week. I still, however, have pain in my shoulder and the whiplash in my neck has greatly improved. My health insurance does not take care of the expense of chiropractors, (only my M.D. bills), this is getting quite expensive for me to handle since I am on Social Security and a small pension. It is very dangerous not having anything to hold onto when going down those steps. I am sure I am. not the first one falling on those balcony steps. It does not seem feasible to have steps and no railings to grab if necessary. I am going to the Chicago area to be with my family for Thanksgiving, but you can still write me at my home address because Pm having my mail forwarded . Sincerely, Lois L. Patyk 5740 Monte Verde Dr., Santa Rosa, California 95409-3922 707/539-2833 •" ®� 2000 00� 1, :e, ROHNERT PARK c.�V° CLAMBER OF COMMERCE City of Rohnert Park Joseph Netter, City Manager' 6750 Commerce Blvd. Rohnert Park, CA 94928 October 28, 2000 We are inviting you to make a contribution to the Rohnert Park Chamber of Commerce Silent Auction that is held in conjunction with our annual Spring Business Showcase. Our Business Showcase will be held on Thursday, May 10, 2001. This is Rohnert Park's largest community event, which has attracted over 2,600 people. We use the funds raised from the Silent Auction to support the chamber's various programs. Included below is a list of those programs. Contributions may be tickets, promotional items, products, trips, gift certificates, etc. Our rules stipulate that there cannot be a purchase requirement with any auction item and that the value be at least $50. Items for the auction must be received by April 10th. If you would like to have your item picked up, we can make arrangements. Our non -,profit status_ identification number is C0448083.. . Contributors will be listed on all printed materials, newspaper advertisements and inserts, and prominently displayed at the Business Showcase. Chamber Programs: A.M. Rohnert Park - This program presents the community with all the latest news by people in the know. It is a fast paced, action -packed monthly breakfast program. Business Showcase - This annual event provides members of the business community with the opportunity to showcase products and services. It is the city's largest community -wide event that includes local schools, non -profits, sports groups, senior citizens and families. Economic Development - This program supports the growth of existing business, works to promote a positive business environment, and partners with community-based non profit organizations to build community spirit. Please do not hesitate. to call me at 707-584-1415. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, - Lisa . . Lisa agwell, Silent Auction Chair (707) 584-1415 • FAX (707) 584-2945 E MAIL Chamber@rpnet.net • http://www. rpchamber.org 5000 ROBERTS LAKE ROAD, SUITE B 9 ROHNERT PARK, CALIFORNIA 94928 d2 iI GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION 180 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 800, Chicago, Illinois 60601 312/977-9700 • Fax: 312/977-4806 September 22, 2000 Mr. Michael L. Harrow Finance Director City of Rohnert Park P.O. Box 1489 Rohnert Park, CA 94927 Dear Mr. Harrow: rK We are pleased to notify you that your comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1999 qualifies for a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence.in Financial Reporting. The Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of recognition in governmental accounting and financial reporting, and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by a government and its management. Congratu- lations for having satisfied the high standards of the program. We hope that your example will encourage others in their efforts to achieve and maintain an appropriate standard of excellence ir_ financial reporting. Each entity submitting a report to the Certificate of Achievement review process is provided with a "Summa'ry of Grading Results" form and a confidential list of comments and suggestions for pos- sible improvements in its financial reporting techniques. Your list has been enclosed. You are strongly encouraged to implement the recommended improvements into the next report and submit it to the program. Accompanying future submissions should be your detailed response to each comment appearing on the list. These responses will be provided to those Special Review Committee mem- bers participating in the review. Your Certificate of Achievement plaque will be shipped to you under separate cover in about eight weeks. A holder of a current Certificate of Achievement may include a reproduction of the award in its immediately subsequent CAFR. A camera ready copy of your certificate will be forwarded to you for this purpose under separate cover in about eight weeks. If you reproduce your certificate in your next report, please refer to the enclosed instructions. WASHINGTON OFFICE 1750 K Street, N.W., Suite 650, Washington, DC 20006 202/429-2750 • Fax: 202/429-2755 S is Mr. Michael L. Harrow September 22, 2000 Page 2 A Certificate of Achievement is valid for a period of one year. To continue to participate in the Certificate of Achievement Pro- gram it will be necessary for you to submit your next CAFR to our review process. In order to expedite your submission we have enclosed a Certificate of Achievement Program application form to facilitate a timely submission of your next report. This form should be completed and mailed (postmarked) with three copies of your report, three copies of your application, three copies of your written responses to the program's comments and suggestions for improvement from the prior year, and any other pertinent material with the appropriate fee by December 31, 2000. Your continued interest -in and support of the Certificate of Achievement program is most appreciated. If we may be of any further assistance, please contact Delores Smith. Sincerely, GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION WStephen J. Gaut Director/Technical Services Center SJG/ds of the United States and Canada presents this AWARD OF FINANCIAL REPORTING ACHIEVEMENT to: George P. Raymond Accountant/Auditor City of Rohnert Park, California The Award of Financial Reporting Achievement is presented by the Government Finance Officers Association to those individuals who have been instrumental in their government unit achieving a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. A Certificate of Achievement is presented to those government units whose annual financial reports are judged to adhere to program standards and represents the highest award i n government financial reporting. Executive Director Date September 22, 2000 /A 1 NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP MEMORANDUM TO: Sandy Liptiz, Acting City Treasurer/Finance Director City of Rohnert Park FROM: David Tan DATE: October 16, 2000 RE: Financing Options - Privately Owned Skating Rink You have asked for a brief memorandum regarding possible financing options in connection with the following matter. The City Council has been* asked to assist financially in the rehabilitation of a building within Rohnert Park for the purpose of constructing a privately owned, for-profit skating rink open to the general public. As I have stated to you previously, there is at present no financing vehicle available to the City or the City's Community Development Commission (the "Commission") with which to accomplish such assistance on a federally tax-exempt basis. Your options for providing this assistance are somewhat limited and I believe that they fall into the following discussion. To reiterate, federally tax-exempt bond proceeds, such as the proceeds from the January 1999 issuance by the Commission of its tax allocation bonds, or the proceeds of the City's February 1999 issuance of Certificates of Participation, may not be used to make loans to private a ;os ^r �t� Pearly Pi7�vat_ uuYPoses. Without going into too much detail, to o so wo d ca esuca esu uch obligations to be viewed, from a federal tax perspective, as `�rivate activity bonds" since the City would reasonably expect that the proceeds would be used primarily for private purposes. Private activity bonds is not excluded from federal gross income unless the bonds are "qualified private activity bonds" which are identified by the particular use of the proceeds of such bonds. Since a privately -owned skating rink does not fall within one of the categories defining "qualified private activity bonds" the bonds would not be "qualified private activity bonds" and the interest on such bonds would be included in gross income for federal income tax purposes. There is no way of doing a new issue for this purpose either. I believe that the City has two basic options. 1016 Memo Re Skating Rink Financing Memorandum October 16, 2000 Page 2 The City or the Commission may determine to utilize available funds to provide assistance in the form of a loan or a grant to the parry making the request. You would have to have the concurrence of your City Attorney, but I believe that the City and Commission have the authority to make loans �orgrants for�T-u oses under the a te_cucumstances. The sources o s may m e CiCommission's general revenues (if any are available). Again, tax-exempt bond proceeds are not available. Should the Commission be willing to pledge tax increment and able to make the , requisite. findings regarding use of tax increment, the Commission could consider the completion of a federally taxable transaction, the proceeds of which would be loaned to the party making the request. I believe that an underwriter would advise you that such an issue, given the size and the probable creditworthiness of the private parry developer, would necessitate that the bond issue be privately placed, perhaps with a local bank or other investor. The bank or investor would enjoy the state tax exemption which might reduce somewhat the cost of borrowing to the private developer of the skating rink. If this is an option you are interested in exploring further, I would be willing to outline in greater detail how such a financing might be accomplished. However, given the probable size of the transaction, I do not believe it would be necessarily an efficient transaction from the City's or Commission's standpoint. Please let me know if you require anything further. DST 1016 Memo Re Skating Rink Financing COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION TAX INCREMENT 2000-01 BUDGET SOURCES: Tax Increment (net of set-aside) $ 2,603,000 Interest on Increment 60,000 TOTAL SOURCES: $ 2,663,000 USES: TARB Debt Service RCOPS Debt Service TABS Debt Service Administrative Fee Principal on PAC Loan Interest on PAC Loan Land Lease Payments Property Tax Admin Fee Trustee Fees TOTAL USES: NET SOURCES/(USES): $ 812,318 577,803 392,915 ✓ C4431 000 5,00b 42,190 x,_210,000 108,000 11,000 $ 2,820,226 $ (157,226) 1 J COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION TAX INCREMENT 2000-01 BUDGET SOURCES: Tax Increment (net of set-aside) $ 2,603,000 Interest on Increment 60,000 TOTAL SOURCES: $ 2,663,000 USES: TARB Debt Service RCOPS Debt Service TABS Debt Service Administrative Fee Principal on PAC Loan Interest on PAC Loan Land Lease Payments Property Tax Admin Fee Trustee Fees TOTAL USES: NET SOURCES/(USES): $ 812,318 577,803 392,915 ✓ C4431 000 5,00b 42,190 x,_210,000 108,000 11,000 $ 2,820,226 $ (157,226) Netter, From: Bary, Tim Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 5:17 PM To: Netter, Joseph Subject: Aikido Dojo Request for Space F.Y.I. This past week, Guy Miller and I met separately with Bill Mulligan and the Sensei from the 'do Club at the Southwest Shopping Center (at their request in response to Council Member Flores' su estio to determine if we could satisfy their facility needs provided they were displaced by oller rink ro'e In reviewing all the requirements and schedules, both Guy and I came to the conclusion t at we did not have a 1,500-2000 sq. ft. space for them that could be dedicated to their activity. They require.the permanent installation of their mat to .the floor, making the space suitable only -for their activity. We simply don't have a space that can be dedicated. Our spaces are multi-purpose in nature, and we must maintain.that flexibility to properly serve the public. Even the PAL building space was considered, but the installation of the mat would preclude dance activities and certain special events/food activities that we plan for that facility. O R Cj�,�,,,,o[a.%rk ,The undersigned residents of Rohnert California � B fully support Traditional Aikido of Sonoma. We feel low* t:�L,.L.4 Pao .that this dojo is an asset to the community. ----------------------- Print name signature address ' 52-&2. 3.� 4. 5._ �JG�J �J�v'r �' IGj .�{G`GIF—t,-rrK' �q-,.- C."9. T. 917 8. f�.Cl£v1�ct, LGA �0� (_ 11.0Cc s '� 9N �Ozu� Com 13.?AU 14. c, 15. 1.6. o,vl�ltd /--&/o 19. 50? 4X5 96.9 M9 20 Q7��iFN�A �i/°� I The undersigned residents of Rohnert Park California fully support Traditional Aikido of Sonoma. We feel that this dojo is an asset to the community. Print name, signature address 1: % /� 2. 9,4zcte'4��(C-I' c I 6wr�;- t -J V�Zritlglcs 4AC_t.CN-C?'N 5-105- 5.. l L�� C l (S / (J Z �� lAC Gr Yf21 d 7. 9. qq.CI P g4g2 8 10:.Xv `566 P`,P? qy'i 6 12 16. �eb 6. Dkr,AA Y� TwV G3�;- 1440,,,6 (;���e � . �, 64qc! Z8' 6"DA Cl/2cte 18. s ,:�5s,�-, Z 4?3 "'= aw 19. A�� S c'2i� �2 9 �' 20. 4�e- e6� 0 The undersigned residents of Rohnert Park -California fully support Traditional Aikido of Sonoma. We feel that this doj o is an asset to the community. Print name signature address t� , r� Cat�,4 Aire ti rz��r 2. V t ✓lC r '. y� LI '� �" 3. vwqC0AI 5 . Kristin WAra� i�Z� � . �tiAVI— -9 #ZBZZ 12-6 6. AM1.0,i { `� - ��clA ave �t.�t �- Q P �(' LIq 2.8 ?-.SAN W f:- SULAA -aWApS t-193 KaHNUT FSK g4g2 9, . ' Y -is �t n e r -1 ` 2� Carw� r.o Co l,ec� d �L °l +c12� 10. l..cw.�a Maw► cA rte, PIP �l `f 9 z� 4. �tl��Y kIOSE �IZS? SNYOE►t LN #��,( PiiN&Jtr PARK `H`t28 �� `� -5n dam L n . � Cad ��, 16.12c� ,1 eAr cd� �y�zg 17. kr ►st►�s LCA 18. S 20. Va&-� 600 ��� y Dom, RoAn.�rPe,x, coq The W4*g4W.-res of 904pvt Park Calijk�a. q A e fW Trad", 'i."" A 6fs v noma. W to the. comm=HY. Print n=e sipate addrcss o5, 5i 7. "b -LZ 13, 17. CL AJD. 7t,/ A-0 Ina-Kc�tO&4_1 64)aj 4,d Tv,�d0l- 76W -76,;Oy a ii ze, d9l y -L Ujeeko. vL� 1671 7A^-Jp_ 7t6-7 7 �j 22 -7/b jj: .19 et cl a4 �k 31 20. or A J The undersigned residents of Rohnert Park California fully support Traditional Aikido of Sonoma. We feel that this dojo is an asset to the community. Print name signature address *1161-1,0 tom- � �3C-) Cvp sus Lev"1103pjO4_L0.4. P (�Q�� Sl5 Lor+�.a t�e�cltt Ln. '�ahned ? eS ©3 Iia ve rd Lo 6AN 7. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13: 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. The re.si Of gobpW Park COf�� Ailly Wehol th 4b �w Assa the commq*�� Uni NVC1 4 7. 10, I I - 12i 14, Ul 16. 17. 18. 19. 20, address 0 r I J C-d-oy\vQY V -p Rac*zk Dub' Afl(o" * ;,roo The of ROPW Park CO*ivia Vr The im4pTo9pg4.r of A04W ParkCaU-".fpoxma Why S -u TTui AM&..Of So We *el ibot& - dojo- -to::* Asa to the Comm. Nnt name sipature address eit'r3 �I-e� 4-g Dom- RP c7�5'LY L)-, � ;�) ) h * N!Oirlffi4o, 9,,o o S pt,,r o � �vq 4;-,e,� V 4" t 'rile Tes f gobpw Park calm . �7 beWe fftl fffint nme signature address ' '�YA X1 5 G� r I i; t o fV o\Vell Gf �P) O�nef 4 F 7. 8. ee 1— 00 ' 1e t 4♦ �4 16.. 174' I s s Ej . obi� Park C4 . U T$ 0f` � to the community...., Print name sipature address jjJJ 30 C���I �a�11 iii' �/� wo fose� X53 :�Z- � � � , - . , PISA - 7. d 5 G ', %noa q),,)z : �(;oe?anro,�c� IAM 13 . Y10 car 17* 9e �s ' • o _. J • CITY OF ROHNERT PARK COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM TRANSMITTAL REPORT Department: Planning and Community Development Submitted By: Nancy Kaufinan, Director Ron Bendorff, Associate Planner Agenda Title: City Council Review of Appeal of File 1902 - Use Permit and Residential Parking Exemption For a Second Residential Unit on Property Located at 7835 Burton Avenue uested Council Action: Meeting Date 11/28/00 Held Until Item No. Date of Action: Deadline.Date for: Council Action: Adoption of the attached City Council Resolution denying the appeal and affirming the Planning Commission's approval of the use permit and residential parking exemption. Summary: On October 26, 2000, the Planning Commission approved by a 4,1 vote a use permit to allow a second residential unit to be constructed on a single-family residential lot owned by Jose L. Sanchez at 7835 Burton Avenue. One of the neighbors, Sandra L. Leatherwood of 7821 Burton Avenue, spoke in opposition at the public hearing and subsequently filed a letter appealing the Commission's decision. A copy of the appeal letter is attached for the Council's reference, as are the staff report and draft minutes of the October 26, 2000 Commission meeting regarding, this matter. On November 14, 2000, the City Council. directed staff to set an appeal hearing date. Analysis: As explained -in the Planning Commission Staff Report, the City of Rohnert Park does not currently have a second unit ordinance and is subject to State Law pertaining to this matter. State Law essentially requires communities to approve second units if they comply with limited conditions, as outlined in the attached citation from the Government Code (Sections 65852.150 and 65852.2.) The applicant has met all of these requirements, therefore the use permit was accordingly approved by the Commission. State Law also stipulates that no more than one (1) additional parking space be provided for a second unit. Given that the Zoning Ordinance is silent on second unit parking, a residential parking exemption was also granted allowing for the addition of just one (1) parking space to the site for the use of the second unit resident. Ms. Leatherwood's appeal is based on the conceptual plans that were submitted by Mr. Sanchez for the Commission hearing, which she feels are inadequate, and a perceived inability of Mr. Sanchez to provide an additional parking space for the second unit. Regarding the former, Staff notes that the conceptual plans are not intended as the final building permit set and that the applicant will be subject to all Building Code and other requirements regarding the second unit's construction. Conditions requiring this are contained within the resolution of approval for this project (Conditions #2 and #3). As for the latter, the applicant will likely have to expand his existing driveway to allow for the required additional. parking space. This may require relocation of the existing fence that surrounds his frontage lawn area. A condition regarding this is also contained in the resolution of approval (Condition #6.) Should the' applicant be unable to meet either of these conditions, the second unit shall not be permitted. At the November 14, 2000 Council meeting, the Council asked for clarification regarding the ability of the City to restrict the use of the second unit to. a family member and what limitations, were there, if any, with respect to the numbers of persons living in a house. As noted in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report, the City may not restrict the residence of the second unit to family members. Furthermore, Section 65852.150 of the Government Code (attached) finds that "second units are a valuable form of housing in California" and "provide housing for family members, students, the elderly, in-home health* care providers, the disabled and others, at below market prices within existing neighborhoods." This finding shows that it is clearly not the intent of the State to restrict second unit residence solely to family members. Regarding the maximum occupancy of a home, Staff bases the definition of "family" on a November 17, 1995 memorandum from the prior City Attorney, John D. Flitner. This memo amends the definition of a "family" to be "an individual or two or more persons, not including servants, living as a single housekeeping unit. For limitations upon the number of residents per square foot of -floor space see Section 15.12.010." . Section 15.12.010 is a reference to the Uniform Housing Code, which states that "[d]welling units.... shall have at least one room 'that shall have not less than 120 square feet of floor area. Other habitable rooms, except kitchens, shall have an area of not less than 70 square feet. Where more than two persons occupy a room used for sleeping purposes, the required floor area shall be increased at the rate of 50 square feet for each occupant in excess of two Attached please find the following: 1. The appeal letter. from Sandra L. Leatherwood dated November 3, 2000 2. Planning Commission Staff Report for October 26, 2000 meeting. 3. A copy of the draft minutes of the October 26, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting. 4. Sections 65852.150 and 65852.2 of the Government Code pertaining to Second Units. 5. Section 503.2 of the Uniform Housing Code relating to floor area requirements for residential units 6. The Resolution denying the appeal and affirming the Planning Commission's approval of the Use Permit and Residential Parking Exemption. Planning Staff will be making a brief presentation on the project at the November 28, 2000 meeting. Please contact me if you require any further information or have questions regarding this application. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION: ( ) Approval ( ) Not Recommended ( ) Submitted with Comment Policy Determination by Council City Comments: City Manager's Signature: Consent Item C>f Regular Time ( ) Public Hearing Required Date: ' � � (_ OL) November 3, 2000' Mayor Vicki. Vidak Martinez C/o City Council 6750 Commerce Blvd. Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Attn: Judy In RE: File No. 1902. Request by Jose L. Sanchez 7835 Burton Ave. APN. 143-234-019 Rohnert Park, CA To add a proposed second unit oVapproximately 300 square feet in total floor space to be constructed of the same materials as the existing residence (ie. Stucco with wood trim and a gabled composition shingled roof.) The following areas of construction as per the building plans submitted by Jose L. Sanchez are not in compliance with the current universal building codes requirements. FOUNDATION,- I., OUNDATION:I. 6"x6" #10 wire mesh needs to be #4 rebar 24" on center each way minimum. Concrete pad rebar,needs to connect to footings rebar per code for living space. PLUMBING: 1. New`4" sewer line as shown in the plumbing and electrical plan has a flow problem. A. Existing sewer line at front of house where connection is to be made is not deep enough to. have proper fall for new sewer line. B. A pump will be required to pump the sewage down into the ground.from the new structure and then up -again to the proposed attachment of the new sewer line. There is not enough depth in the proposed sewer line for the required fall to move the sewage from the proposed unit to the street. FF AMING PLAN: 1. Not shown on submitted plan is any shear walls. ie. (1/2 exterior CDX plywood.) 2. Ona 300 square foot structure that is going to be used as a living space, some sort of lateral shear walls are needed. 3. Was structure gone over by City Engineer? If not, why not? 4. Room size in the projected kitchen/ living area is to be a minimum of 7 feet in width. With the proposed plans, there is inadequate room size proposed. There has been no allotment for the necessary loss of space that will be incurred in construction with the use of the required stucco with R-13 insulation in the exterior wall and in ;the .interior wall construiclion: A loss of approximately 5" willoccur in the`exteiior wall construction. A loss of approximately 4" willoccur with the -dividing wall between the proposed kitchentliving room and the proposed bedroom/bathroomerea of the home. 5. A proposed bathroom in this structure doesn't have a shower/bathtub. The toilet - discharge line is to be connected at the same juncture as the kitchen sink This is definitely a code problem. 6. The new utility lines for gas and electricity must be buried as per code. Venting for the kitchen stove/oven has not been designated in the plans. Venting has not been provided for in either the kitchen or bathroom sewer connection. PARKING: Off street parking is currently a problem. The width of the existing driveway is not wide enough for two vehicles. There- AA an raised concrete s4rround next to the edges of the current driveway. There is not C'Abiigh space at present to allow 2 cars, let alone 3 cars to be parked in this area. The public bus system currently travels down Burton Avenue in the morning and evening to provide transportation to the Mountain Shadows Middle School. Most of the current neighbors on the block back onto their driveways so that they can exit their property and enter onto the street in a safe manner. There is a parking problem in this portion of the block of Burton Ave. at present. All of the above code violations and building plan "problems" need to rectified before a permit is issued for the construction of the above planned structure to be located at 7835 Burton Ave. APN. 143-=234-019, Rohnert Park, CA 94928. Very truly yours, Sandra L. Leatherwood 7821 Burton Ave. Rohnert Park, CA 94928-4013 � t %j`'3a1t^` ♦.S,a 4 iYQ•ypyn'•"L s n,er 01 Flle.' 1902 Date: 10/26/00 Item: 3 City of Rohnert Park Planning Commission Staff Report Project Description . Use Permit to Allow a Second Residential Unit in the Rear Yard of. a Single -Family Residential Lot and to Allow a Residential Paiking Exemption Project Location 7835 Burton Avenue, APN 143-234-019 Applicant #4 Jose L. Sanchez •,V+ 'G.P. Designation Low Density Residential Zoning R-1:6000 Single Family Residential District Project Analysis The subject site is a 6,000 square foot residential lot' developed with an approximately 1,600 square foot single-family home. The applicant intends to construct a second residential unit in the rear yard of the property, in an area that is currently in lawn. The Zoning Ordinance allows "one guesthouse or accessory living quarters without a kitchen" as a principally -permitted use in the R-1 District, however second units with kitchens, such as that being proposed by the applicant, are subject to use permit approval. A use permit to allow the proposed second unit has therefore been requested. The proposed second unit would be approximately 300 square feet in total floor area and would be constructed of the'same materials as the existing residence (i.e. stucco with wood trim and a gabled composition shingle roof.) It would be placed in the right rear corner of the lot, at setbacks of five (5') feet from the rear and side property lines d ten (10') feet from the home. This would be in compliance with the setback requirements anof the Zoning Ordinance for accessory structures in residential areas and would ensure .that impacts on adjacent properties are minimized. The building's fifteen (15') foot height would also be in keeping with the height limitation for accessory structures (i.e. sixteen (16') feet.) Lastly, total lot coverage with the addition would be approximately 32 percent, which is below the 50 percent maximum allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. State Law The City does not currently have a second unit ordinance in effect and is subject to the provisions listed in State Law for such projects (see attached copy of Government Code Section 65852.2.) Essentially, communities that have not adopted a separate ordinance must grant a use permit for a second unit that can be rented to a non -family member and that does -not exceed 30 1' v percent of the size of the main un :(or a.maximum of,1,200 square feet.) ".State Law also directs that .no -more than.one parking space may be required for. each second unit or for each bedroom within the unit, unless it can be found that additional parking should be required due to'the nature of the proposed second unit or the surrounding'. residential neighborhood; This requirement is discussed in the following section of this report. Furthermore, the 300 square foot second unit would be only 19 percent of the size of the main unit, and this is well below the 30 percent maximum identified in State Law. Parking Staff notes that there are no .specific parking requirements for second units within the City's Zoning Ordinance, although both single-family homes, and duplexes require two spaces per unit: As noted above, State Law generally requires that one parking space be provided to serve the occupant of the second unit. Recognizing that residential developments may differ in their parking needs; Section 17.34.310 o?'the Rohnert Park Municipal Code does allow exemptions to the residential parking requirements if certain findings can be made' These findings may , be attached to, a use permit approval and generally state that the traffic volumes generated will be small, that the parking of vehicles,on the street will not impede traffic flow, and that the exemption will not create a safety hazard. in the applicant's case, Staff feels that the findings for such an exception can be made and. these are listed in the attached resolution. Also, it appears that a third open parking space may be accommodated in front of the home, and this has been made a condition of this approval. General Plan The Rohnert Park 2000 General Plan Housing Element contains a policy that relates to the provision of second units in existing residential neighborhoods (Policy 42): This is to be implemented by the following program: 4.2 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow for second units on owner -occupied lots with single-family, detached homes, either simultaneously with or after the construction of the primary unit, subject to appropriate standards. Consider allowing the approval of second units by the Planning Director if specified criteria are met, and allowing reduced parking and modified parking designs for second units. Staff notes that the Zoning Ordinance is in the process of being amended and will include an implementing ordinance regarding' second units. 'Nonetheless, the proposed second unit is consistent with this program. Environmental Review The project is categorically exempt from. the California, Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 15303 (Class 3 — New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). 2 Findings Pursuant .to Zoning Ordinance Section 17.52.090 (Conditional Uses) and Section 17.34.310 (Residential District Parking Exemption), the Planning Commission, may grant the requested use pern�ittresidential parking exemption if it makes the required findings. The findings and basis for making each in the affirmative is specified in the attached resolution. Public Notification A public hearing notice denoting the time, date, and location of the proposal's hearing was published in the Press Democrat. Property owners within 300 feet of the project site were mailed notices, and the notice was posted pursuant to State Planning Law. Alternative Actions The following alternatives are available to the Commission: 1. Adopt the attached resolution Approving File No. 1902, as conditioned. 2. Direct staff to prepare a resolution denying File No. 1902. 3. Direct staff to further evaluate specific issues and postpone action on the application to a later date. Staff Recommendation Based on the findings of this report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission, by motion adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2000-37, approving File No. 1902, as conditioned. Respectfully Submitted, Nancy Kaufman Planning and Community Development Director I Attachments:- 1. 2. Exhibits: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ron Bendorff Associate Plar Planning Commission Resolution No. 2000-31 Vicinity Map Site Plan Exterior Elevations Foundation Plan Plumbing & Electrical Plan, Framing Plan Photographs of Rear Yard 3 .PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-31 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING FILE NO. 1902: USE PERMIT FOR SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNIT IN THE REAR YARD OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT AND A RESIDENTIAL PARKING EXEMPTION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7835 BURTON AVENUE (Jose L. Sanchez) WHEREAS, the applicant, Jose L. Sanchez, filed Planning Application No. 1902 for approval of a use permit for a second residential unit in the rear yard of a, single-family residential lot and a residential parking exemption for property located at 7835 Burton Avenue (APN 143-234-019) in accordance.w ,ith the City of Rohn�rt Park Municipal Code; - WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 1902 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, on October 26, 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed Planning Application No. 1902 during a scheduled, public meeting at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in'support or opposition to the project; and, WHEREAS, at the October 26, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all the facts relating to Planning Application No. 1902; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 1902 makes the following findings, to wit , Use Permit 1. That the proposed location of the conditional use iss in accord with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The site is within a R-1:6000 Single Family Residential District, which allows for second units as a conditionally -permitted use. 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not. be detrimental to the public, health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. As discussed in the staff report, the project meets the setback. and height requirements for an accessory structure and, as conditioned, will not have a negative effect on the public 'health, safety, or welfare; or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Title. 1 As discussed in the staff report, the proposed 'second unit would meet all of the requirements for accessory structures listed for this District. Residential Parking Exemption 1. That neither present nor anticipated) traffic volumes generated by the use on the site or the uses on sites in the vicinity, reasonably require strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations. The addition of the proposed second unit would riot significantly increase traffic generated by the existing single-family residence and would not be expected to increase the site's parking need to the degree that another two parking spaces would be needed. However, the addition of one parking space for use by the applicant has been made a condition of this approval. 2. That the granting of the use permit will not result in the parking or loading of vehicles on public streets in such a manner as to interfere with the free flow of traffic on the streets. The applicant will be required to provide one on-site parking space for the occupant of the proposed second unit. No interference in area traffic flow will occur as a result of this project. 3. That the granting of the use permit will not create a safety hazard or any other condition inconsistent with the objectives of the zoning ordinance The use permit would be in compliance with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and would not create a safety hazard due to the construction of the.proposed second unit. Section 3. Environmental Clearance. The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 15303 (Class 3 — New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission does hereby approve Planning Application No. 1902, subject to the following conditions: 1. The use permit approval shall expire one year from the Planning Commission approval date, unless prior to the expiration a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion and the use is initiated, or an extension is requested and approved. 2. The applicant shall comply with all applicable sections of the City of Rohnert Park Municipal Code and any other applicable relevant plans of affected agencies. 3. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and clearances from the Rohnert.Park Building and Public Safety Departments prior to construction of the second unit. 4. The project shall substantially conform to Exhibit 1 - Site Plan and Exhibit 2 - Exterior Elevations. 2 5. The second unit shall be .constructed of the same general- materials and colors' as the single-family residence on the lot. 6. - One additional parking space shall be provided for the use of the occupant of the second unit, with the location and surfacing subject to Staff approval. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said action .shall not be deemed final until the appeal period has expired and that the appeal period shall be 10 working days from the date of said action. No building permits shall be issued uritil the appeal period has expired, provided there are no appeals. DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED on this 26th day of October, 2000,'by the City of Rohnert Park Planning Commission by the following vote: ShavYRKilat, Chairperson, kohnert Park Planning Commission Attest: Maria McConnell, Recording Secretary AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MILITELLO MOCHEL NILSON NORDIN KILAT 3 • • �. .. iv. ! 1 4 �'3 1y 7'l1 r� � � � Kg' ( �"a� x�4 ]rir4F' :h r.N. ,}. '• � t t Vicinity:. Map �J ' J u �{7 Imo{/�75YJ` kZ 151 7544 C3' APN: 143-234-019 Scale: P=400' Jose L. Sanchez — Use Permit for a Date: . Second Residential Unit 10/26/00 at 7835 Burton Avenue B File No.: 1902 Attachment 2 /'� it �_ r =�... .�� 31 y5+w{P�,c_,,, •,�2���`� b �'• T � �Y-1_ f �} R 1 - I a- :. INTEROFFICE' MEMO DATE: 10126/00 TO: PLANNING OOM BSIONERS FROM: RON BENDORFF RE: SANCHEZ SEOOND UNIT (FILE # 1902) Attached please find Government Code Sections 65852.150 through 658522 that pertain to second units and were erroneously omitted from the Staff Report for this item Also attached is a letter from- neighboring property owners Patrick Leahy, 7847 Burton Avenue, who opposes the application, and Lola Stiefer, 7827 Burton Avenue, .who supports it /RB Attachments Planning Commission Minutes Item #3 File No. Jose Sanchez Use Permit to add a second unit consultant present from Salter & Associates to give us an opinion. He stated he could nTimagine what kind of a projection they could give the Commission with the freeway right there, 200 dogs barking and a pump in the corner of the property that is always running and if the noise level is as alleged to be in violation of our Ordinance, he questioned how any mitigation action is going to be satisfactory. Chairperson Kilat stated it would be, up to the applicant and asked for a second on the acceptance of altemative #2 as read, to adopt Resolution 200-4, motion seconded by Commissioner Militello. AYES (4) Kilat, Militello, Nilson and Nordin NOES (1) Mochel Chairperson Kilat introduced the item to the Commissioners. Associate Planner, Ron Bendorff, reviewed his staff report for the project. , The applicant intends to construct a second residential unit in the rear yard of the property; ' in an area that is currently a lawn. He noted that second units with kitchens, such as that "being proposed by the applicant, are subject to use permit approval. The proposed second unit would 'be approximately 300 square feet in total floor area and would be constructed of the same materials as the existing residence. It proposed to be placed in the right rear corner of the lot, at setbacks in compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for accessory structures in residential areas. The building's fifteen (15') foot height would also be in keeping with the height limitation for accessory structures and the total lot -.coverage with the addition would be approximately 32 percent, which is below the 50 percent maximum allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. Associate Planner, Ron Bendorff, reviewed the State Laws that govern accessory units and stated the City does not currently have a second unit ordinance in effect and is subject to the provisions listed in State Law for such projects. 'The City, is, therefore, required to grant a use permit for a second unit that can be rented to a non -family member. State Law also generally directs that no more than one parking space may be required for each second unit or for each bedroom within the unit. He noted that Section 17.34.310 of the Rohnert Park Municipal Code does allow exemptions to the residential parking requirements if certain findings can be made. It appears that a third open parking space may be accommodated in front of the home, and this has been made a condition of this approval. Chairperson Kilat opened the public hearing. .Associate Planner, Ron Bendorff, entered into the record two letters that had been received regarding this project. A letter from Patrick R. Leahy, 7847 Burton Avenue, who is opposed and a letter from Lola Stiefer, 7827 Burton Avenue, who is in support. ' Chairperson Kilat referenced the letter from Mr. Leahy wherein he asks, "how could this proposal get this far?" She wished to advise Mr. Leahy that there is a law that allows for second units and the City doesn't have a separate ordinance governing Planning Commission Minutes 10 second units, however, the City cannot take away the rights as allowed by State Law. Additionally, the City's new General Plan supports second units as a solution to alleviate some of the need for the City to provide for more housing. Associate Planner, Ron Bendorff, added that State Law doesn't specify it but it does not restrict such a use to family members only. Commissioner Mochel asked if Architectural Review could be applied to a Use Permit application. Associate Planner Ron Bendorff, advised that this is a -land use issue and the addition has been designed to match the existing main structure. Commissioner, Nilson asked if this addition didn't have a kitchen, would this item even be before us? Associate Planner, Ron Bendorff stated it would then be considered a guesthouse and would not be before the Commission for review. Discussion ensued between Commissioner Mochel and Associate Planner; Ron Bendorff regarding the architectural design of the structure. Commissioner Mochel stated he was not that impressed with the drawings provided of the addition. Associate Planner, Ron Bendorff, distributed photos of the project site to the Commissioners and stated that Condition #5.requires the owner to use the same materials and colors -of the main house and that only a small portion of the addition could be seen from the front. Commissioner Militello stated he was more concerned with the allegations of noise and traffic as -contained in the letter from Mr. Leahy. Ms. Sandra Leatherwood, 7821 Burton Ave., was recognized and stated that Ms. Stiefer, who is her immediate neighbor to the south and who wrote in favor of the project, has a 12 x 30 -ft. long illegal structure in her back yard and she can see it from her windows. Commissioner Militello asked Ms. Leatherwood if her contention is that Ms. Stiefer's property is also in violation. Ms. Leatherwood's indicated that there was a history regarding this structure and its placement on the neighboring lot. She'contended that the Sanchez family has 4 cars. She stated that until Mr. Sanchez bought the house a year ago and cleaned it up, there were men out there in the front yard engaged in questionable activities. She stated she doesn't want a re -run of that scenario.' She stated. that her house is bigger than Mr. Sanchez's house and there is just not enough space for all of these people to live in and it appears that now they are going to have 4 more people living in a 10 x 30 square foot area. She stated all of the neighbors are concerned about this addition. She stated it is a freestanding unit that he can rent out to anyone and she is not in support of it. She stated that Mr. Leahy's property is abutting on the opposite side and you can'see all of Mr. Sanchez's backyard from Mr.' Leahy's yard. 10 Planning Commission Minutes She stated there is no noise control and this is not an in-law unit for his mother to come up from Mexico to live in, as that is not his intent. She stated Mr. Sanchez is going to rent the addition out for $800 a month and this is a problem to her. Ms. Leatherwood acknowledged that Mr. Sanchez has cleaned the place up and it is much improved but the neighborhood doesn't want the same problems back and advised the Planning Commissioners that they wouldn't want this type of home in the "R" and °H" neighborhoods. Chairperson Kilat stated that in her opinion, Mr. Sanchez is within his rights to construct a second unit on his property. Planning Director-, Nancy Kaufman stated the City is restricted by State Law on .imposing any additional parking requirements beyond the one additional space. Discussion ensued among Chairperson Kilat, Commissioner Militello and staff as to the vicinity and visibility of the adjacent neighbor's property as well as concerns over noise, such as a baby crying. Chairperson Kilat determined from the drawings that the. south elevation facing Mr. Leahy's house is a solid wall and didn't see where his privacy would be interfered with, as there is no window or sliding glass door facing his property. Associate Planner, Ron Bendorff, stated the next step for the applicant, if he receives Planning Commission approval, is to apply for a Building Permit. The Building Department and Fire Services will insure that Mr., Sanchez's addition is built to building and fire safety codes and this is a condition of approval in the Resolution... Planning Director, Nancy Kaufman, advised Commissioner Mochel that he could request the applicant to provide improved architectural drawings. and exterior improvements if deemed necessary. Discussion ensued regarding the cost and availability of computer generated architectural drawings. Commissioner Mochel stated he didn't want to put an undue economic pressure on the applicant. Commissioner Militello reiterated the statement by Associate Planner, Ron Bendorff, that the plans will be reviewed by the Building Department to make sure it meets all applicable codes. He stated that the Planning Commission doesn't determine the quality of the workmanship. However, he stated, the Commission can concern themselves with noise and traffic issues. Discussion ensued regarding State Law governing second units and accessory structures and the determination is that the unit can be rented to someone other than a family member. Chairperson Kilat asked Mr. Sanchez to come forward to answer questions regarding the addition' and asked him if he uses his garage. 11 Planning Commission Minutes Item #4 File No. 1903 John L. Drees Use Permit Jose.Sanchez, 7835 Burton Avenue, was recognized and stated he parks one car in the garage and one on the street in front of his home. Chairperson Kilat stated there are many residents that have 4 cars and asked how the Commission could make an issue out of the parking situation in this case. Commissioner Militello explained that a neighbor states he is renting the garage out and there are numerous people in and out of the residence with excess garbage piled up outside and Commissioner Militello felt these issues need to be addressed. Chairperson Kilat stated that those types of issues are dealt with by Code Enforcement as code violations and are generally not addressed by the Planning Commission. She also stated that these are subjective problems in that what one person perceives as a code violation may not be a code violation at all. Commissioner Mochel agreed that they are separate issues but did not think they are insignificant and agreed that there are other remedies for these problems. He stated that residents all over the City park on the streets and as far as noise is concerned, he referred to the Boardwalk Pet Village project as to how to measure noise and how mitigation is to be determined. Commissioner Mochel made the motion to approve File No. 1902, adopting Resolution 2000-39, approving the Use Permit application for Jose Sanchez. Planning Director, Nancy Kaufman, advised Commissioner Mochel to add a condition to the approval that any illegal structures be removed from the property. She noted a breezeway in the rear yard that was observed during a visit to the site. Commissioner Mochel added the condition to his motion, motion seconded by Commissioner Nordin. Chairperson Kilat called a roll call vote. AYES (4) Kilat,. Mochel,' Nordin and Nilson NOES (1) Militello Chairperson Kilat advised the members of the audience who appeared for this item that they had 10 days to appeal the Planning Commission's action to the City Council. Chairperson Kilat introduced the next item and thanked the members of the audience for waiting through the last few items that were quite lengthy. Planning Director, Nancy' Kaufman, reviewed her staff report for File No. 1903 to approve a second residential unit that was constructed above the garage in the early 1990's. She explained that a Use Permit to allow the existing second unit was never obtained prior to its construction by the previous owner. Mr. Drees, the new owner, wishes to legalize the second unit and permit its use as a rental unit. Planning Director, Nancy Kaufman, explained that there are several other residents 12 # - regulation: of established negative -secondary.: effects-:<ofgi'adultt�or; sexually rorientetl: i businesses if the actions taken'by the legislative body;are consisteitf v+ritfi this'sect<vn O 1 ( ). The Legisfature,finds and declares that in. orderto'eiicourage ahe legislative;; body of a city or county in :.regulating -t adult _or: sexually :oriented -businesses or�oiiiilar-"4 businesses under : this section; :the legislative. body ;may"consider . secondary effects such a business may :have on::adjacent''cittes -and cou' ties 'and.:it proximity to churches, schools, residents;'and other businesses, tocated:in adjacent cities or counties. : . . l [Amended, Chapter 550, Statutes of 1999] 65850.5. Protection for solar energy systems The legislative body of any city or county shall not enact an ordinance which has f the effect. of prohibiting or of unreasonably restricting the use of solar energy systems _= other than'for the preservation or protection of the public health or safety. This prohibition shall be applicable to charter cities since the promotion of the use of nonfossil fuel sources of energy, such as solar energy and energy conservation measures, is a matter of statewide concern. This section shall not apply to ordinances which impose reasonable restrictions on solar energy systems. However, it is the policy of the state to promote and encourage the use of solar energy systems. and to remove obstacles thereto. Accordingly, reasonable restrictions on a solar energy system are those restrictions which do not significantly increase the cost of the system -gr' significantly decrease its efficiency, or which allow for an alternative system of comparable cost and efficiency. For the purposes of this section, "solar energy system" shall have the same meaning as set forth in Section 801.5 of the Civil Code. 6SBS1. Establishment of zoning districts For such purposes the legislative body may divide a county, a city, or portions thereof, into zones of the number, shape and area it deems best suited to carry out the purpose of this chapter. 65852. Uniformity All sucli regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of building or use of land throughout each zone, but the regulation in one type of zone may differ from those in other types of zones_ 65852.1. "Granny" housing Notwithstanding Section 65906, any city, including a charter city, county, or city and county may issue a zoning variance, special use permit, or conditional use permit for a dwelling unit to be constructed, or which is attached to or detached from, a primary residence on a parcel zoned for a single-family residence; if the dwelling unit is intended for the sole occupancy of one adult or two adult persons who are 62 years of age or over, and the area of floor space of the attached dwelling unit does not exceed 30 percent of the existing living area or the area of the floor space of the detached dwelling unit does not exceed 1,200 square feet. This section shall not be construed to -limit the requirements of Section 65852.2, or the power of local governments to permit second units. [Amended, Chapter 1150, Statutes of 1990] 65852.150. Legislative findings; second units The Legislature finds and declares that second units are a valuable form of housing in California. Second units provide housing for family members, students, the elderly, in- home health care providers, the disabled; and others, at' below market prices within existing neighborhoods. Homeowners who 'create second units benefit from added income, and an increased sense of security. 'it is the intent ofttie'Ledislature -Inat:ar ly * agencies have the effect of providing for the. creation.,of second -units and that proVIsi on a' :- � th in these ordinances -relating .to matters ..including irid...-o ­­­ . I . �__ * ..excessive,. -or.-b id'ehsonie:.- b'_.;`a§ �`to ..-unreason' requirements,%, are noUso arbitrary, u ....abl restrict *the ability. of -homeowners -to create second units An 4zones -:An ­whlich�`theV,,-are',4 authorized -by local ordinance.;... .[Added, Chapter 580, Statutes of 1994]. -65852-2. Provisions for second unit ordinances/findings (a) Any local. agency may, by ordinance, -provide fdr-the creation of second units in single-family and multifamily residential zones. The ordinance: 0) May designate areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency where second units may be permitted. The designation of areas may be based on criteria, which may include, but. are not limited to, the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of second units on traffic flow. (2) May impose standards on second units which include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, and maximum size of a unit. (3) May provide that second units do not t exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which the second unit is located, and that second units are a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designation for the lot. (4)- May establish a process for the issuance. of a conditional, use perniit for second units. (5) Shall not be considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth. (b)(1) When a local agency which has not adopted an ordinance governing second units in accordance with subdivision (a) or (c) receives its first application on or' after July 1, 1983, for a conditional use permit pursuant to this subdivision, the local agency shall accept the application and approve or disapprove the application pursuant to this subdivision unless it adopts an ordinance in accordance with subdivision (a) or (c) within 120 days after receiving the application. Notwithstanding Section 65901, every local agency shall grant a -special use or a conditional use permit for the creation of a second unit if the second unit complies with all of the following: -'(A) The unit is not intended for sale and may be rented. (B) The lot is zoned for single-family or multifamily use. (C). The lot contains an.existing single-family dwelling - (D) The second unit is either attached to the existing dwelling and located within the living area of the existing dwelling or detached from the existing dwelling and located on the same lot as the existing dwelling. - (E) The increased floor area of an attached second unit shall not exceed 30 percent of the existing living area. - (F) The total area of floor space for a detached second unit shall not exceed 1,200 square feet. - (G) Requirements relating to height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, site plan review, fees, charges, and other zoning requirements generally applicable to residential construction in the zone in which the property is located. (H) Local building code requirements which apply to detached dwellings, as appropriate. (1) Approval by the local health officer where a private sewage disposal. system is being used, if required. (2) - No other local ordinance, policy, or regulation shall be the basis for the denial of a building permit or a use permit under this subdivision. (3) This subdivision establishes the maximum standards that local agencies shall use to evaluate proposed second units on lots zoned for residential use which contain an existing single-family dwelling. No additional standards, other than those provided in this subdivision or subdivision (a), shall be utilized or imposed, except that a M 'local agency may requ�re:an;applicaniSoa petmit.issued.pursuant-to !ihissutidivision ao ' be an owner -occupant. .�= •,' -?_ (4) ' -• No changes 1n zoning ordinances or other ordinances or.any.66iinges 4n'the genera( plan shalt be.requiredto:iimplementthissubdivisioci..My local.agency mayarnend. ] 'its zoning.:ordinance' or. general:plan #o;`aincorporate;the'pol cies .jptoceiiures;rjo• her provisions .applicafi(e to the:creation•rof second units •if_-these•:provisions={are;consisterit with the limitations of.this``sutdiVis"ion=s:='-= - �: t • (5) A second. unit which conforms to .the requirements of this subdivision shall j not be considered to'exceed the'al(o%#able density -for. the lot upon- which if located, and shall be deemed to bea residential use which -is consistent with the existing general. -Plan and zoning designations for the lot. The second units shall not be -considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth. =:= •; ;' No local agency shall adopt an, ordinance which totally precludes 'second units within single-family and multifamily zoned areas unless the ordinance contains findings acknowledging that the ordinance may limit housing opportunities of the region and further contains findings that specific adverse impacts on the public health, safety, and welfare that would result from allowing second units within single-family and multifamily zoned areas justify adopting the ordinance. (d) A local agency may establish minimum and maximum unit size requirements for both attached and detached second units. No minimum or maximum size for a second unit, or size based upon a percentage of the existing dwelling, shall be established by -dwellings ordinance for either aq-,ached or detached which does not permit at (east an efficiency unit to be constructed in compliance with local development standards. (e) Parking requirements for second units shall not exceed one parking space per unit or per. bedroom. Additional parking* may be required provided that a finding is made that the additional parking requirements are directly related to the use of the second unit and are consistent with existing neighborhood standards applicable to existing dwellings. Off-street parking shall be permitted in setback areas -in locations determined by the local agency or through tandem parking, unless specific findings are made that parking in setback areas or tandem parking is not feasible based upon specific site or regional topographical or fire and life safety conditions, or that it is not permitted anywhere else in the jurisdiction. (f) Fees charged for the construction of second units shall be determined in accordance with Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 66000). (g) This section does not limit the authority of local agencies to adopt less restrictive requirements for the creation of second units. (h) Local agencies shall submit a copy of the ordinances adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) or (c) to the Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days after adoption. (i) As used in the section, the following terms mean: (1) "Living area," means the interior habitable area of.a dwelling unit including basements and attics but does not include a garage or any accessory structure. (2) "Local agency" means a city, 'county, or city and county, whether general law or chartered. (3) For purposes of this section, "neighborhood" has the same meaning, as set forth in Section 65589.5. '(4) "Second unit" means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family dwelling is situated. A second unit also includes the following: - (A) An efficiency unit, as defined in Section 17958.1 of the Health and Safety Code. (B) A manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code. [Amended, Chapter 580, Statutes of 1994] 100 1997 UNIFORM HOUSING CODE Chapter 5 SPACE AND OCCUPANCY STANDARDS SECTION 501 — LOCATION ON PROPERTY All buildings shall be located with respect to property lines and to other buildings on the same property as required by Section 503 and Chapter 6 of the Building Code. SECTION 502 — YARDS AND COURTS 502.1 Scope. This section shall apply to yards and courts having required window openings therein. 502.2 Yards. Every yard shall not be less than 3 feet (914 nun) in width for one- and two-story buildings. For buildings more than two stories in height, the minimum width of the yard shall be in- creased at the rate of 1 foot (305 mm) for each additional story. Where yards completely surround the building, the required width may be reduced by 1 foot (305 mm). For buildings exceeding 14 stories in height, the required width of yard shall be computed on the basis of 14 stories. 5023 Courts. Every court shall riot be less than 3 feet (914 mm) in width. Courts having windows opening on opposite sides shall not be less than 6 feet (1829 mm) in width. Courts bounded on three or more sides by the walls of the building shall not be less than 10 feet (3048 mm) in length unless bounded on one end by a public way or yard. For buildings more than two stories in height, the court shall be increased 1 foot (305 mm) in width and 2 feet (610 mm) in length for each additional story. For buildings ex- ceeding 14 stories in height, the required dimensions shall be com- puted on the basis of 14 stories. Adequate access shall be provided to the bottom of all courts for cleaning purposes. Every court more than two stories in height shall be provided with a horizontal air intake -at the bottom not less than 10 square feet (0.93 m2) in area and leading to the exterior of the building unless abutting a yard or public way. The construction of the air intake shall be as required for the court walls of the build- ing, but in no case shall be less than one-hour fire -resistive. SECTION 503 — ROOM DIMENSIONS 503.1 Ceiling Heights.' Habitable space shall have a ceiling height of not less than 7 feet 6 inches (2286 mm) except as other- wise permitted in this section. Kitchens, halls, bathrooms and toi- let compartments may have a ceiling height of not less than 7 feet (2134 mm) measured to the lowest projection from the ceiling. Where exposed beam ceiling members are spaced at less than 48 inches (1219 mm) on center, ceiling height shall be measured to the bottom of these members. Where exposed beam ceiling mem- bers are spaced at 48 inches (1219 mm) or more on center, ceiling height shall be measured to the bottom of the deck supported by these members, provided that the bottom of the members is not less than 7 feet (2134 mm) above the floor. If any room in a building has a sloping ceiling, the prescribed ceiling height for the room is required in only one-half the area thereof. No portion of the room measuring less than 5 feet (1524 mm) from the finished floor to the finished ceiling shall be in- cluded in any computation of the minimum area thereof. If any room has a furred ceiling, the prescribed ceiling height is required in two thirds the area thereof, but in no case shall the height of the furred ceiling be less than 7 feet (2134 mm). 501 504.3 503.2 Floor Area Dwelling units and congregate residences shall have at least one room that shall have not less than 120 square feet (11.2 m2) of floor area. Other habitable rooms, except kitch- ens, shall have an area of not less than 70 square feet (6.5 m2). Where more than two persons occupy a room used for sleeping purposes, the required floor area shall be increased at the rate of 50 square feet (4.65m2) for each occupant in excess of two. EXCEPTION: Nothing in this section shall prohibit the use of an efficiency living unit within an apartment house meeting the following ' requirements: A. The unit shall have a living room of not less than 220 square feet (20.4 m2) of superficial floor area. An additional 100 square feet (9.3 m2) of superficial floor area shall be provided for each occupant of such unit in excess of two. B. The unit shall be provided with a separate closet. C. The unit shall be provided with a kitchen sink, cooking appliance and refrigeration facilities, each having a clear working space of not less than 30 inches (762 mm) in front. Light and ventilation conforming to this code shall be provided. D. The unit shall be provided with a separate bathroom containing a water closet, lavatory, and bathtub or shower. 5033 Width. No habitable room other than a kitchen.shall be less than 7 feet (2134 mm) in any dimension. Each water closet stool shall be located in a clearspace not less than 30 inches (762 mm) in width and a clear space in front of the water closet stool of not less than 24 inches (610 mm) shall be pro- vided. SECTION 504 — LIGHT AND VENTILATION 504.1 General. For the purpose of determining the light or ven- tilation required by this section, any room may be considered as a portion of an adjoining room when one half of the area of the com- mon wall is open and unobstructed and provides an opening of not less than one tenth of the floor area of the interior room or 25 square feet (2.3 m2), whichever is greater. Exterior openings for natural light or ventilation required by this section shall open directly onto a public way or a yard or court located on the same lot as the building. EXCEPTIONS: 1. Required windows may open into a roofed porch where the porch: 1.1 Abuts a public way, yard or court; 1.2 Has a ceiling height of not less than 7 feet (2134 mm); and 1.3 Has a longer side at least 65 percent open and unobstructed. 2. Skylights. 504.2 Light. Guest rooms and habitable rooms within a dwell- ing unit or congregate residence shall be provided with natural light by means of exterior glazed openings with an area not less than one tenth of the floor area of such rooms with a.minimum of 10 square feet (0.93 m2). 504.3 Ventilation: Guest rooms and habitable rooms within a dwelling unit or congregate residence shall be provided with natu- ral ventilation by means of openable exterior openings with an area of not less than 1/20 of the floor area of such rooms with a minimum of 5 square feet (0.46 m2). ' In lieu of required exterior openings for natural ventilation, a mechanical 'ventilating system may be provided. Such system shall be capable of providing two air changes per hour in all guest J RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL OF A USE PERMIT AND RESIDENTIAL PARKING EXEMPTION TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNIT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7835 BURTON AVENUE (Jose L. Sanchez) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved a use permit and residential parking exemption to allow the construction of a second residential unit on property located at 7835 Burton Avenue in accordance with the City of Rohnert Park Municipal Code; WHEREAS, the appellant, Sandra L. Leatherwood, filed- an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision; WHEREAS, on November 14, 2000, the City Council directed that a public hearing on the submitted appeal be held, in accordance with the City of Rohnert Park Municipal Code; WHEREAS, pursuant to California State Law, public hearing notices were transmitted to all property owners within a 300 foot radius of the subject property, and a public hearing was published for a minimum of 10 days prior to the public hearing on the appeal in the Press Democrat; WHEREAS, on November 28, 2000, the City Council held a public hearing at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to the appeal; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Staff Report and all relevant materials regarding the appeal. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. Findings. The City Council, in denying the appeal of Planning Application No. 1902: hereby affirms the following findings, to wit; Use Permit 1902 1. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The site is within a R-1:6000 Single Family Residential District, which allows for second units as a conditionally -permitted use. 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not, be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. As discussed in the staff report, the project meets the setback and height requirements for an accessory structure and, as conditioned, will not have a negative effect on the public health, safety, or welfare; or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Title. As discussed in the staff report, the proposed second unit would meet all of the requirements for accessory structures listed for this District. Residential Parking Exemption 1902 That neither present nor anticipated future traffic volumes generated by the use on the site or the uses on sites in the vicinity, reasonably require strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations. The addition of the proposed second unit would not significantly increase traffic generated by the existing single-family residence and would not be expected to increase the site's parking need to the degree that another two parking spaces would be needed. However, the addition of one parking space for use by the applicant has been made a condition of this approval. 2. That the granting of the use permit will not result in the parking or loading of vehicles on public streets in such a manner as to interfere with the free flow of traffic on the streets. The applicant will be required to provide one on-site parking space for the occupant of the proposed second unit. No interference in area traffic flow will occur as a result of this project. 3. That the granting of the use permit will not create a safety hazard or any other condition inconsistent with the objectives of the zoning ordinance. The use permit would be in compliance with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and would not create a safety hazard due to the construction of the proposed second unit: Section 3. Environmental Clearance. The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 15303 (Class 3 — New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council does hereby deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission's approval of Application No. 1902: Use Permit and Residential Parking Exemption, subject to the following conditions: 1. The use permit approval shall expire one year from the Planning Commission approval date, unless prior to the expiration a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion and the use is initiated, or an extension is requested and approved. 2. The applicant shall comply with all applicable sections of the City of Rohnert Park Municipal Code and any other applicable relevant plans of affected agencies. 3. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and clearances from the Rohnert Park Building and Public Safety Departments prior to construction of the second unit. 4. The project shall substantially conform to Exhibit 1 — Site Plan and Exhibit 2 = Exterior Elevations. 5. The second unit shall be constructed of the same general materials and colors as the single-family residence on the lot. 6. One additional parking space shall be provided for the use of the occupant of the second unit, with the location and surfacing subject to Staff approval. 7_ Any illegal structures in the rear yard shall be removed prior to occupancy of the second unit. DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED, on this day of , 2000, by the City of Rohnert Park City Council by the following vote: Attest Mayor, City of Rohnert Park Deputy City Clerk NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL OF A USE PERMIT GRANTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park will, on Tuesday, the 28th day of November, 2000, at the hour of 6:30 p.m. (or as soon thereafter as the matter is reached during the City Council meeting), in the City Council Chambers, 6750 Commerce Boulevard, Rohnert Park, hold a public hearing to consider an appeal of a use permit and residential parking exemption for JOSE L. SANCHEZ. This use permit and exemption was approved on October 26, 2000 by the Planning Commission and would allow the construction of a second residential unit with one additional parking space on an existing single-family residential lot. SUBJECT PROPERTY is located at 7835 Burton Avenue, Rohnert Park, CA (APN 143-234-019). The current zoning is Single -Family Residential District (R- 1: 6000). APPLICATION IS ON FILE with the Rohnert Park Planning Department for public review. ALL PERSONS INTERESTED are invited to attend the meeting. Any written statements may be sent to the City Manager for presentation at the meeting. NOTE: If you challenge the nature of the proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Rohnert Park at, or prior to, the public hearing. Joseph D. Netter City Manager Planning File No. 1902 November 15, 2000 P L 6 T. PiL'wjV m Conn. sh, n.g le s P -o{ 3 ori Pa- pot r um -shingles an Aug. . r i "� �►orcl.S%�nc��es pn Irop O :30j�4 PapeY 3 S A -u (-c:o �)0.PP-r 4 W ►re -- 4 .'► Z Q EIA 5T 61F— VAT 101 �c L4 �� X (,mv0� �rarril�, ti NORM GLCVA yX 12�i1¢:acee.r s4ucco PQ.per a &.)l re �-czf bti. FOUAI nA 7 10 N r L __�- _ � ax4 0� a�� s�t�ds Jl� O -L• i Ja Mab V/6 kJ /6 ��Xb� lD u>►�re rrlt?S i Over a�� la ger sand VveY vis q. Vapo►': �drr�2r�N�,v� soil. c2x4or2X6 Rtd-w=A P{essu re Cvf l2" Soy L . Jw 6-C TRIC41, -10' ®J�I2fS�✓er 34 Recep41 c Gars in Closef o ken $� bcu-th rD orn n orr► b°�hro Jo o New SeLJI loo taB� corr.A"F-D 100 [ lay coo k 1 Shu+ ot+ \Wl ue. s WTEF'�c, s-` th 9 UC r alV1SeV3Y' ®o AMPS service AXIS ,� 43 F R AM t N6 PLAY Nore a-x4 -SWfiC 148 0c oN A LI- WIN DOWS DooRg F ZX$ R1DG 7o bee VJCLll b Rajr4ers 4Xl2 1�4EADERj GuRoo€ �p.shingle� on fop of 30 Fe14 Pa per l &ngeas Gk .dots#S � u •30--------.. ............. ....— ----_..__..... _- _ ' ,ply wow u laf►o n FAc/A 2.cY Crtple Xq S-�ue1s"x!z"header - lixy 3 S40cco 9' Pgpersu)i're 1.a�h �►sula.# r t� 46 SRA.Ce 32r' �A Cv# cre n flop ii t o er and if ff to mesh u�lre Dyer y )ver Vis Q• VapOr 15alrrier Ynai;ve ,soil- Council: x MiscellaneousP Communications Agenda I I an Copy to: Copy to: p V City Council Chambers November 26, 2000 6750 Commerce Blvd. Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, Due to the unfortunate appeal to the -building permit previously issued to Mr. Sanchez, I feel compelled to reiterate my support of.his request. I, Howard Stiefer, reside with my mother, Lola Stiefer, at .7827 Burton Ave, which is Mr. Sanchers' north neighbor.. I am pleased to see that the City of Rohnert Park has the foresight to enable residents to improve their living situations to alleviate the responsibility to provide additional housing. I do not believe that Mr. Sanchez should be unjustly compared to the previous situations, but judged by his actions and the manner in which he takes.care of his lot. His rights should not be taken away from him. Thank you, Howard Stiefer, Jr. 7827 Burton Ave Rohnert Park, CA 94928 CITY OF.ROHNERT PARK COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM TRANSMITTAL REPORT (Department: Planning Department ***City Clerk Use Only*** Meeting Date , Held Until Submitted By: Nancy Kaufman, Planning and Community Development Item No. Director ' a Title: Ordinance repealing Municipal Code Chapter 17.64, Wireless Date of Action: Communication Facilities, and adding a new Chapter 17.64,. Deadline Date for: Communication Facilities Council Action: quested Council Action: That the City Council make the following findings and approve the proposed •dinance adopting new communication facility regulations as part of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed zoning text change is consistent. with the overall intent of the Community Design and blit Facilities Elements of the General Plan relative to the aesthetic quality of the City and the provision of Yastructure to both existing and future residents. The proposed zoning text change is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance as prescribed Municipal Code Section 17:02.020.' A duly noticed public hearing has been held to receive and consider public testimony regarding the )posed zoning text change. The environmental findings as made by the Planning Commission in Resolution No: 2000-37 with ;pect to the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration are hereby adopted by the City Council. , Summary: On June 27,'2000 the City Council adopted a 90 -day Urgency Ordinance directing the development of a . Telecommunications Ordinance and prohibiting the issuance of encroachment permits for telecommunications purposes in the interim. The Telecommunications Ordinance was approved by the City Council on September 26, 2000. As a companion to the Telecommunications Ordinance, the existing Wireless, Communication Facilities regulations contained in Chapter 17.64 of the Zoning Ordinance have been revised and updated to reflect -current technologies and to address the aesthetic concerns with ancillary support equipment associated with both wireless and cable or fiber optic facilities. The staff analysis summarizing the ordinance's provisions is included in the attached Staff Report dated October 12, 2000. On October 12, 2000, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (4. ayes)' to recommend approval of the Ordinance with the addition of the changes recommended in an October 12, 2000 memo from the Planning Director to the Commission (attached) and directing staff to look into controlling the number of antennas for ham radio operators and limiting the -number of commercial antennas in any one neighborhood. The changes from. the October 12 memo have been incorporated into the Ordinance. Further, the .following additional changes have been added to address the concerns of the Planning Commission. 1. Page 3, Section 17.64.042 C. has been amended to limit to one the number of HAM radio antenna structures than can be located on any one,parcel. 2. Page 4, Section 17.64.050 A.3. has been added to limit ,to one the number of antennas a service provider can place in any one neighborhood without approval of a conditional use permit. Provisions limiting'the types of towers allowed in residential and mixed-use zoning districts are already included in Sections 17.64.040 B. and 17.64.042. Also, for clarification purposes, staff has made a proposed change to Section 17.64.040 C. to replace "backup 9 power supply (e.g., generator)" with "backup generator." For example, batteries used for backup power supply would not trigger a conditional use permit.. Staff is also proposing changes to Sections 17.64.050 D. and EA. to add undergrounding as one of the siting preferences for ancillary support equipment. Underlining has been used to indicate the location of changes to the Ordinance since the Commission's October 12 meeting. Attachments: Draft Ordinance dated 11/8/00; PC minutes from October 12, 2000; PC Resolution No. 2000-37; Memorandum from the Planning Director to the Commission re: Changes to the Draft Communication Facilities Ordinance; PC Staff Report dated 10/12/00 with attachments the existing Chapter 17.64 and the Initial Study CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION: ( ) Consent Item ( ) Regular Time ( ) Approval () Public Hearing Required ( ) Not Recommended O Submitted with Comment ( ) Policy Determination by Council ( ) City Comments: City Manager's Signature: IDate: City Clerk Use Only Council Action Vote: JH-h:Shells\Council Agenda Transmittal PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT --11/8/00 ORDINANCE NO. 2000- , AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK REPEALING THE EXISTING CHAPTER 17.64 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 17.64 TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO COMMUNICATION FACILITIES The City Council of the City of Rohnert Park does hereby ordain as. follows: SECTION ONE. Chapter 17.64 of the Rohnert Park Municipal Code is repealed. SECTION TWO. A new Chapter 17.64 is added to the Rohnert Park Municipal Code as follows: CHAPTER 17.64 COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Sections: 17.64.010 Title -17.64.020 Purpose and intent 17.64.030 Definitions . 17:64.040 Applicability 17.64.042 Exemptions 17.64.050 Site development criteria 17.64.052 General development standards 17.64.060 Operations and maintenance standards 17.64.070 Conditional use permit 17.64.010 Title. This chapter shall be titled the Communication Facilities Ordinance of the city of Rohnert Park. 17.64.020 Purpose and intent. The purpose and intent of this chapter is to establish development standards to regulate the placement and design of Communication Facilities so as to preserve the unique visual character of the city; to establish development standards which are consistent with federal law related to the development of Communication Facilities; to acknowledge the community benefit associated with the provision of communication services within the, city; and to provide incentives for well designed and well placed facilities. 17.64.030 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the following words, phrases, and terms shall have the meanings set forth herein. Words not defined shall be given their common and ordinary meaning. "Antenna" means any system of poles, panels, rods, reflecting discs or similar devices used for the transmission or reception of electromagnetic waves or radio frequency signals. V PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT --11/8/00 "Collocation" means the location of two or more wireless, hard wire, or cable Communication Facilities on a single support structure or otherwise sharing a common location. Collocation shall also include the location of Communication Facilities with other facilities such as water tanks, light standards, and other utility facilities and structures. " Communication facility" means an unstaffed facility, generally consisting of antennas, and equipment cabinet or structure, and related equipment, which receives and/or transmits electromagnetic waves, light waves, radio frequencies or other types of signals. "Equipment cabinet" means a cabinet or structure used to house equipment associated with a wireless, hard wire, or cable communication facility. "Monopole" means a single freestanding pole, post, or similar structure, used to support equipment associated with a single communication facility. "Multipoint Distribution Service" means a microwave communication service that delivers video programming data and/or voice communication directly to subscribers, including multichannel multipoint distribution series instructional television fixed services, and local multipoint distribution services or as defined by the Section 207 -of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Section 1.4000 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations and any interpretative decisions thereof issued by the Federal Communications Commission. "Service provider" means any authorized provider of communication `services. "Tower" means any ground or roof mounted pole, spire, structure, or combination thereof taller than 15 feet, including supporting lines, cables, wires, braces, and masts, intended primarily for the purpose of mounting an antenna or similar apparatus above grade. 17.64.040 Applicability. This Section shall apply to all proposed Communication Facilities, except as provided for in Section 17.64.042. A conditional use permit is required for the following uses: A. A Communications Facility that does not meet the applicable site development criteria, general development standards, and operation and maintenance standards outlined in Sections 17.64.050, 17.64.052, and 17.64.60, respectively. B. A Tower in a non-residential and non -mixed-use zoning district over 35' in. height; provided, however, that a Tower of any height shall.be prohibited in all residential and mixed-use zoning districts, except as set forth in Section 17.64.042 below; C. A Communications Facility, with a backup generator, located in a commercial or residential zoning district and a Communication Facility, in any zoning district, with an ancillary fuel storage tank(s) to support the backup power supply. 'tl PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT --11/8/00 D. A Communications Facility or Tower that would not otherwise be permitted by this Chapter but that is necessary for the adequate development of facilities to serve all areas within the city, to promote competition and achieve open access if the Planning Commission can make the findings set forth in Section 17.52.090. All proposed Communication Facilities that require a conditional use permit shall also require environmental review in accordance with the. California Environmental Quality Act. 17.64.042 Exemptions. A conditional use permit shall not be required for Communication Facilities meeting the follow criteria: . A. Antennas that are installed, placed, or maintained under the roof, or do not extend above the roof, or are behind and below an approved roof screen and do not protrude above the highest point of the building or are camouflaged in. such a way as to not be visible from a public right-of-way or other property. However, staff approval from the Planning Department shall be . required to ensure that such antennas comply with the standards set forth in this subsection. Historically significant buildings and structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register, identified as an historic structure in a local historic survey or registry or as determined by a qualified architectural historian as having significant historic contribution to the area shall not be exempt. B. The following Communication Facilities also shall not require a conditional use permit provided that the antenna is mounted on a mast less than twelve feet (12') high, is not located on an historic building, and is not readily visible from a public right-of-way: 1. Any antenna structure that is .one meter (39.37 .inches) or less in diameter and is designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service, including direct -to -home satellite service, as defined by Section 207 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Title 47 of, the Code of Federal Regulations, and any interpretive decisions thereof issued by the Federal Communications Commission. 2. Any antenna structure that is two meters (78.74 inches) or less in diameter located in a commercial or industrial zone and is designed to transmit or receive Radio Communications by Satellite or Terrestrial Communications Antenna. . 3. Any antenna structure that is one meter (39.37 inches) or less in diameter or diagonal measurement and is designed for subscribing to a Multipoint Distribution Service. 4. Any antenna that is designed 'and used solely to receive television broadcast transmission. 3 v PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT --11/8/00 C. Any antenna structure that is designed and used solely in connection with authorized operations of an amateur radio station licensed by the FCC (i.e., a "HAM" radio transmission) provided there is no more than one structure on a single parcel and that the antenna structure does not exceed maximum building height limits of the zoning district. 17.64.050 Site development criteria. The following development standards shall apply to the development of all new Communication Facilities within the city of Rohnert Park: A. Spacing and collocation. 1. New Communication Facilities shall be collocated with existing facilities and with other planned new facilities whenever feasible and aesthetically desirable. In addition, where feasible and aesthetically desirable, service .providers are encouraged to collocate with other facilities such as water tanks, light standards, and other utility structures where the collocation, is found to minimize the overall visual impact. Service providers shall exhaust all reasonable measures to co -locate their Communications Facilities on existing Towers or with or within existing ancillary support equipment facilities prior to applying for new Communication Facility sites. The service provider shall provide evidence that the provider has contacted all other potential providers who have, or who are reasonably likely to be installing facilities within the vicinity of the proposed facility and has offered to participate in a joint installation project on reasonable terms. In order to facilitate collocation, conditions of approval for conditional use permits for new facilities shall require all service providers to cooperate in the siting of equipment and antennas to accommodate the maximum number of operators at a given site where found to be feasible and aesthetically desirable. 2. A minimum distance of 1,000' shall be provided between Towers. There shall be a maximum of two Towers per assessor's parcel or developed site. 3. A service provider shall not locate more than one antenna in any one neighborhood unless additional antennas are approved by the Planning Commission. B. Height. 1. All ground mounted communication equipment, antennas, poles or towers shall be of a minimum functional, height. 2. The height of a Tower located on the ground shall not exceed 35'. However, if a Tower is located in a district with a height limit greater than 35', then the Tower may exceed 35' if a conditional use, permit is first approved by the Planning Commission. A Tower, however, shall not exceed 65' when located adjacent to residentially zoned properties and shall be setback at a ratio of two horizontal feet for every one -foot in height and shall not be readily visible to the nearest residentially zoned property. Under no circumstances shall a Tower be higher than 75'. If it is determined that a Tower requires hazard lights to meet the safety requirements of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), or the California Highway Patrol (CHP), then the Tower shall be deemed too high. 4 PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT --11/8/00 3. The height of a Communications Facility located on a building shall not exceed 15' above the maximum height limit for that district. 4. Antennas mounted on the side of a building shall not extend above the building parapet. C. Colors and materials. All antennas, poles, towers or equipment, including ancillary support equipment, shall have a non -reflective finish and shall be painted or otherwise treated to match or blend with the primary background and minimize visual impacts. Antennas attached to a building shall be painted or otherwise treated, to match the exterior of the building or the antenna's background color. All ground -mounted equipment shall be covered with a clear anti - graffiti type material of a type approved by the Planning Director or shall be adequately secured to prevent graffiti. D. Screening. All ground mounted equipment, antennas, poles, or towers shall be sited to be screened by existing development, topography, or vegetation, to the extent feasible. Ground mounted facilities are encouraged to be located within buildings, underground, or in areas where substantial screening by existing buildings or vegetation can be achieved. Additional new vegetation or other screening may be required by the Planning Director or by the Planning Commission if a conditional use permit is required. The applicant shall use the smallest and least visible antennas possible to accomplish the owner/operator's coverage objectives. (See also Section 17.64.050.E. Siting below.) E. Siting. 1. Communication Facilities located on the roof of a building oflegally legally conforming height shall be set back from the nearest roof edge the equivalent of the height of the Tower or a minimum of 10', whichever is greater. 2. Towers and antennas shall be setback at a ratio of two horizontal feet for every one foot in height and shall not be readily visible to the nearest residentially zoned property. 3. Towers and antennas shall be set back from any site boundary or public right-of-way by a minimum of 25'. No part of any Tower shall extend into any required front yard or beyond the property lines of the development site. 4. In order of preference, ancillary support equipment .for a communication facility shall be located either within a building, underground, in a rear yard or on a screened roof top area. Ground mounted facilities that are located within the front or side yard or public right-of-way shall be located so as to be screened by landscaping, in close proximity to existing above ground utilities (such as electrical tower or utility poles), light poles, trees of,comparable height, water tanks, and other areas where the ground mounted facility will not detract from the image or appearance of the City. (See also Section 17.64.050 D. Screening above.) PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT --11/8/00 F. Power lines. All power lines to and within a communications site shall be underground. G. Backup Power Supplies. All backup power supplies (e.g., generators) located in an industrial zoning district shall be enclosed within an equipment enclosure and operated in accordance with Section 17.64.060.C. of this Chapter. Backup power supplies for Communication Facilities located in commercial or residential zoning districts shall require the approval of a conditional. use permit by the Planning Commission. In any zoning district, ancillary fuel storage tank(s) to support backup power supplies shall require approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. 17.64.052. General development standards. A. Each facility shall comply with any and all applicable provisions of the Rohnert Park Municipal Code and any state or federal agency including, but not limited to,, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). B. Certification must be provided that the proposed facility will at all times comply with all applicable health requirements and standards pertaining to electromagnetic and/or radio frequency radiation. C. Interference with city communication systems is prohibited. All proposed facility applications shall include reports, as required by the Department of Public Safety, to evaluate for potential interference (e.g., HF, UHF, VHF, eight hundred mHz). The applicant shall be responsible for any costs incurred, by the city, including the costs of retaining consultants, to review and analyze the reports. D. The owner or operator of any facility shall submit and maintain current at all times basic contact and site information. Applicant shall notify city of any changes to the information submitted within thirty days of any change, including change of the name or legal status of the owner or operator.. This information shall include, but is not limited to the following: 1. Identity, including name, address, and telephone number, and legal status of the owner of the facility including official identification numbers and FCC certification, and if different from the owner, the identity and legal status of the person or entity responsible for operating the facility; 2. Name, address and telephone number of a local contact person for emergencies; and 3. Type of service provided. Identification signs, including emergency phone numbers of the utility provider, shall be posted at all communication facility sites. E. As part of project review, the Planning Commission, the City Council (on appeals), or staff may require additional screening and/or landscaping, undergrounding, an alternative color - 6 PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT --11/8/00 scheme, or relocation of a tower or ancillary equipment to a less obtrusive area of the site where it would have a less prominent visual presence due to slope, topography, size or relationship.to public right-of-ways. F. Discontinuation of use. All equipment associated with a Communication Facility shall be removed within thirty days of the discontinuation of the use and the site shall be restored to its original pre -construction condition. In addition, the service provider shall provide the city with a notice of intent to vacate a site a minimum of thirty days prior to the vacation. For facilities to be located on public property, this removal requirement, and appropriate bonding requirement, shall be included within the terms of the lease. For facilities to be located on private property, since the subject property owner shall be ultimately responsible for removal of the equipment, the terms of private leases are encouraged to include the equipment removal as a provision of the lease. G. A Communication Facility shall not adversely affect the public health, peace, safety or welfare. H. For service providers, who plan to establish multiple wireless Communication Facilities within the city,'the service provider is encouraged to apply for approval of all facilities under a master use permit application. Under this approach, all proposed facilities may be acted upon by the city as a single application. I. In the event that the Planning -Director or Planning Commission needs assistance in understanding the technical aspects of a particular proposal, services of a communications consultant may be requested to determine the -engineering or screening requirements of establishing a specific wireless communications facility. This service -will be at the applicant's expense. 17.64.060 Operations and maintenance standards. A. All Communication Facilities and related equipment, including lighting, fences, shields, cabinets, and poles shall be maintained in good repair, free from trash, debris, litter and graffiti and other forms of vandalism, and any damage from any cause shall be repaired as soon as reasonably possible so as to minimize occurrences. of dangerous conditions or visual blight. Graffiti shall be removed from any facility or equipment as soon as practicable, and in no instances more than forty-eight (48) hours from the time of notification by the city. B. Each Communication Facility which contains trees, foliage or other landscaping elements, whether or not used as screening, shall be maintained in good condition at all times in accordance with the approved landscape plan, and the owner or operator of the facility shall be responsible for replacing any damaged, dead or decayed landscaping as promptly as reasonably possible. Amendments or modifications to the landscape plan shall be submitted for approval to the Planning Director. 7 PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT --11/8/00 C. Each Communication Facility shall be operated in such a manner so as to minimize any possible disruption caused by noise. Backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power outages, and shall not be tested on weekends or holidays, or between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. on weekday nights. At no time shall equipment noise from any source exceed an exterior noise level of sixty (60) dB at the property line. D. Each owner or operator of a facility shall routinely and regularly inspect each site to ensure compliance with the standards set forth in this section. SECTION THREE. Severability. The city council hereby declares that every section, paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase is severable. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this article is for any reason found to be invalid or unconstitutional, such valid, or constitutionality shall not affect the validity or unconstitutionality of the remaining sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases. DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED this th day of ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk Judy Hauff CITY OF ROHNERT PARK Mayor Vicki Vidak-Martinez 8 APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Betsy Strauss 2000. r ROHNERT PARK PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES THURSDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2000. The Planning Commission of the City of Rohnert Park met this date in a regular session commencing at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Conference Room, 6750 Commerce Blvd., with Chairperson Kilat presiding. -,;w Call To Order Chairperson Kilat called the meeting of the regular session to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. with Associate Planner Ron Bendorff leading the pledge. Roll Call Present (4) Commissioners: Kilat, Mochel, Nordin, and Nilson Absent (1) Commissioner Militello Planning Director, Nancy Kaufman, Associate Planner, Ron Bendorff, and Recording Clerk, Maria McConnell, were present. Approval of MinutesI Upon motion by Commissioner Mochel, and seconded commissioner Nordin, the Minutes of September 28, 2000, were unanimously ajVroved. Unscheduled Public Appearances Gordon Anderson, 6050 Commerce Blvd., ohnert Park, was recognized and stated he wished to address the Planning Co ission regarding the Planning Commission meeting of September 14, 2000 an ile No. 1694 approving the expansion of Next Level Communications. Hestat he had corrections to the Minutes of that meeting he wished to submit. Mr. Anderson reference page 7, paragraph 11. .He stated that Mr. Oates did, not work with the adjacebusiness owners and this is an untruth. He stated that Mr. Oates was testi g under oath and paragraph 11 is a misstatement that is then left open to intetpretation. Mr. Ande on referenced page 8, paragraph 15, wherein Commissioner Mochel asked at the item be held over and in paragraph 23, Commissioner Militello stated tha ime is money." Mr. Anderson felt this was a demonstration of a "conflict of jnferesf and that Commissioner Militello had a bias under the Brown Act in that the hearing body is not to have a preconceived attitude and Commissioner Militello's statement could be construed as a conflict of interest. Mr. Anderson referenced second to last paragraph,on page 8, Chairperson Kilat's statement that the developer address the jobs/housing imbalance and the second paragraph on page 9 regarding traffic mitigation. He stated he oversaw AirTrac for many years and this company conducts studies as to why people use one form of Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 2000 . . V Park. Commissioner Mochel complimented Agilent Technologies for the use o landscape materials and the planting of large trees.Chairperson Kila agreed with Commissioner Mochel and asked that 15 -gallon trees be used in ' landscape plan. Chairperson Kilat stated she wished to address the sever ousing problem in the Bay area and referenced the new General Plan's requi ent that the city maintain a job/housing balance. She advised the represe ives of Agilent Technologies that a suggestion was made to Next Level munications during their recent Planning Commission appearance, that the consider working with the city in the future to consider having dialogue as to at they can do to provide housing for their future employees. Mr. Dan Condron, stated Agilen echnologies is very active in the housing coalition and they, in fact, recently me ith the housing trust from Silicon Valley and they are in the process of:-.puttin ogether a housing trust for this area. Mr. Condron reassured the Cbmmi oners that housing is one of their main concerns as they recognize that hous' g is a business issue as well. Commissioner cchel and Commissioner Nordin complimented Agilent for being a leader in th raining of local workers and hoping that other businesses follow their lead. Com ssioner Mochel stated they are doing a great service to alleviate some of the un sprawl problems. Commissioner Nordin made the motion to approve Resolution 2000-36 approving Site Plan and Architectural Review for the expansion of an existing building and Use Permit, Site Plan and Architectural Review of a temporary modular office building, motion seconded by Commissioner Nilson, and unanimously approved. File No. 1899 Planning Director, Nancy Kaufman, reviewed the staff report on an Ordinance of the Wireless City of Rohnert Park repealing the existing Chapter 17.64, Wireless Communication Communication Facilities, to the Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) and adding a new Chapter Facilities 17.64, Communication Facilities to the Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance). Ordinance Amendment Planning Director, Nancy Kaufman, reviewed the history of the Ordinance and stated that on June 27, 2000 the City Council adopted a 90 -day Urgency Ordinance directing the development of a Telecommunications Ordinance and prohibiting the issuance of encroachment permits for telecommunications purposes in, the interim. The Telecommunications Ordinance was approved by the City Council on September 26, 2000. She further stated that as a companion to the Telecommunications Ordinance, the existing Wireless Communication Facilities regulations contained in Chapter 17.64 of the Zoning Ordinance have been revised and updated to reflect current technologies and to address the aesthetic concerns with ancillary support equipment associated with' both wireless and cable or fiber optic facilities. The changes indicated in the proposed ordinance are those that have been made since the ordinance was distributed to the telecommunication companies for review and comment. Although the proposed ordinance is similar to the existing Wireless Communication ordinance, it has been expanded to cover a wide range of communication facilities including electromagnetic waves, light waves, radio 10 Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 2000 frequencies and other types of signals. The exemptions and site development criteria also have been expanded to address new technologies for example, Direct TV, and to cover more thoroughly criteria relating to height, colors, materials, screening, and siting of antennas, poles, towers, and ancillary equipment Planning Director, Nancy Kaufman, stated she did receive comments from Advanced TelCom Group asking for a rewording of the Ordinance and read the rewording contained in Sections 17.64.030; 17.64.042(B)(2) page 3; Section 17.64.052(E) page 6. In addition, Advanced TelCom Group requested that the maximum height for exempted towers be increased from 35' to 40' which staff recommends against. Chairperson Kilat asked how this ordinance differs from one presented by Planning Director, Wendie Schulenburg wherein cellular poles and- co -location sites were to be identified. Planning Director,:Nancy Kaufman, stated that if all criteria's are met and they are asking for additiiAal height, a Conditional Use Permit would be required. Chairperson Kilat expressed concern regarding EMF (electronic magnetic fields) and a proliferation ,of these towers being placed all over the city. Planning Director, Nancy Kaufman, stated there are not any standards at this time addressing EMF's but if and when they are established they would be addressed by the requirement that the facilities not affect the public health and safety. She also stated that there are limitations as to how much the City can regulate certain facilities.' Commissioner Nilson asked if this Ordinance is modeled after other city's Ordinances. Planning Director, .Nancy Kaufman; stated it is,,however, the technology is changing so rapidly, the city has had to be very creative in addressing the issues as they are presented to us. Commissioner. Mochel asked if the Ordinance applies to antennas in residential areas. Planning Director, Nancy Kaufman, stated if the antenna is screened and not visible from a public right-of-way or adjacent property, it is exempt. Commissioner Mochel referenced Section 17.64.042, page 3 and stated it virtually exempts ham radio operators. Planning Director, Nancy Kaufman, stated ham radio operators are regulated by the .FCC and are very important during emergencies and they are a public interest so the city doesn't regulate them. She stated she would research this further and bring the information back to the Commissioners at the next meeting or she could advise the City Council that the Planning Commission asked that they study the matter further. Commissioner Mochel state that the Commission or Council should be able to require a change in a facility if problems that were not anticipated in the review occur. Commissioner Nilson stated he feels an applicant should be able to move forward 11 Planning Commission Minutes Matters from Commissioners October 12, 2000 on a project after they have been approved by the Planning Commission and be assured -we are not going to later change the rules on them after the fact. Discussion ensued' regarding equipment removal and added conditions to the Ordinance and the possibility of the burden being on the city to remove outdated equipment. Planning Director, Nancy Kaufman, stated the city doesn't have control over private property matters and if they meet all the conditions in the Ordinance, the applicant doesn't need prior approval. She stated that the Telecommunication Ordinance approved by the City Council is very detailed. Chairperson Kilat opened the public hearing. With no one wishing to speak on this item, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Nordin made the motion recommending approval of the Resolution to the City Council with the addition of the changes recommended in the Planning Director's memq.� of October 12, 2000, and directing staff to look into ham radio . operators and limiting the. amount of towers in any one neighborhood, motion seconded by Commissioner Mochel and unanimously approved. Chairperson Kilat asked staff who is conducting the traffic studies throughout the city. Planning Director, Nancy Kaufman, stated that the City does n now, but they may be s the challengers to the General Plan who have filed Alawsuit against the city. Chairperson Kilat concurred. Chairperson Kilat asked if there isn't a require ent that traffic engineers have to notify the city that they are putting cables acr s the roadways. Planning Director, Nancy Kaufman, states that the City Engineer, Joe Gaffney did not have to approve the study bXhe would like to see the data when the studies are com Matters from Planning Director, Nancy ufman, advised that Next Level, the remodel of the Planning Director Good Nite Inn, and Ma triHotel eSuites were approved by the City Council at their meeting of October 1 , 2000. Planning Direct , Nancy Kaufman, stated there has been some changes made to the formattiggof the staff reports and agenda and asked if the Commissioners had any inputt6 those changes and if so, please advise staff. Pla ing Director, Nancy Kaufman, advised the Commissioners that Associate P nner, Ron Bendorff and herself are working on a new Zoning Ordinance. She asked for direction from the Planning Commission if they would like to hold study sessions, set up a committee or use the intemet to implement the changes to the Zoning Ordinance. She stated she welcomed input from the Commissioners as to how they would like to see the revision handled. Commissioner Nilson recommended that the Zoning Ordinance revisions be included in regularly scheduled .meetings of the Planning Commission: Commissioner Mochel recommended one meeting for regular Planning Commission 12 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-37. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION .OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE REPEALING THE EXISTING CHAPTER 17.64 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 17.64 TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO COMMUNICATION FACILITIES WHEREAS, on June 27, 2000 the City Council adopted a 90 -day Urgency Ordinance directing the development of a Telecommunications Ordinance and prohibiting the issuance of encroachment permits for telecommunications purposes in interim. WHEREAS, on September 26, 2000 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 660 adding Chapter 5.34 to the Rohrie6 Park Municipal Code relating to the use of the public rights- of-way and public property for telecommunications, phone, gas, electric, and other facilities and services. WHEREAS, as a companion to the Telecommunications Ordinance, the existing Wireless Communication Facilities regulations contained in Chapter 17.64 of the Zoning Ordinance have been revised and updated to.reflect current technologies and to address the aesthetic concerns with ancillary support equipment associated with both wireless and cable or fiber optic facilities. WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 1899, the proposed Communication Facilities Ordinance, was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, on October '12, 2000, the Planning Commission 'reviewed Planning Application No. 1899, the proposed Communication Facilities Ordinance, during a scheduled public meeting at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to the project; and, WHEREAS, at the October 12, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all the facts. relating to Planning Application No. 1899, the proposed Communication Facilities Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. Findings. The Planning Commission, in recommending- approval -to the City Council of Planning Application No. 1899, the proposed Communication Facilities Ordinance, makes the following findings, to wit: 1. The proposed zoning text change is consistent with the overall intent of the Community Design and Public Facilities Elements of the General Plan relative to the aesthetic quality of the city and the provision of infrastructure to both existing and future residents. 2. That a duly noticed public hearing has been held to receive and consider public testimony regarding the proposed zone change. 3. An Initial Study was prepared for the project, and on the basis of substantial evidence in the whole record before the Commission, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment, therefore a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be approved which reflects the lead agency's independent judgement and analysis. The Planning Director in the -City of Rohnert Park Planning Department shall maintain the record of the proceeding on which this decision is based. 4. The project would not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, including but not limited to plants, fish, insects; animals and birds. There are no native species or plants, no unique, rare, threatened, or endangered species of plants, no sensitive native vegetation on or adjacent to the site. Further, there is no indication that any wildlife species exist, or that the site serves as a migration corridor. A DeMinimus impact finding can be made for this,project. Section 3. Environmental Clearance.. An Initial Study was prepared for this project and indicates that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, and accordingly a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby adopted. I NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the proposed -Communication Facilities Ordinance, Planning Application No. 1899 DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED on this 12th day of October, 2000, by the City of Rohnert Park Planning Commission by the following vote: Shawn Kilat, Chairperson, Rohnert Park Planning Commission Attest: Maria McConnell, Recording Secretary AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MILITELLO MOCHEL NILSON NORDIN KILAT 2 "i Purpose and intent 17.64.030 i, •I r•� 17.64.042 Exemptions . 17.64.050 f�P 17.64.052 General development standards 17.64.060 Operations and maintenance standards 17.64.070 Conditional use permit ORDINANCE NO. 2000 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK REPEALING THE EXISTING CHAPTER 17.64 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 17.64 TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO COMMUNICATION FACILITIES The City Council of the City of Rohnert Park does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION ONE. Chapter 17.64 of the Rohnert Park Municipal Code is repealed. SECTION TWO. A new Chapter 17:64 is added to the Rohnert Park Municipal Code as follows; CHAPTER 17.64 COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Sections: 17.64.010 Title 17.64.020 Purpose and intent 17.64.030 Definitions 17.64.040 Applicability 17.64.042 Exemptions . 17.64.050 Site development criteria 17.64.052 General development standards 17.64.060 Operations and maintenance standards 17.64.070 Conditional use permit 17.64.010 Title. This chapter shall be titled the Communication Facilities Ordinance of the city of RohnertPark. 17.64.020 Purpose and intent. The purpose and intent of this chapter is to establish development standards to regulate the placement and design of Communication Facilities so as to preserve the unique visual character of the city; to establish development standards which are consistent with federal law related to the development of Communication. Facilities; to acknowledge the community benefit associated with the provision of communication services within the city; and to provide incentives for well designed and well placed facilities. 17.64.030 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the following words, phrases, and terms shall have the meanings set forth herein. Words not defined shall be given their common and ordinary meaning. "Antenna" means any system of poles, panels, rods, reflecting discs or similar devices used for the transmission or reception of electromagnetic waves or radio frequency signals. "Collocation" means the location of two or more wireless, hard wire, or cable Communication Facilities on a single support structure or otherwise sharing a common location. Collocation shall also include the location of Communication Facilities with other facilities such as water tanks, light standards, and other utility facilities and structures. " Communication facility" means an unstaffed facility, generally consisting of antennas, and equipment cabinet or structure, and related equipment, which receives and/or transmits electromagnetic waves, light waves, radio frequencies or other types of signals. "Equipment cabinet" means a cabinet or structure used to house equipment associated with a wireless, hard wire, or cable communication facility. "Monopole" means a single freestanding pole, post, or similar structure, used to support equipment associated with a single communication facility. "Multipoint Distribution Service" means a. wireless system that is designed to deliver data through the air at rates of up to 155 Mbps (typical cell phone voice calls use between 8 and 64 kbps depending on the system). "Service provider" means any authorized provider of communication `services. "Tower" means any ground or roof mounted pole, spire, structure, or, combination thereof taller than 15 feet, including supporting lines, cables, wires, braces, and masts, intended primarily for the purpose of mounting an antenna or similar apparatus above grade. 17.64.040 Applicability. This Section shall apply to all proposed Communication Facilities, el✓xcept as provided for in Section 17.64.042. A -a conditional use permit is'required for the following uses: A. A Communications Facility that does not meet the applicable site development criteria, general development standards, and operation and maintenance standards outlined in Sections 17.64.050, 17.64.052, and 17.64.60, respectively. B. A Tower in a non-residential and non -mixed-use zoning district over 35' in height; provided, however, that a Tower of any height shall be prohibited in all residential and mixed-use zoning districts, except as set forth in Section 17.64.042 below; and C. _ A Communications Facility with a backup power supply (e.g., generator) located in a commercial or residential zoning district. A Coimnunication Facility, in any zoning district, with an ancillary fuel storage tank(s) to support the backgp power supply. DQ A Communications Facility or Tower that would not otherwise be permitted by this Chapter but that is necessary for the adequate development of facilities to serve all areas within the city, to promote competition and achieve open access if the Planning Commission can make the findings set forth in Section 17.52.090. z All proposed Communication Facilities that require a conditional use permit shall also require environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. , 17.64.042 Exemptions. A conditional. use permit shall not be required for Communication Facilities meeting the follow criteria: A. Antennas that are installed, placed, or maintained under the roof, or do not extend above the roof, or are behind and below an approved roof screen and do not protrude above the highest.point of the building or are camouflaged in such a way as to not be visible from a public, right-of-way or other property. However, staff approval -from the Planning and, Building Departments shall be required to ensure that such'antennas comply with the standards set forth in this subsection. Historically significant buildings and structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register, identified as an historic structure in a local historic survey or registry or as determined. by a qualified architectural historian as having significant historic contribution to the area shall not be exempt. B. The following Communication Facilities also shall not require a conditional use permit provided that the antenna is mounted on a mast less than twelve feet (12') high, is not located on an historic building, and is not readily visible from a public right-of-way: 1. Any antenna structure that is one meter (39.37 inches) or less,in diameter and is designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service; including direct -to -home satellite service, as defined by Section 207 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and any interpretive decisions thereof -issued by the Federal Communications Commission. 2. Any antenna structure that is two meters (78.74 inches) or less in diameter located in a commercial or industrial zone and is designed to transmit or receive Radio Communications by Satellite Antenna. 3. Any antenna structure that is one meter (39.37 inches) or less in diameter or diagonal measurement and is designed for subscribing to a Multipoint Distribution Service. 4. Any antenna that is designed and used solely to receive television . broadcast transmission. C. Any antenna structure that is designed and used solely in connection with authorized operations of an amateur radio station licensed by the FCC (i.e., a "HAM" radio transmission) provided. that the antenna structure does not exceed maximum building height limits of the zoning district. 17.64.050 Site development criteria. The following development standards shall apply to the development of all new Communication Facilities within the city of Rohnert Park: 3 A. Spacing and collocation. 1. New Communication Facilities shall be collocated with existing facilities and with other planned new facilities whenever feasible and aesthetically desirable. In addition, where feasible and aesthetically desirable, service providers are encouraged to collocate with other facilities such as water tanks, light standards, and other utility structures where the collocation, is found to minimize the overall visual impact. Service providers shall exhaust all reasonable measures to co -locate their Communications Facilities on existing Towers or with or within existing ancillary support equipment facilities prior to applying for new Communication Facility sites. The service provider shall provide evidence that the provider has contacted all other potential providers who have, or who are reasonably likely to be installing facilities within the vicinity of the proposed facility and has offered to participate in a joint installation project on reasonable terms. In order to facilitate collocation, conditions of approval for conditional use permits for new facilities shall require all service providers to cooperate in the siting of equipment and antennas to accommodate the maximum numb¢r bf operators at a given site where found to be feasible and aesthetically desirable. 2. A minimum distance of 1,000' shall be provided between Towers. There shall be a maximum of two Towers per assessor's parcel or developed site. B. Height. 1. All ground mounted communication equipment, antennas, poles or towers shall be of a minimum functional, height. 2. The height of a Tower located on the ground shall not exceed 35'. However, if a Tower is located in a district with a height limit greater than 35', then the Tower may exceed 35' if a conditional use permit is first approved by the Planning Commission. A Tower, however, shall not exceed 65' when located adjacent to residentially zoned properties and shall be setback at a ratio of two horizontal feet for every one=foot in height and shall not be readily visible to the nearest residentially zoned property. Under no circumstances shall a Tower be higher than 75'. If it is determined that a Tower requires hazard lights to meet the safety requirements of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), or the California Highway Patrol (CHP), then the Tower shall be deemed too high. 3. The height of a Communications Facility located on a building shall not exceed 15' above the maximum height limit for that district. 4. Antennas mounted on the side of a building shall not extend above the building parapet. C. Colors and materials. All antennas, poles, towers or equipment, including ancillary support equipment, shall have a non -reflective finish and shall be painted or otherwise treated to match or blend with the primary background and minimize visual impacts. Antennas attached to a building shall be painted or otherwise treated to match the exterior of the building or the antenna's. background color. All ground -mounted equipment shall be covered with a clear anti - graffiti type material of a type approved by the Planning Director or shall be adequately secured 4 to prevent graffiti. D. Screening. All ground mounted equipment, antennas, poles, or towers shall be sited to.be screened by existing development, topography, or vegetation, to the extent feasible. Ground mounted facilities are encouraged to be located within areas where substantial screening by existing vegetation can be achieved. Additional new vegetation or other screening may be required by the Planning Director or by the Planning Commission if a conditional use permit is required. . The applicant shall use the smallest and least visible antennas possible to accomplish the owner/operator's coverage objectives. (See also Section 17.64.050.E. Siting below.) E. Siting. 1. Communication Facilities located on the roof of a building of legally conforming height shall be set back from the nearest roof edge the equivalent of the height of the Tower or a minimum of 10', whichever is greaten:' 2. Towers and antennas shall be setback at a ratio of two horizontal feet for every one foot in height and shall not be readily visible to the nearest residentially zoned property. 3. Towers and antennas shall be set back from. any site boundaryor public right-of-way by a minimum of 25'. No part of any Tower shall extend into any required front yard or beyond the property lines of the development site. 4. In order of preference, ancillary support equipment for a communication facility shall be located either within a building, in a rear yard or on .a screened roof top area. Ground mounted facilities that are located within the front or side yard or public right-of-way shall be located so as to be screened by landscaping, in close proximity to existing above ground utilities (such as electrical tower or utility poles), light poles, trees of comparable height; water tanks, and other areas where the ground mounted facility will not detract from the image or appearance of the City. (See also Section 17.64.050 D. Screening above.) F. . Power lines. All power lines to and within a communications site shall. be underground. G. Bacicup Power Supplies. All backup power supplies (e.g., generators) located in an industrial zoning district shall be enclosed within an equipment enclosure and operated in accordance with Section 17.64.060.0. of this Chapter. .Backup power supplies for Communication Facilities located in commercial or residential zoning districts shall require the approval of a conditional use pen -nit by the Planning Corrunission. In any zoning district ancillary fuel storage tank(s) to support back -tip power supplies shall require approval of a conditional use pen -nit by the Planning Commission. 17.64.052. General development standards. A. Each facility shall comply with any and all applicable provisions of the Rohnert Park Municipal Code and any state or federal agency including, but not limited to, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). B. Certification must be provided that the proposed facility will at all times comply with all applicable health requirements and standards pertaining , to electromagnetic and/or radio' frequency radiation. C. Interference with city communication systems is prohibited. All proposed facility applications shall include reports, as required by the Department of Public Safety, to evaluate for potential interference e.g HF, UHF, VHF, eight hundred mHz). The applicant shall be responsible for any costs incurred by the city, including the costs of retaining consultants, to review and analyze the reports. D. The owner or operator of any facility shall submit and maintain current at all times basic contact and site information.', Applicant shall notify city of any changes to the information submitted within thirty days of any change, including change of the name or legal status of the owner or operator. This information shall include, but is not'limited to the following: 1. Identity, including name, address, and telephone number, and legal status of the owner of the facility including official identification numbers and FCC certification, and if different from the owner, the identity and legal status of the person or entity responsible for operating the facility;, 2. Name, address and telephone number of a local contact person for emergencies; and 3. Type of service provided. Identification signs, including emergency phone numbers of the utility provider, shall be posted at all communication facility sites. E. The Planning Commission or staff may require additional screening and/or landscaping, an alternative color scheme, or relocation of a tower or ancillary equipment to a less obtrusive area of the site where it would have a less prominent visual presence due to slope, topography, size or relationship to public right-of-ways. F. Discontinuation of use. All equipment associated with a Communication Facility shall be removed within thirty days of the discontinuation of the use and the site shall be restored to its original pre -construction condition. In addition, the service provider shall provide the city with a notice of intent to vacate a site a minimum of thirty days prior to the vacation. For facilities to be located on public property, this removal requirement, and appropriate bonding requirement, shall be included within the terms of the lease. For facilities to be located on private property, since the subject property owner shall be ultimately responsible for removal of the equipment, the terms of private leases are encouraged to include the equipment removal as a provision of the lease. G. A Communication Facility shall not adversely affect the public health, peace, safety or welfare. 6 H. For service providers, who plan to establish multiple wireless Communication Facilities within the city, the service provider is encouraged to apply 'for approval of all facilities under a master use permit application. Under this approach, all proposed facilities may be acted upon by the city as a single application. I. In the event that the Planning Director or Planning Commission needs assistance in understanding the technical aspects of a particular proposal, services of a communications consultant may be requested to determine the - engineering or screening requirements .of establishing a specific wireless communications facility. This service will be at the applicant's expense. 17.64.060 Operations and maintenance standards. A. All Communication Facilities and related equipment, including lighting, fences, shields, cabinets, and poles shall be maintained in good repair, free from trash, debris, litter and graffiti and other forms of vandalism, and any damage from any cause shall be repaired as soon as reasonably possible so as to minimize occurrences of dangerous conditions or visual blight. Graffiti shall be removed from any facility or equipment as soon as practicable, and in no instances more than forty-eight (48) hours from the time of notification by the city. B. Each Communication Facility which contains trees, foliage or other landscaping elements, whether or not used as screening, shall be maintained in good condition at all times in accordance with the approved landscape plan, and the owner or operator of the facility shall be responsible for replacing any damaged,. dead or decayed landscaping as promptly as reasonably possible. Amendments or modifications to the landscape plan shall be submitted for approval to the Planning Director. C. Each Communication Facility shall be operated in such a manner so as to minimize any possible disruption caused by noise. Backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power outages, and shall not be tested on weekends or holidays, or between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. on weekday nights. At no time shall. equipment noise from any source exceed an exterior noise level of sixty (60) dB at the property line. D. Each owner or operator of a facility shall routinely and regularly inspect each site to ensure compliance with the standards set forth in this section. SECTION THREE. Severability. The city council hereby declares that every section, paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase is severable. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this article .is for any reason found to be invalid or unconstitutional, such valid, or constitutionality shall not affect the validity or unconstitutionality of the remaining sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases. DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED this th day of Mayor Vicki Vidak-Martinez ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Deputy City Clerk Judy Hauff City Attorney Betsy.Strauss 8 2000. ;} r City of ROHNERT DEPARTMENT TO: Chairperson Kilat and Members of the Commission COPY. Betsy Strauss, City Attorney Angela Fogle, Management Analyst FROM: Nancy Kaufman Alr__ Planning 8s Community Dev. Director DATE: October 12, 2000 SUBJECT: Changes to the Draft Communication ,Facilities Ordinance --Agenda Item No. 6 Based on additional information and comments received from Advanced TelCom Group, the following changes to the draft Communications Facilities Ordinance are proposed: 1. Section 17.64.030 Definitions (page 2): Replace definition of "Multipoint Distribution' Service" with the following: "...means a Microwave' Communication service that delivers 'video programming, data . and/or voice communication directly to subscribers, including multichannel multipoint distribution series, . instructional television fixed services, and local multipoint distribution services, or as defined by the Section 207 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Section 1.4000 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations and any interpretative decisions. thereof issued by the Federal Communications Commission." 2. Section 17.64.042(B)(2) (page 3): Replace Satellite Antenna with "Satellite or. Terrestrial Communications Antenna." 3. Section 17.64.052(E) (page 6): Add "As part of project review," to the beginning of the paragraph and insert "City Council (on appeals)" after "Planning Commission." The revised wording would state, "As part of project review, the Planning Commission, City Council (on appeals), or staff may require additional screening and/or...." Advanced TelCom Group also requested that the maximum height for exempted towers (see Sections 17.64.040(B) and 17.64.050(B)(2) be 6750 Commerce Blvd. ' Rohnert Park„ CA 94928-2486 ' (707)588-2212 ' FAX: (707)588-2274 Members of the Planning Commission Page 2 increased from 35' to 40'. Their argument is that a standard telephone pole is 40' and conditional use permit is not required for these poles. In developing the ordinance, staff reviewed ordinances from a number of different cities. The height limits for exempted structures ranged from 15' to whatever the height limit is for a .specific zoning district, with several ordinances using a height limit of 35'. Staff continues to recommend 35'. A standard of 35' is, closer to the height of light poles and the trend is toward requiring the undergrounding of utilities (i.e., the elimination of telephone poles). File: 1899 PC Meeting: 10/12/00 Agenda Item No. 6 City of Rohnert Park Planning Commission Staff Report Project Description An Ordinance of the City of Rohnert Park repealing the existing Chapter 17.64, Wireless Communication Facilities, to the Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) and adding a new Chapter 17.64, Communication Facilities, to the Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance). Location Citywide Applicant City of Rohnert Park G.P. Designation Varies Zoning Varies Background On June 27, 2000 the City Council adopted a 90 -day Urgency Ordinance directing the development of a Telecommunications Ordinance and prohibiting the issuance of encroachment permits for telecommunications purposes in the interim. The Telecommunications Ordinance was approved by the City Council on September 26, 2000. As a companion to the Telecommunications Ordinance, the existing Wireless Communication Facilities regulations contained in Chapter 17.64 of the Zoning Ordinance have been revised and updated to reflect current technologies and to address -the aesthetic concerns with ancillary support equipment associated with both wireless, and cable or fiber optic facilities. Staff Analysis A copy of both the proposed and the existing communication ordinances are attached. The changes indicated in the proposed ordinance are those that have been made since the ordinance was distributed to the telecommunication companies for review and comment. Although the proposed ordinance is similar to the existing Wireless Communication ordinance, it has been expanded to cover a wide range of communication facilities including electromagnetic waves, light waves, radio frequencies and other types of signals (see definition of Communication Facility in the new ordinance). The exemptions and site development criteria also have been expanded to address new technologies (e.g., Direct TV) and to cover more thoroughly criteria relating to height, colors, materials, screening, and siting of antennas, poles, towers, and ancillary equipment. Section 17.64.040 describes how the ordinance is to be applied. Essentially, a conditional use permit is required for new communication facilities unless they are listed as an exemption in Section 17.64.042 or they meet all the criteria listed in Section 17.64.050, 17.64.052, and 17.64.060. Section 17.64.042 exempts facilities that are placed so as not to be visible from the public right- of-way or other property unless located. on a building or structure of historic significance. File: 1899 PC Meeting: 10/12/00 Agenda Item No. 6 Generally, subject to specific criteria listed in each respective exemption, the exemptions include antenna structures that are one meter (39.37 inches) or less in diameter (e.g., Direct TV dishes), antenna structures two meters (78.74 inches) or less* in diameter located in a commercial or industrial zone, antennas used solely to receive television broadcast transmission, and "HAM" radio transmission antennas that are within the height limits of a particular zoning district. Also exempted from the requirement for a conditional use permit would be all communication facilities that meet all applicable site development criteria, general development standards, and operation and maintenance standards The site development criteria address the spacing and collocation of facilities, the height, color, materials, screening, and siting of facilities, and the undergrounding of power lines to and within a communication site. Environmental Review Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, an Initial Study was prepared for the project, evaluating all potential environmental impacts. On the basis of this Initial Study, a Negative Declaration was prepared for the project, finding that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment. Findings Recommended findings for approving the project are included in the attached resolution. Public Notification A public hearing notice denoting the time, date, and location of the proposal's hearing was published in the Press Democrat and the notice was posted pursuant to State Planning Law. Alternative Actions The following alternatives are available to the Commission: 1. Adopt the attached resolution recommending to the City Council approval of the Communication Facilities Ordinance as written or with modifications. 2. Direct staff to prepare a resolution recommending to the City Council that the Communication Facilities Ordinance not be adopted. 4. Direct staff to further evaluate specific issues and postpone action on the Ordinance to a later date. Staff Recommendation Based on the analysis and findings of this report and the attached resolution, staff recommends that the Planning Commission, by motion adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2000-_, recommending approval of the revisions to the Zoning Ordinance as they relate to Communication Facilities. 0J File: 1899 PC Meeting: 10/12/00 Agenda Item No. 6 Respectfully Submitted, Nancy cy Kaufinan Planning and Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2000-_ (draft Ordinance attached). 2. Rohnert Park MC Chapter 17.64, Wireless Communication Facilities 3. Initial Study 3 17.64.010-17.64.030 Chapter 17.64 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Sections: 17.64.010 Title. 17.64.020 Purpose and intent. ` 17.64.030 Definitions. s 17.64.040 General.. 17.64.050. General development standards. 17.64.060 Professional, commercial and industrial district developments standards. 17.64.070 Residential districts. 17.64.080 Use permit review and approval. 17.64.090 Exceptions. 17.64.100 Exemptions. 17.64.110 Remedies not exclusive. 17.64.120 Severability. 17.64.010 Title. This chapter shall be titled the Wireless Communication Facilities Ordinance of the city of R.ohnert Park. (Ord. 626 §2 (part), 1997). s 17.64.020 Purpose and intent. The purpose and intent of this chapter is to establish development standards to regulate the placement and design of wireles communication transmission facilities so as to preserve the unique visual character of the city; to establish development standards which are consistent with federal law related to the development of wireless communication transmission facilities; to acknowledge the community benefit associated with the provision of wireless communication services within the city and to provide incentives for well designed and well placed facilities; and, to secure additional benefit from the, facilities for the public by encouraging the leasing of publicly owned properties where feasible for the development, of wireless communication facilities. (Ord. 626 §2 (part), 1997). "Antenna" means any system of poles, panels, rods, reflecting discs or similar devices used for the transmission or reception of radio frequency signals. "Collocation" means the location of two or more wireless communication facilities on a single support structure or otherwise sharing a common location. Collocation shall also -include the location of wireless communication facilities with other facilities such as water tanks, light standards, and other utility facilities and structures. "Equipment cabinet" means a cabinet or structure used to house equipment associated with a wireless communication facility. 456 (Rohnert Park 1/97) 17.64.040-17.64.050 "Monopole" means a single free-standing pole, post, or similar structure, used to support equipment associated with a single wireless communication facility. "Related equipment" means all equipment ancillary to the transmission. and reception of voice and data via radio frequencies. Such equipment may include, but is not limited to, cable, conduit and connectors. "Service provider" means any authorized provider of wireless communication services. "Wireless communication facility" means an unstaffed facility, generally consisting of antennas, and equipment cabinet or structure, and related equipment, which receives and/or transmits radio frequency signals. (Ord. 62612 (part), 1997). 17.64.040 General. Wireless communication facilities may be allowed in all zoning districts within the city, subject to approval of a land use permit application and consistent with the development standards established under this chapter. (Ord. 626 §2 (part), 1997). 764 050 General development standards. The following development standards shall apply to the development of all new wireless communication facilities within the city of Rohnert Park: A. New wireless communication facilities shall be collocated with existing facilities and with other planned new facilities whenever feasible and aesthetically desirable. In addition, where feasible and aesthetically desirable, service providers are encouraged to collocate with other facilities such as water tanks, light standards, and other utility structures where the collocation is found to minimize the overall visual impact. In order to facilitate collocation, conditions of approval for land use permits for new facilities shall require all service providers to cooperate in the siting of equipment and antennas to accommodate the maximum number of operators at a given site where found to be feasible and aesthetically desirable. B. All ground mounted wireless communication equipment, antennas, poles or towers shall be of a minimum functional height. C. All equipment, antennas, poles or towers shall have a non -reflective finish and shall be painted or otherwise treated to minimize visual impacts. .D. All ground mounted equipment, antennas, poles, or towers shall be sited to be screened by existing development, topography, or vegetation, to. the extent feasible. Ground mounted facilities are encouraged to be located within areas where substantial screening .by existing vegetation can be achieved. Additional new vegetation or other screening may be required as a condition of approval for the permit. 456-1 (Rohnert Park 1/97) E. Roof mounted equipment and antennas shall be .located .as far away, as feasible and aesthetically. desirable from the edge of the building -Antennas attached to a building shall be painted or otherwise treated to match the exterior of the building or the antenna's background color. F. Where feasible, the location of wireless communication facilities shall be encouraged to be located on publicly owned or controlled property or right -of- . way. G. All use permit approvals for wireless communication transmission sites shall be reviewed at the end of a five-year period. The use permits may be extended administratively by the planning department upon the verification of the land use permit's continued compliance with the findings and conditions of approval under which the application was originally approved.. H. All equipment associated with a wireless communication facility -shall be removed within thirty days of the discontinuation of the use and the site shall be restored to its original preconstruction condition. In addition, the service provider shall provide the city with a notice of intent to vacate a site a minimum of thirty days prior to the vacation. For facilities to be located on public property, this removal requirements shall be included within the terms of the lease. For facilities to be located on private property, since the subject property owner shall be ultimately responsible for removal of the equipment, the terms of private leases are encouraged to include the equipment removal as a provision of the lease. I . A wireless communication. receiving the transmission facility shall not adversely affect the public health, peace, safety or welfare. J. For service providers who plan to establish multiple wireless communication facilities within the city, the service provider is encouraged to apply for approval of all facilities under a master use permit application: Under. this approach, all proposed facilities may be acted upon by the city as a single application. K For proposed facilities which do not meet the development standards contained within this ordinance, if the planning commission finds that, due to the noncompliance, the proposed facility may create a significant impact to the neighborhood, the planning commission may require an independent third party review at the expense of the applicant to confirm the radio frequency needs of the applicant. (Ord. 626 §2 (part), 1997). 764 060 Professional commercial and industrial district development standards. In addition to the general development -standards, the following development standards apply to properties within the city's professional, commercial and industrial districts. A. All proposed wireless communication facilities within the city's professional, commercial and industrial district shall be completely screened 456-2 (Rohnert Park 1/97) 17.64.070-17.64.090 `i from the view of surrounding properties or otherwise not be generally perceptible. Screening may include designs such as locating the facility within attics, steeples, towers, behind and below parapets, or concealed within a new architectural addition to a building or structure which is architecturally compatible with the building. If a new architectural addition is proposed to accommodate a facility, then the project will be subject to all architectural reviews as provided by Section 17.40.040 of this code. (Ord. 626 §2 (part), 1997). 1764 070 Residential districts. In addition to the general development standards, wireless communication facilities shall not be permitted in any residential districts:.unless exceptions are made as per Section 17.64.050 and complies to the following development standards: A. All facilities shall be substantially screened from the view of surrounding properties and the public view or collocated with existing facilities or structures so as not to create.a substantial additional visual, noise, or thermal impact. Antennas are encouraged to be located within areas where substantial screening by existing vegetation can be achieved. (Ord. 626 §2 (part),1997). 17 64 080 Use permit review and approval. Review and approval of use permit applications for wireless communication receiving and transmission } facilities as required under this section are as follows: A. For all city professional, commercial and industrial zoning districts, if a proposed facility is found to be consistent with all development standards contained within this section, the use permit may be approved administratively upon notification to property owners within a three hundred foot radius of the proposed site. B. For proposed facilities within the city's professional, commercial and industrial zoning districts, any proposed facility which requires an exception from any provision of this section, the application shall require review and approval by the planning commission during a noticed public hearing as provided in Chapter 17.52 of this code as per Section 17.52.070 of this code. (Ord. 626 §2 (part), 1997). 1764 090 Exceptions. } A. Any proposed wireless communication receiving and transmitting facility which is not consistent with the development standards contained within this chapter, shall require approval of a variance or exception by the planning commission during a noticed public hearing. B. The planning commission may grant a variance or exception to waive ere found necessary to allow for the adequate any provision of this ordinance wh i 4563 (Rohnert Park 1197) 17.64.100-17.64:120 development -of facilities to serve all areas within the city and that the findings set forth. in Section 17.54.100 can be made. (Ord. 626 §2 (part), 1997). .17,64.100 Exemptions. A. The planning director may find that certain types of wireless communication facilities and systems are. exempt from the requirements of this section and do not require use .permit approval. Exempt facilities shall include private non-commercial wireless communication systems or facilities which are contained entirely on-site for the purpose of serving the premises, on the site and having no potentialvisual, noise, thermal or radio frequency interference on surrounding properties. As to . any other exempt facilities, the planning director shall prepare a list of facilities that are considered to be exempt, or in the alternative, list, the standards by which an exemption will be granted. Such determination shall be reviewed and approved by the city council. (Ord. 626 §2 (part), 1997). 17 84110 Remedies not exclusive. The remedies in this article are not.. exclusive. The city may rely on any remedy authorized -by law. (Ord. 626 §2 (part), 1997). 7.64.120 Severability. The city council hereby declares that every section, paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase is. severable. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this article is for any reason found to be invalid or unconstitutional, such valid or constitutionality shall not affect the validity or unconstitutionality of the remaining sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases. (Ord. 626 §2 (part), 1997). 456-4. (Rohnert Park 1/97) 1 r Initial Study Proposed Amendments to Wireless Communications - Facilities' Ordinance Applicant: City of Rohnert Park Application. No.: 1899 Date: September 13, 2000 Lead Agency: City of Rohnert Park 6750 Commerce Boulevard Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Initial Study Prepared by: Ron Bendorff , Associate Planner Review Period: September 20, 2000 to October 9, 2000 Project Description and Setting Project Title: Proposed' Amendments to Wireless Communications Facility Ordinance Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rohnert Park, 6750 Commerce Boulevard, Rohnert Park, CA 94928-2486 Contact Person and Phone Number: Ron Bendorff, (707) 588-2231 Project Location: Citywide Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Rohnert Park, 6750 Commerce Boulevard, Rohnert Park, CA 94928-2486 General Plan Designation (2000): N/A Zoning: N/A - Description of Project: Proposed amendments to Section 17.64 of the Rohnert Park Municipal Code regarding wireless communications facilities. The proposed, amendments' would replace the existing wireless communications facilities ordinance with a revised ordinance, intended'to regulate the placement and -design of all communication facilities. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: none Determination: It has been determined that the project is discretionary in nature and is not otherwise exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality.Act (CEQA). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section. 15051, "Criteria for Identifying the Lead Agency," it is further determined that the City of Rohnert Park is the appropriate lead agency for this project. This Initial Study has been prepared pursuant to the State Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. On the basis of this initial evaluation, I find that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Signature Nancy H. Kaufinan Planning and Community Development Director For City of Rohnert Park Date Wireless Communications Ordinance Page 1 09/13/00 F-nvironmental Checklist and Supporting Information 1. AESTHETICS a -c: The proposed amendments are not site specific and therefore would not create any visual impacts in and of themselves. Projects subject to the revised ordinance would require supplemental environmental review prior to development. The intent of the ordinance is to minimize the visual impact of communication facilities throughout the City, which would be a beneficial impact. Wireless Communications Ordinance Page 2 09/13/00 Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Would the project: P � Mitigation Incorporated a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a X scenic vista? b. Substantially degrade the existing visual X character or quality of the site and its surroundings? c. Create a new source of substantial light or X glare -that would adversely affect ,day or nighttime views in the area? a -c: The proposed amendments are not site specific and therefore would not create any visual impacts in and of themselves. Projects subject to the revised ordinance would require supplemental environmental review prior to development. The intent of the ordinance is to minimize the visual impact of communication facilities throughout the City, which would be a beneficial impact. Wireless Communications Ordinance Page 2 09/13/00 1. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES a -c: The proposed amendments are not site specific and therefore would not impact any agricultural lands in and of themselves. Projects subject to the revised ordinance would require supplemental environmental review prior to development. Wireless Communications Ordinance Page 3 09/13/00 Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Would the project: P � Mitigation Incorporated _ a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, X or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for X agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c. Involve other changes in the existing X environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use? a -c: The proposed amendments are not site specific and therefore would not impact any agricultural lands in and of themselves. Projects subject to the revised ordinance would require supplemental environmental review prior to development. Wireless Communications Ordinance Page 3 09/13/00 3. AIR QUALITY a -e: The proposed amendments are not site specific and therefore would not create any air.quality impacts in. and of themselves. Projects subject to the revised ordinance would require supplemental environmental review prior to development. Wireless Communications Ordinance Page 4 1 09/13/00 Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant • Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of X the applicable air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute X substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net X increase of any criteria air pollutant for whic the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors, to substantial X pollutant concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? a -e: The proposed amendments are not site specific and therefore would not create any air.quality impacts in. and of themselves. Projects subject to the revised ordinance would require supplemental environmental review prior to development. Wireless Communications Ordinance Page 4 1 09/13/00 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Would the project: p ] Mitigation Incorporated a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either X directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any X riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally -protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of.the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? F:4 d. Interfere substantially with the movement. of X. any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances X protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted X Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Wireless Communications Ordinance . Page 5 09%13/00 a—f: The proposed amendments are not site specific and -therefore would not create any impacts on biological resources in and of themselves. Projects subject to the revised ordinance would require supplemental environmental review prior to development. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES a—d: The proposed amendments are not site specific and therefore would not create any impacts to cultural resources in and of themselves. Projects subject to the. revised ordinance would require supplemental environmental review prior to development. Wireless Communications Ordinance Page 6 09/13/00 Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Would the project: Incorporated a. Cause a substantial adverse change, in the X significance of historical resources as defined in CEQA Section 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the X significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Section 15064.5.? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those X interred outside of formal cemeteries? a—d: The proposed amendments are not site specific and therefore would not create any impacts to cultural resources in and of themselves. Projects subject to the. revised ordinance would require supplemental environmental review prior to development. Wireless Communications Ordinance Page 6 09/13/00 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Less Than Significant No Impact Impact Unless Impact Would the project: Mitigation Incorporated a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as X delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a know fault? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including X liquefaction? iv) Landslides? X b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss X of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is X unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result 'in* _' ori- or off-site lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in X Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building. Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? a -d: The proposed amendments are not site specific and therefore would not create any impacts related to geology and soils in and of themselves. Projects subject to the revised ordinance would require supplemental environmental review prior to development. Wireless Communications Ordinance Page 7. 09/13/00 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a — f: The proposed amendments are not site specific and therefore would not create any impacts related to hazardous materials in and of themselves. Projects' subject to the revised ordinance would require supplemental environmental review prior to development. Wireless Communications Ordinance Page 8 09/13/00 Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or X the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or X the environment through reasonably - foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle X hazardous or acutely -hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a X' list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. Impair implementation of or physically X interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? f. Expose people or structures to a significant X risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? a — f: The proposed amendments are not site specific and therefore would not create any impacts related to hazardous materials in and of themselves. Projects' subject to the revised ordinance would require supplemental environmental review prior to development. Wireless Communications Ordinance Page 8 09/13/00 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Wireless Communications Ordinance Page 9 09/13/00 Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Would the project: Incorporated a. Violate any water quality standards or waste X discharge requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or X interfere substantially�with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage X pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage X pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? e. Create or contribute runoff water that would X exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantially additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water X quality? g. Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard X area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area X structures that would impede or redirect floo flows? Wireless Communications Ordinance Page 9 09/13/00 a -h: The proposed amendments are not site specific and therefore would not create any hydrology and water quality impacts in and of themselves. Projects subject to the revised ordinance would require supplemental environmental review prior to development. Wireless Communications Ordinance Page 10 09/13/00 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING a -c: The proposed amendments are not site specific and therefore would not create any land use and planning impacts in and of themselves. -Projects subject to the revised ordinance would require supplemental environmental review prior to development. Wireless Communications Ordinance Page 11 09/13/00 Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact 'Would the project: P � Mitigation Incorporated a. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, X policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance or any specific plan) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? b. Conflict with any applicable habitat X conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? c. Physically divide an established community? X a -c: The proposed amendments are not site specific and therefore would not create any land use and planning impacts in and of themselves. -Projects subject to the revised ordinance would require supplemental environmental review prior to development. Wireless Communications Ordinance Page 11 09/13/00 10. MINERAL RESOURCES a -b: The proposed amendments are not site specific and therefore would not create any impacts related to mineral resources in and of themselves. Projects subject to the revised ordinance would require supplemental environmental review prior to development. 11. NOISE Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Would the project:`Mitigation Incorporated a. Result in the loss of availability of a known Incorporated X mineral resource that. would be of value to X the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally- X important mineral resource recovery site delineated by the General Plan,.a. specific ` X plan or other land use plan? a -b: The proposed amendments are not site specific and therefore would not create any impacts related to mineral resources in and of themselves. Projects subject to the revised ordinance would require supplemental environmental review prior to development. 11. NOISE Wireless Communications Ordinance Page 12 09/13/00 Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant. Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Would the project result in: Incorporated a: Exposure of persons to or generation of noise X levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of ` X excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient' X noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase X in ambient noise, levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Wireless Communications Ordinance Page 12 09/13/00 a -d: The proposed amendments are not site specific and therefore would not create any noise impacts in and of themselves. Projects subject to the revised ordinance would require supplemental environmental review prior to development. Wireless Communications Ordinance Page 13 09/13/00 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING a -c: The proposed amendments are not site specific -and therefore would not create any impacts on population and housing in and of themselves. Projects subject to the revised ordinance would require supplemental environmental review prior to development. Wireless Communications Ordinance Page 14 09/13/00 Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Would the project: Mitigation Incorporated a. Induce substantial growth in an area either X directly (e.g., by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads. or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing X housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? a -c: The proposed amendments are not site specific -and therefore would not create any impacts on population and housing in and of themselves. Projects subject to the revised ordinance would require supplemental environmental review prior to development. Wireless Communications Ordinance Page 14 09/13/00 13. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in substantial Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Less Than Significant No Impact adverse physical impacts associated with the Impact Unless Impact provision of new or physically -altered Mitigation Incorporated governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically -altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: a. Fire and police protection? X b. Schools? X c. Other public facilities? X a -c: The proposed amendments are not site specific and therefore would not create any impacts on public services in .and of themselves. Projects subject to the revised ordinance would require supplemental environmental review prior to development. Wireless Communications Ordinance Page 15 09/13/00 14. RECREATION_ i Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Would the project increase the use of existing X neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational X facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? a -b: The proposed amendments are not site specific and therefore would not create any impacts on recreational facilities in and of themselves. Projects subject to the revised ordinance would require supplemental environmental review prior to development. Wireless Communications Ordinance Page 16 09/13/00 15. TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC a -g: The proposed amendments are not site specific and therefore would not create any transportation or traffic impacts in and of themselves. Projects subject to the revised ordinance would require supplemental environmental review prior to development. Wireless Communications Ordinance Page 17 09/13/00 Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Impact Significant Unless Significant Impact Would the project: P Mitigation Incorporated a. Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial X in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., X sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses? C. Inadequate emergency access or access to X nearby uses? d. Insufficient parking or capacity on-site or X off-site? e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or X bicyclists? f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting X alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? X . a -g: The proposed amendments are not site specific and therefore would not create any transportation or traffic impacts in and of themselves. Projects subject to the revised ordinance would require supplemental environmental review prior to development. Wireless Communications Ordinance Page 17 09/13/00 I Te 16. UTLITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a -e: The proposed amendments are not site specific and therefore would not create any impacts on utilities in and of themselves. Projects subject to the revised ordinance would require supplemental environmental review prior to development. Wireless Communications Ordinance Page 18 09/13/00 Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Would the project: Incorporated a. Result in a determination by the wastewater X treatment provider that serves the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the ^ provider's existing commitments? Require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? b. Require or result in the construction of new X storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require new or expanded entitlement or X resources for water supplies? d. Be served by a landfill with insufficient X permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? e. Conflict with federal, state, or local statutes X and regulations related to hazardous waste disposal? a -e: The proposed amendments are not site specific and therefore would not create any impacts on utilities in and of themselves. Projects subject to the revised ordinance would require supplemental environmental review prior to development. Wireless Communications Ordinance Page 18 09/13/00 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. Refer to Section 4, Biological Resources. b. The proposed amendments would not impact any existing or presently planned projects. c. This Initial Study has not identified any potentially -significant, adverse impacts. Other Information Sources City of Rohnert Park Municipal Code, Wireless Communications Ordinance Page 19 09/13/00 Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Less Than Significant No Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a. Does the project have the potential to de- X grade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare of endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major', periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are X individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c. Does the -project have environmental effects X that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a. Refer to Section 4, Biological Resources. b. The proposed amendments would not impact any existing or presently planned projects. c. This Initial Study has not identified any potentially -significant, adverse impacts. Other Information Sources City of Rohnert Park Municipal Code, Wireless Communications Ordinance Page 19 09/13/00 City of Rohnert Park 6750 Commerce Boulevard- Rohnert Park, CA 94928 ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Monday, November 20, 2000 SPECIAL MEETING - GOLF COURSE 6:00 p.m. CLOSED SESSION — Council will meet in Closed Session in the City Manager's Office prior to the regularly scheduled meeting • Possible Litigation — One Case (G.C. 54956.8) 6:15 P.M. OPEN SESSION Call to Order, Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call (Flores_Mackenzie_Reilly_.Spiro_.Vidak-Martinez_) 1. Mayor's Report on Closed Session (G.C. 54957.1) 2. Review Reconstruction Elements of the Redwood & Willow Courses (Sherman Report) 3. Review Financing Program for Course Improvements a) American Golf Proposals — A.G. Representative Presentation b) Other Proposal -City 4. Rate Structure (Sherman Report) 5. Public Comment 6. Consider Preliminary Approval of Financing Plan 7. Consider Preliminary Approval — Time Table 8. Schedule Date for Reconstruction Project — Final Approval 9. Adjournment - No later than 8:00 P.M. 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. Please fill out a speaker card prior to speaking.. Any item raised by a member of the public which is not agendized 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 positing 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 require an interpreter or other person to assist you while attending this City Council meeting, please contact the City Offices at (707) 588-2200 at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to ensure arrangements for accommodation by the City. Please make sure the City Manager's office is notified as soon as possible if you have a visual impairment requiring meeting materials to be produced in another format (Braille, audio -tape, etc.) Netter, J From: Barry, TimA Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 12:17 PM to: To: Netter,, Joseph C to: Subject: Use of "The Vision" by S.S.U. Students Prior to my vacation last week, I was contacted on the phone by Sean Pridmore, Associated Students Vice President at S.S.U. concerning this topic. He had a copy of the memo I sent.you listing our concerns. - He provided me with much more information than Council Member Spiro's letter contained, and we had a fruitful conversation. It turns out that their use of "The Vision" doesn't appear to conflict with our plans for the facility, and the teens would even be invited to attend the S. S.U. events, which he said would be about once per month. The Associated Students would provide security and staffing, and pay for any related expenses. It would be a no -alcohol live band night, with an entry fee collected at the door. The rental income from such a use could assist with operating expenses for the teen program. I referred him to John Hartnett to work out the details, but at this point, it looks feasible based upon the conversation we had. This discussion allayed most of our concerns. I can give you an update as time goes by, if desirable. CITY OF ROHNERT PARK RECREATION DEPARTMENT COUNCIL: MISCELLANEOUS MEMORANDUM COMMUNICATIONS AGENDA NOVEMBER 8, 1998 COPY T0: TO: JOE NETTER, CITY MANAGER FROM: TIM BARRY, RECREATION DIRECTOR SUBJECT: USING "THE VISION" FOR S.S.U. STUDENTS In reviewing the October IP letter from Council Member Spiro regarding partnerships with S. S.U. students, I wanted to comment on the concept of joint use of "The Vision" teen center. I've attached a memo that describes our programming intent for the facility once renovations are completed. I agree with developing partnerships with S.S.U. students, but the staff and I feel that "The Vision" Teen Center should only be used for high school students for the following reasons: ♦ Assuming that programming time will be separate between the high school students and S.S.U. students (so that parents of H.S. students don't have to be concerned with influences by college students over their children), supervision over college students by our staff would be a difficult task. There is potential for improper behaviors by college students at the Center, and our staff would be ill-equipped to manage it, particularly since our staff would probably be of college age themselves. ♦ Prime time of operation for either group would potentially conflict with each other, making the coordinated scheduling of operation unsatisfactory for both. ♦ The "Spartan" environment envisioned for this Center would probably not be very attractive to college students, who are used to full service coffeehouses or restaurants. ♦ How would the cost of operation for college students be funded? There won't be enough activities of the type and number desirable to be able to charge an admission fee to the students and expect them to attend. Donations by local businesses, unless alcohol related, would be few and far between for college students vs. high school students. The Department has not subsidized adult recreation in the past. Adults have traditionally paid all direct costs for adult oriented programs so that it doesn't take away resources that could be used to assist programs for children and senior citizens. ♦ Lastly, staff feels that we've worked with youth up to this point to develop an implementation plan with the understanding that this facility would be their own place, programmed just for them. This concept is especially attractive to local teens. Sharing the facility, when potentially the college group could change or damage the facility (which could affect its use by the teens), could have its drawbacks from my experience. Thank you for letting me share our thoughts on this matter. Again, I think partnering with the S.S.U. students on appropriate projects can be a good concept, but my hunch is you don't see cities providing such facilities, described in Council Person Spiro's letter, for the reasons listed above. These facilities for college students are typically handled by the private sector through restaurants, coffeehouses, bars or on -campus facilities. TB/s CITY OF ROHNERT PARK RECREATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NOVEMBER 9, 2000 TO: JOE NETTER, CITY MANAGER FROM: TIM BARRY, RECREATION DIRECTOR SUBJECT: "THE VISION" TEEN CENTER PROGRAMS "THE VISION" TEEN CENTER PROGRAMS For the past year, Recreation staff have had the opportunity to' coordinate with teen leaders in the community' to discuss the potential utilization of the former Pal Building (newly named "The Vision") as a temporary site for teen programs in the near future. These recreation activities will target the high, school population and programs will be tailored to fit the needs and desires of the local youth of our community. The City's goal is'to create a safe, secure environment for teens with some element of supervision. The teens, in turn; will be asked to assist with not only program ideas, but to: provide volunteers as support staff for; set up and clean up, recruiting participants, enforcing rules and regulations and other duties. PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES .. The teen facility will be broken up into two separate program areas. The west end of the, building (smaller room) will be used as a daytime drop-in area for teens on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. The room will be set up with vending machines, refrigerator, microwave, coffee tables, chairs, sofas, big screen T.V, pool table and ping pong table. The area will be used primarily as a location to socialize, do homework, play board or table games, watch TV,. etc. In addition, a local service . club or business may be approached to sell food on a regular basis, with a %. of the proceeds going to the City for revenue generation. The east end of the building (larger room) will be used primarily on weekends to hold dances, karioke events, battle of the bands, poetry readings, skits and other fun activities. The room will have a stage and portable sound system. Chairs can be set up along the �1 perimeter during these activities. The outside adjacent patio in the back can also be used for weekend barbecues and parties. Some specific programs and activities that will be conducted at the site are as follows: • Used for students after sporting events (e.g. a "fifth quarter" type event following a Friday home football game). • Monday Night Football games on the big screen TV • Site for monthly dances and special events (battle of the bands, talent show, karioke, poetry recitals, fund-raisers, etc.). • School clubs to do concessionson a rotational basis for special events • Provide environment for students to "hang-out" between 3 and 6 pm three days a week. • Offer Community Service hours to students who help in development of ideas and/or operations of building. • Provide homework tutoring or eventual use of computers. • Provide art drawing books for youth to express their creative sides. • Allow teens to paint murals on the walls of the large room. • Conduct weekend barbecues combined with a theme party. Recreation staff is keenly aware that the local teens won't participate in this worthwhile program unless they have some sense of ownership over the project. Empowering the teens to have a say over programs, rules and regulations and allowing them to help enforce policies and procedures will give them a sense of ownership and will remain the staffs number one goal. We will be prepared to remain flexible in meeting the needs of our teen population and look forward to this challenging, but rewarding experience. Over the next few months, staff and teen representatives will conduct the following activities: 1. Paint the interior of the building. 2. Install a basketball pole, board and rim adjacent to the parking lot. 3. Design and install new signage. 4. Coordinate and set up donated furniture and equipment. 5. Purchase equipment and supplies designated for the teen center. 6. Prepare for a grand opening of the building. 7. Develop a calendar of events for the rest of the school year. 8. Assign part time staff and teen volunteers to operate the building and monitor activities. Prepared by: John Hartnett, Recreation Services Manager Amanda Houseman, Recreation Specialist P OCT -12-2000 19:19 P.02 lin,.+s•. ys. .lA.+iYt .>Y%..P:K•• PIS Y%s:�ryryMv.N..r ��n•.. • xx1���•W :9' +•W.. nL� nrH Linda Spiro City Councilmembtrs Joe Netter, City Mxnagcr Tim Berry, Parks and Recrtarion Youths of the Year Prog'mn COYF Cotrunis,;ion Seann Pridmorc, Vire President, Univcmity Subject. SSU Possible P:artncTship with Stu6enrs Today. f .ert to be spcmking with members of 5onr)ma. State student body and the WP �8 "fox srudcnrs :Off campus came up. F�acc:d [�n the conversation with 5c.v,n N) 01 A L ""y ;,5 77epresc:nrativc, and the other students pru-sent, it was mentioned that the; .... g was On ro be closing. SSU st deans ,ire very concerned about where SUctilliy— e c During"Liic�1assian I mentioned vhe'1':Cn (�c.nterwhich tv:15 tieing frc.,Yrecl for o er:in w. K M1 1 d<� ru l avtng seen auty schedule of the types o uses uid the times, days, or m ounts q,EEE i i r �cili would he in use. by the teens. 1 would like: to suggest we look uito the possible Dint use by the R inNrt ar teens and the SSU stu c;nm This would certainly lac a I�;trtnc:rship, which could beriefit many in our community. Ism this as art opp'orhinity v) aid in the integration of the SSU students, and thu University itself into the main,tream of the lirAmert Park community. I mcluest we agendize this for n ti.itvre council mceting,uld see if it is an idea which makes S ense. r an -- Y)u- A40 Kee - Linda Spiro >•�L,�., :...M_ ..;hit .,�... ,.. S "" «.} v +tii Y. i. . j.,' } :N Jai: uri•1w x Y L 1' :t: f 7 J ;.:�. .P•)'Li,,k,..^i:.��~,.s;�.�*'� . w.,.Y.t, x�� '':x;..�.�':��..�1.x�c��. I Ati t LAC 1. s "",..x +iJ aiq,"�•'4p'L;.„�-N?�N •,h, a �a at,�uh: r. �N a•i° w°:R `:3 ti+i:=f jt y"i '.+ R K , CA 94928 rw •kw::c.wio:o:'. i.}�a.i$n �ry....,'.:..�.���:L.... .�eb A'• .Lnr,*I:�p wrk'2+ } ev § � "�P,k ....•: yj......w".:;q::i,%.$ u .x:,. a� ., a�,i% FP' �nro�L:y?y"m^��'nr..�Y;(5!�"�r';$"C `3s�ax:.'�u. `w�''�' . F%cs•::�$:P�);{ �'::E?'H"`y '�kyr'ti fi�=�*�: 96i �' Nw+ vlLi.'li k .yy �':FA�'. �b�iY�l. i�+N' � �,L�r�•`L.ti pp4.�i.:.:. t ��+•� .,.,.L SM4 �rati., TOTAL P.02 ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS ` Representing City and County Governments of the San Francisco Bay Area ABAG RECEIVED Nov 2.2.2000 M E M O Date: To: CITY OF November 17, 2000 ROHNERT PARK Regional Housing Needs Determination Contacts Cc: City, Town and County Managers and Administrators City and Town Mayors County Board of Supervisors Chairs and Presidents From: Eugene Leoig, Executive Director Alex Amoroso, Senior Planner Re: Determination of Final Housing Unit Allocations By the ABAG Executive Board This memo serves as an official notice of the adopted Regional Housing Needs Distribution (RHND) responsibilities for each Bay Area jurisdiction. The Executive Board has approved the final RHND allocations at their November 16, 2000 board meeting. The final numbers can be obtained via ABAG's website at http://www.abag.ca.ggv/planning/housingneeds/. With the release of the final RHND allocations, an appeal period begins. The appeal process allows for jurisdictions to appeal the adopted RHND allocations. Jurisdictions wishing to appeal the RHND allocations must do so in writing by December 19, 2000. Attached to this notice are guidelines and criteria that will be used to handle all appeals. Once again, the final RHND allocations and appeals criteria discussed in this memo can be found on the ABAG web site at http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/housingneeds/. Should you have any questions regarding this memo or related information, please contact Alex Amoroso (510) 464.7955 email: AlexA@abag.ca.gov or Kearey Smith (510) 464.7994 email: KeargySCa)abag.ca.gov Alailing Address: P.O. Box 2050 ' Oakland, California 94604-2050 (510) 464-7900 Fax: (510) 464-7970 info@abag.ca.gov abag.ca.gov Location: Joseph P. Bort NfetroCenter 101 Eight Street Oakland, California 94607-4756 Attachment Appeal Process and Criteria In. order to ensure that appeals to the final RHND allocations are handled within the State mandated time frame, all appeals will be handled by a committee established by the Executive Board. This Appeals Committee will be made up of three (3) Executive Board members, three (3) elected officials from the Regional Planning Committee, and one (1) housing/ planning professional from the Housing Methodology Committee (HMC). Once all appeals have been heard and decided, the entire packet of RHND numbers will be returned to the Executive Board for ratification. The Appeals Committee has the following makeup: Executive Board Members- Regional Planning Committee Members - Cathie Brown, Mayor, City of Livermore Pat Eklund, Mayor, City of Novato Don Burnett, Council Member, City of Cupertino Steve Lessler, Council Member, City of Fairfield Mike Kerns, Supervisor, Sonoma County John Marquez, Council Member, City of Richmond Housing/Planning Professional from the HMC- Kent MGKent Edens, Dep. Director, Planning Services, City of San Jose The following guidelines and criteria will be used for this process: Appeal Guidelines and Criteria Under state law, government code 65584, subdivision (a), jurisdictions are given the opportunity to comment and propose revisions to their share of the RHND. According to the government code, any revision must meet the test of accepted methodology, readily available data, and be consistent with State identified criteria for the RHND. Under state law, (govt. code 65584 subdivision (c) para. 2 subpara. (A)), a jurisdiction shall have the right to at least one appeal following the final approval of the housing need determinations for the region by the ABAG Executive Board. In addition, the ABAG Executive Board has adopted the following criteria as part of the Appeal Process: Additional Appeal Criteria - • Each jurisdiction in the ABAG region will be given one opportunity to appeal the decision by the Executive Board. • The jurisdiction that is appealing shall identify another recipient (other jurisdiction(s)) willing to incorporate any proposed reduction in housing need. • Any revision of housing need will be accomplished within the same county as the appealing jurisdiction. • Previously available information and issues of concern not raised during the 90 -day Review and Revision period will not be considered a valid basis for appeal, during the appeals process. -2- OCT -21-2600 10:07 Linda Spiro October 21, 20O 1 To: City Councilmernbers Joe Netter, City Manager Subject: Senior Center Expansion COUNCIL: MISCELLANEOUS COMMUNICATIONS AGENDA ow,"Tr 4 1 ItOO COPY TO: P.01 0 Yfor the future with i '1'•ti• N; .°A ' punning library;+ .� ■` r'�:s �■ ■ center.would ■ •• propose " address anothi7i t;..� t k...•Center. ,af l,n' Y: .,:.•y*..f;t •4.t r" ui`.-• of die. Sen }+: -65 1.' Y. rn expanded once, and judging by the heavy use the Ir sir om, the seniorpopulation • rentals, it appearsadditional uld be considered. y speaking.. believe that the over 50 age group as growing rapidly, In order to keep up with the expanded population and their recreational needs I would lilm to propose we establish a comsruttee to begin looking into what expansion makes sense and "start the ball rolling" towards that end. I would hope to be part of that co+cnnmittee. i in& Spiro Coutuctnernber 'ti3t.' '��i��<a zy.:;�••s:�`tY!h ...:w to - •Y, ��y i .':S'.$r � :�,ro. ,c.t•.. .n`�2'^ R;t,... :t. il�.`::if�:�i,�. ^�^�1��ry•1f,F •iiS.'•!F_1Ww..- - i4 �' ✓-Rlpy4�MV t �•n.µ_. ...�i :$f. yy���� •}'- t :�.A. ){i}R/. .is:$. <y Ftt'vi6„ �.•.;f..+:•:�ir�:46•0 .:Vti4):....:: r�:.'.'`i_.... c.!Ld;;r a .:h. �-a3=:::: •::.:� ay„�... :.3�.-'.i\z?' .j°rt'i;4�'°S�•�..V::r3•x.• ::i�. .�{:`f:!",;'ry�` .p?: .r.�.,.::5.i >::�%,,y, v'yZ.` - �F _: '. ..,.y;�•.•.' ,. •at' lY .t r.. ..r :,: ?�w'�-4�.; Cdw. r, siu > LIST .OFF 1aASURE LIST OF MEASURES General Election November 7, 2000 A SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 1/2 CENT TRANSIT SALES TAX, To: * Connect BART to Milpitas, San Jose, Santa Clara; * Build rail connection from San Jose Airport to BART, Caltrain, light rail; * Purchase vehicles for disabled access, senior safety, clean air buses; * Provide light rail throughout Santa Clara County; * Expand, electrify Caltrain; * Increase rail, bus service; rage i or:) UINIZZ- C�hl Shall Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority enact a '/2 cent sales tax for 30 years beginning 4/1/06 when current tax expires, with annual audits published in local newspapers and an independent citizens watchdog committee? YES NO B SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT CLEAN, SAFE CREEKS AND NATURAL FLOOD PROTECTION: Shall the Santa Clara Valley Water District replace' an expired program assessment with a special parcel tax, as provided in District Resolution No. 2000-44, to: protect homes, schools, businesses and roads from flooding and erosion; - protect, enhance and restore healthy creek and, bay ecosystems; provide additional open space trails and parks along creeks; and provide clean, safe water in our creeks and bays? YES NO C PROPOSED MERGER OF MOUNTAIN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT and WHISMAN SCHOOL DISTRICT Merger of Mountain View School District and Whisman School District —Yes; Merger of Mountain View School District and Whisman School District -- No. D ORCHARD SCHOOL DISTRICT In order to eliminate overcrowding resulting from increasing enrollment, accommodate class size reduction, construct, expand and acquire classrooms, modem science labs, high-tech LIST OF MEASURE Page 2 of 5 compOter labs, and other educational facilities, shall the Orchard School District maintain the current tax rate and -issue $16 million in bonds at an interest rate not to exceed the, legal limit? BONDS YES BONDS NO E LOS ALTOS SCHOOL DISTRICT Shall the existing authorization to exceed the Gann Appropriations Limit be continued for four additional years? YES NO F CITY OF CAMPBELL Should an Ordinance adding Section 2.04.160 - Code be adopted? Term Limits - to the Campbell Municipal YES NO G CITY OF SARATOGA Shall the City of Saratoga reaffirm and readopt an ordinance prohibiting until March 15, 2002 the approval of residential development projects on lands designated in the Saratoga General Plan as "Retail Commercial", "Professional Administrative", "Gateway Landscaping", or "Planned Development"? YES NO H CITY OF MILPITAS ADVISORY VOTE ONLY Shall Milpitas voters adopt an advisory measure advising the City Council that new funds from a voter approved increase in the Transient Occupancy Tax, which is a tax on the cost of hotel rooms paid only by the person renting the hotel room, be used to support construction of a' new library, provide new books and educational software, enhance library services, and to support performing and visual arts programs? YES NO CITY OF MILPITAS Shall an ordinance be adopted increasing the City of Milpitas transient occupancy tax, which is a tax on the cost of hotel rooms that is paid only by the person renting the room, from eight percent (8%) of the room rate charged to ten percent (10%) of the room rate charged? YES NO L1J 1 yr ivtnty� u rc r• Page 3 of 5 J CITY OF PALO ALTO `•' Shall Article III, Section 22 of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto be amended to permit the City Council to implement the City's Comprehensive Plan by granting the Planning and Transportation Commission final decision making authority on specified matters; and to permit the City Council to update the City's planning and zoning laws by amending or repealing Initiative Ordinance No. 2090, which was effective July 23, 1962? For the Amendment Against the Amendment K CITY OF SAN JOSE GREENLINE/URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY Shall the Greenline/Urban Growth Boundary policies of the San Jose 2020 General Plan, which protect the City's Greenbelt, hillsides and baylands from urban development, be adopted and affirmed with a requirement that they may only be repealed or amended by the voters of the City of San Jose? YES NO L CITY OF SAN JOSE AMENDMENT TO CITY CHARTER SUBMISSION OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Amend City Charter to change time within which City Manager must submit to City Council a capital improvement program for next five fiscal years to at least thirty days prior to beginning of each fiscal year to allow capital improvement program to be submitted to Council at same time as City's operating budget for the fiscal year and requiring Planning Commission to submit comments to program at least 10 days prior to Council hearing. YES NO M CITY OF SAN JOSE CHARTER AMENDMENT — BID REQUIREMENTS SUPPLIES, MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT Shall Section 1217 of the San Jose City Charter be amended to remove the specific requirements for the purchase of supplies, materials and equipment from the charter and instead mandate that such bidding requirements be set forth in the Municipal Code? YES NO N CITY OF SAN JOSE CHARTER AMENDMENT — BID -REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS Shall Section 1217 of the City Charter be amended to raise the limit for the bidding of public works projects from $50,000 to $100,000? YES 1-101 yr ivlr ti3 u n n O CITY OF SAN JOSE Page 4 of 5 NO SAN JOSE NEIGHBORHOOD LIBRARIES BOND To improve San Jose's neighborhood libraries and expand literacy and learning opportunities for children, families and seniors by: expanding .and improving aging branch libraries to reduce noise, add parking, and add space for more books and computers; and building new libraries in neighborhoods throughout the City, shall the City issue $211,790,000 in bonds, at the best rates possible, with guaranteed annual audits, a citizen's oversight committee, and no money for library administrators' salaries? YES NO P CITY OF SAN JOSE SAN JOSE SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS AND RECREATION BOND To improve San Jose's neighborhood parks' safety and expand recreation opportunities for children, families and seniors, by: installing lighting, reconstructing deteriorating playgrounds and restrooms; preserving open space; constructing trails; constructing new recreational sports facilities; improving Community and Senior Centers; and constructing improvements to regional parks, like Happy Hollow shall the City issue $228,030,000 in bonds, at the best rates possible, with guaranteed annual audits, a citizen's oversight committee, and no money for parks administrators' salaries? YES NO Q CITY OF GILROY Transient Occupancy Tax Shall the ordinance of the City of Gilroy authorizing the increase in'the rate of the City's existing Transient Occupancy Tax from 9% to 10% be approved? YES NO R CITY OF GILROY Admission Tax Shall the Admission Tax Ordinance of the City of Gilroy authorizing the enactment and imposition of a new general tax in the form of an admission tax of 5% of the Admission charge for certain events held within the City of Gilroy be approved? S CITY OF SUNNYVALE Shall the City of Sunnyvale accept fluoridated water from its water suppliers? YES NO YES y LIST ON MEASURE Page 5 of 5 NO T BURBANK SANITARY DISTRICT Shall proposed initiative Ordinance No. 1, which would reestablish the position of secretary of the Burbank Sanitary District and would delineate certain duties of the position, be adopted? YES NO U BURBANK SANITARY DISTRICT Should proposed initiative Ordinance No. 2, which would establish specified rules and procedures for operation of the Burbank Sanitary District Cleanup Program, be adopted? YES NO V BURBANK SANITARY DISTRICT Should proposed initiative Ordinance No. 3, which would require the Burbank Sanitary District to reimburse Winfred Powell, a former officer of the District, for services claimed to have been rendered and expenses claimed to have been incurred by Mr. Powell during the 1996-97 fiscal year(s), be approved? YES NO COUNTY OF ALAMEDA MEASURE MEASURE B. Shall Alameda County voters autho- YES rize implementing the Alameda . County 20 year Transportation Expenditure Plan including: NO • Expand BART in Alameda County • Expand Altamont Commuter Express service • Expand Countywide Express, Local and Feeder Bus service m& 11291c& • I-880/1-580/1-680/1-238/Route 84/Route 92 Improvements COAto. • Extend special transit services for seniors and persons with disabi • Improve pedestrian/bike safety Approval of this Measure authorizes continuing the 1/2 cent transportation sales tax during the Plan's implementation. A Citizens Watchdog Committee shall audit all expenditures." COUNTY COUNSEL'S IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF MEASURE B ANALYSIS BY COUNTY COUNSEL OF THE MEASURE EXTENDING THE ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION SALES /USE TAX This measure submits to the voters the question of whether to extend for another twenty years the existing half -cent sales/use tax dedicated to local trans- portation projects. In November 1986 voters in Alameda County passed a sales/ use tax which will terminate on March 31,.2002. Approval of Measure B by two-thirds of the voters would permit the County to continue to collect the half - cent sales/use tax for transportation purposes for another twenty years, begin- ning on April 1, 2002, immediately after the expiration of the 1986 tax. MeasureB asks for voter approval of County Ordinance 2000-1 (printed in full in this Voter Pamphlet), known as the "Alameda County Transportation Im- provement Authority Ordinance". The ordinance requires that the proceeds of this tax are to be used only for the projects and purposes set forth in the Alameda County Transportation Expenditure. Plan (the "Plan", also printed in full in this Voter Pamphlet). The total estimated net revenue under the Plan is $1,420,870,122. The Plan provides that approximately 43% of these funds would be spent on mass transit projects including expansion of BART, the Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) Rail Service, and county bus service; approximately 24% of the tax revenue would be spent on capital improvements for local surface streets and roads; approximately 17% of the funds would be spent on highway infrastructure including new lanes and interchange improve- ments on I-580, I-680, I-880, SR84 and SR92, and the widening of I-238; approximately 10% of the funds would be spent on special transit for seniors and people with disabilities; and approximately 6% of the funds would be spent on bike and pedestrian safety'projects. The Plan of Measure B would require the formation of a new "Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority" to administer the new tax )in order to separate the responsibilities and liabilities of the existing sales tax pro- gram from the new agency. The measure also authorizes the Authority to issue bonds to finance those CM -6 Fi specific transportation projects set forth in the Plan. It places a limitation on the Authority's power to issue bonds payable from the sales/use tax revenues. *; Unless approved by the Authority and voters, the Authority cannot have out- standing at any one time more than $1,000,000,0.00 in limited tax bonds. Pursuant to Article 13B of the California Constitution, the Ordinance fixes the annual appropriations limit at $300,000,000. The measure must be approved by at least two thirds of those voting on this measure or it will be defeated. s/RICHARD E. WINNIE County Counsel CM -7 V l ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE B Vote YES on Measure B for comprehensive transportation solutions to traffic and congestion in Alameda County. Passage of Measure B authorizes a twenty year program to address congestion in every major commute corridor in Alameda County — providing a balance of mass transit solutions and road improvements to address the county's traffic woes. Measure B identifies five regional transportation priorities for Alameda County: 1. ' Expand mass transit programs that have a demonstrated ability to get people out of their cars. These include major new expansions of the BART system throughout the county, Altamont Commuter Rail service, and express and feeder bus services; 2. Fix aging highways. The plan authorizes major new projects to improve interchanges, open new lanes, and improve surface streets and arterial roads that feed key commute corridors. 3. Maintain and improve local streets and roads. The current expenditure plan provides critical funds to every city in Alameda County for maintenance and upkeep of local streets and roads. The new'plan will continue to fund these activities, repaving streets, filling potholes, and upgrading local trans- portation infrastructure. . 4: Improve bike and pedestrian safety. The plan funds significant improve- ments in bike and pedestrian infrastructure to minimize traffic disruption and maximize safety for cyclists and pedestrians. 5. Expand suecial transportation services for seniors and people with dis- abflities. The plan significantly increases funds to better serve people with special transportation needs and the growing aging population in Alameda County. Measure B was created through a two year public planning .process that solicit- ed comment from citizens throughout Alameda County. It reflects a consensus throughout the county, drawing support from environmental, social justice,. tax- payer, and transit advocates, union members. and business interests, all fourteen Alameda County cities, and unanimous support from the County Board of Supervisors. Vote YES on Measure B. s/KEITH CARSON, Alameda County Supervisor s/SCOTT HAGGERTY, Alameda County Supervisor s/HELEN BURKE, Sierra Club WON SHAHOIAN, Alameda County Taxpayers Association s/TOM C. GOFF, California Alliance for Jobs CM -8 REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE B Why is it bad public policy to join so many diverse transportation projects into one special tax proposal? Because we get too many unnecessary projects which can't stand on them` own merits. Alameda County gets no benefit by subsidizing projects which the intended beneficiaries could afford, but wouldn't approve if given the choice. The biggest and most expensive construction project is typical. The BART extension to the Santa Clara County line will cost $165 million, almost 12% of the tax revenues. Yet Santa Clara has never agreed to allow BART within its borders. This expensive train track thus goes nowhere. Only Mrs. Winchester could appreciate that. The ACE train transports only a very small ridership to well -paying Silicon Valley jobs. The new freeway off -ramp to Jack London Square is designed to benefit mer- chants who are doing quite well without it. The bus subsidies to AC Transit, Union City Transit, and Livermore transit (LAVTA) benefit ridership areas which could easily afford to tax themselves if they wanted bigger systems. Most handicap services are -mandated by federal law. These will be provided whether or not this tax passes. Subsidizing this service frees up existing funds for the otherwise lowest priority services of transit districts. This 20 year, $1.4 BILLION hodgepodge of boondoggles lasts 5 years. longer, and costs $300 million more than its pork -laden predecessor which voters defeated in 1998. So now it's fatter instead of leaner. Wrong concept! Vote NO on B again! s/MARK ROSS, Voters Against Special Taxes s/WAYNE R. NYGREN, Infrastructure Management Consultant s/PETER KAVALER, Software Engineer s/DAVID GRAPPO, Attorney at law CM -9 V ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE B Ever notice how hard it is to end a temporary tax? Alameda County voters rejected this same basic proposal just two years ago. But our local politicians have sent it back to us. It's still too costly; too wasteful, or its projects should be funded in other ways. Every proposal in this legislation falls within the normal jurisdiction of a city or public agency operating within the county. If any city or agency wants its special project, it should pay. separately for it within its exist- ing budget. Most local cities and agencies are now awash in new real estate and sales tax funds due to the booming economy. Yet the first 226/o of this proposal, or $317 million, simply gets funneled back to the 15 cities in the county, allegedly to fix potholes. But due to booming tax revenues, none of the cities needs funds for this purpose. The entire $317 million will simply free up funds for patronage or other low priority items. The BART extension to Oakland Airport is also unnec- essary. Buses, -shuttles, and cabs efficiently fill this need now. All other proposed projects similarly are unnecessary, wasteful, or should be funded in other ways. There is no need for new taxes for any of these projects. There is virtually no public oversight built into this 20 year 1.4 BILLION DOL- LAR program. The volunteer citizen watchdog committee that it creates has no .power, no budget, and is appointed by the administrators of the tax. There is too much money, too much time, and no safeguards in the proposal. Let's tell our local politicians that we pay enough now in taxes; they should just spend wisely what they already have. Vote NO on B. s/DAVID GRAPPO, Voters Against Special Taxes s/MARK ROSS, Voters Against Special Taxes CM -10 REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE B MEASURE B IS OUR BEST CHANCE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT TRAFFIC AND CONGESTION. Traffic in Alameda County is already.bad and it will only get worse unless we take action now. Just consider the facts: • In 1998, Alameda County residents spent 41,800 vehicle hours a day in traf- fic, up from 18,800 hours in 1994. • Everyday, we lose nearly half a million dollars in lost productivity due to traffic congestion. • Alameda County is expected to add 220,000 jobs over the next 20 years, bringing more residents to our communities and putting more cars on our roads. Measure B addresses these problems head on. It authorizes a twenty year pro- gram to address congestion 'in every major commute corridor in Alameda County — providing a balance of mass transit solutions and road improvements to address the county's traffic woes. The Measure B plan identifies five regional transportation priorities: 1. Expand mass transit programs that have a demonstrated ability to get people out of their cars including BART, ACE Commuter Express, and express and feeder bus service. 2. Fix aging highways. 3. Maintain and improve local streets and roads. 4. Improve bike and pedestrian safety. 5. Expand special transportation services for seniors and people with dis- abilities. THE CHOICE IS OURS. Comprehensive, regional transportation solutions through continuing the Mea- sure B sales tax or twenty years of traffic and congested highways with our cur- rent, inadequate roads and mass transit alternatives. On November 7th, we urge you to Vote Yes on Measure B. s/THOMAS M. BLALOCK, P.E., President, BART Bd. of Directors s/JERRY BROWN, Mayor of Oakland s/JON SHAHOIAN, Alameda County Taxpayers Assoc. s/CATHIE BROWN, Mayor, City of Livermore s/SHELIA YOUNG, Mayor of San Leandro CM -11 Q FULL TEXT OF MEASURE B ORDINANCE NO. 2000-1 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE CONTINUATION _OF A ONE-HALF OF ONE PERCENT TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX BY THE ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY, FOR THE ISSUANCE OF LIMITED TAX BONDS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES The Members of the Alameda. County Transportation Improvement Authority (the "Authority") do ordain as follows: ARTICLE I General Section 1. Title This ordinance shall be known as the "Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority Ordinance." Section 2. Period of Tag This Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority Ordinance is intended to continue imposition and collection in Alameda County of a one-half of one, percent transactions and use tax for transportation purposes which will expire as of March 31; 2002. There shall be no coincidental assessment of the current tax and the new tax to be imposed pursuant to this ordinance. The new tax authorized by this ordinance shall be imposed for a twenty year period begin- ning April 1, 2002 or as soon thereafter as the tax may be lawfully imposed. Section 3. Purpose Pursuant to Division 19 of the Public Utilities Code (commencing with Section 180000), the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County have, at the rec- ommendation of the Alameda County Transportation Authority ("ACTA" ), cre- ated the Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority by Resolution 98-383. ACTA, the Board of Supervisors and the cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Dublin,Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Newark, Oak- land, Piedmont, Pleasanton, San Leandro and Union City have recommended that a measure be submitted to the voters of the County for their approval which would, if so approved, authorize the Authority to continue the imposition of a one-half of one percent transactions and use tax for a period of twenty years and authorize the Authority to issue limited tax bonds to finance the transportation improvements set forth in the 20 -Year Transportation Expenditure Plan. approved by the Board of Supervisors. The purposes of this ordinance are as,follows: a) To impose a retail transactions and use tax in accordance with the provi- sions of Part 1.6 (commencing with. Revenue and Taxation Code Section 725 1) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code and Division 19 of the Public Utilities Code which directs the County Board of Supervisors to adopt the tax ordinance for voter approval, exercising the taxing power granted to the Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority created by the Board of Supervisors by Resolution 98 -383 -pursuant to Public Utilities Code Division 19. CM -12 b) To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance which incorporates pro- visions identical to those of the Sales and Use Tax Law of the State of California u insofar as those provisions are not inconsistent .with the requirements and limi- tations contained in Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. c) To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance which imposes a tax and provides. a measure therefor that can be administered and collected by the State Board of Equalization in a manner that adapts itself as fully as practicable to, and requires the least possible deviation from the existing statutory and administrative procedures followed by the State Board of Equalization in admin- istering and collecting the California State Retail Transactions and Use Tax. d) To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance which -can be admin- istered in a manner that will, to the degree possible consistent with the provi- sions of Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, minimize the cost of collecting the transactions and use taxes and at the same time minimize the burden of record keeping upon persons subject to taxation under the provi- sions of this ordinance. e) To improve, construct, maintain, and operate certain transportation pro- jects and facilities contained in the 20 -Year Transportation Expenditure Plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors of AlamedaCounty, which plan is incor- porated here by this reference as though fully set forth herein, and as that Plan may be amended from time to time pursuant to applicable law. f) To set a maximum term of twenty years during which time this tax shall be imposed pursuant to the authority granted by Division 19 of the Public Utilities Code. Section 4. Contract with State Prior to the operative date, the Authority shall contract with the State Board of Equalization to perform functions incident to the administration and opera- tion of this transactions and use tax; provided that, if the Authority shall not have contracted with the State Board of Equalization prior to the operative date, it shall nevertheless so contract and in such a case the operative date shall be the first day of the first calendar quarter following the execution of such a contract. Section 5. Transactions Tax Rate of One -Half of One Percent For the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail, a tax is hereby imposed upon all retailers in this County at the rate of one-half of one percent of the gross receipts of any retailer from the sale of all tangible personal property sold at retail in this County on and after the operative date. This tax shall be. imposed for the maximum period of twenty years described in Section 2 herein. Section 6. Place of Sale For the purposes of this ordinance, all retail sales are consummated at the place of business of the retailer unless the tangible personal property sold is delivered by the retailer to an out of state destination or to a common carrier for delivery.to an out-of-state destination. The gross receipts from such sales shall include delivery charges, when such charges are subject to the state sales and use tax, regardless of the place to which delivery is made. In the event a retail- er has no permanent place of business in the state or has ,more than one place of CM -13 business, the place or places at which the retail sales are consummated shall be determined under rules and regulations to be prescribed and adopted by the State Board of Equalization. Section 7. Use Tax Rate of One -Half of One Percent An excise tax is hereby imposed on the storage, use or other consumption in this County of tangible personal property purchased from any retailer on and after the operative tax date for storage, use or other consumption in this County at the rate of one-half of one percent of the sales price of the property. The sales price shall include delivery charges when such charges are subject to state sales or use tax regardless of -the place to which delivery is made. This tax shall be imposed for the maximum period of twenty years described in Section 2 herein. Section 8. Adoption of Provisions of State Law Except as otherwise provided in this ordinance and except insofar as they are inconsistent with the provisions of Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, all of the provisions of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code are hereby adopted and made a part of this ordinance as though fully set forth herein. Section 9. Limitations on Adoption of State Law and Collection of Use Taxes In adopting the provisions of Part I of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxa- tion Code, wherever the State of California is named or referred to as the tax-. ing agency,- the name of the Authority shall be substituted therefor. The substi- tution, however, shall not be made when the word State is used as part of the title of the State Controller, State Treasurer, State Board of Control, State Board of Equalization, State Treasury, or the Constitution of the State of California if the substitution would require action to be taken by or against the Authority or any agency, officer or employee thereof rather than by or against the State Board of Equalization, in performing the functions incident to the administra- tion or operation of this. ordinance; the substitution shall not be made in those sections, including, but not necessarily limited to, sections referring to the exte- rior borders of the State of California, where the result of the substitution would be to provide an exemption from this tax with respect to certain sales, storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property which would, not other- wise be exempt from this tax while such sales, storage, use or other consump- tion remains subject to tax by the state under the said provisions of that code; the substitution shall not be made in sections 6701, 6702 (except in the last sen- tence thereof), 6711, 67,15,"6737, 6797 or 6828 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. The name of the County shall be substituted for the word. "state" in the phrase "retailer engaged in business in this state" in Section 6203 and in the def- inition of that phrase in Section 6203. A retailer engaged in business in the County shall not be required to collect use tax .from the purchaser of tangible personal property unless the retailer ships or delivers the property into the County or participates within the County in making the sale of the property, including, but not limited to soliciting or receiving the order, either directly or indirectly, at a place of business of the retailer in the County or through any rep- resentative, agent, canvasser, solicitor, subsidiary or person in the County under authority of the retailer. "A retailer engaged in business in the County" shall CM -14 also include any retailer of any of the following: vehicles subject to registration pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed in compliance with Section 21411 of the Public Utilities Code, or undocumented vessels registered under Chapter 2 of Division 3.5 (commencing with Section 9840) of the Vehicle Code. That retailer shall be required to collect use tax from any purchaser who registers or licenses the vehicle, vessel, or aircraft at an address in the County. Section 10. Permit Not Required If a seller's permit has been issued to a retailer under Section 6067 of the Revenue and Taxation code, an additional transactor's permit shall not be required by this ordinance. Section 11. Exemptions, Exclusions and Credits a) There shall be excluded from the measure of the transactions tax and the use tax the amount of any sales tax or use tax imposed by the State of California or the amount of any state -administered transactions or use tax. b) There are exempted from the computation of the amount of transactions tax gross receipts from: 1) Sales of tangible personal property, other than fuel or petroleum prod- ucts, to operators of aircraft to be used or consumed principally outside Ala- meda County and directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carriers of persons or property under the authority of the laws of this state, the United States, or any foreign government. 2) Sales of property to be used outside the County which is shipped to a point outside the County, pursuant to the contract of sale, by delivery to such point by the retailer to a carrier for shipment to a consignee at such point. For the purposes of this paragraph, delivery to a point outside the County shall be satisfied: (i) with respect to vehicles (other than commercial vehicles) subject to registration pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed in compliance with Section 21411 of the Public Utilities Code, and undocumented vessels registered under Chapter 2 of Division 3.5 (commencing with 9840 of the Vehicle Code, by registration to an out -of -County address and by a declaration under penalty of perjury, signed by the buyer, stating that such address is, in fact, his principal place of residence. (ii) with respect to commercial vehicles by registration to a place of business out -of -county, and a declaration under penalty of perjury, signed by the. buyer, that the vehicle will be operated from that address. 3) the sale of tangible personal property if the seller is obligated to furnish the property for a fixed price pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the operative date of this ordinance. 4) a lease of tangible personal property which is a continuing sale of such property for any period of time for which the lessor is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed by the lease prior to the operative date of this ordi- nance. 5) for the purposes of subsections (4) and (5), the sale or lease of tangible CM -15 _t personal property shall be deemed not to be obligated to a contract or lease for any period of time for which any party to the contract or lease has the uncondi- tional right to terminate the contract upon notice, whether or not such right is exercised. c) There is exempted from the use tax imposed by this ordinance the storage, use or other consumption in this County of tangible personal property: - 1) other than fuel or petroleum products, purchased by operators of air- craft and used or consumed by such operators, directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carriers of persons or property for hire of compen- sation under a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued pursuant to the laws of this state, the United States, or any foreign government. This exemp- tion is in addition to the exemptions provided in Sections 6366 and 6366.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California. 2) if the purchaser is obligated to purchase the propertyfor a fixed price pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the operative date of this ordinance. 3) if the possession of, or the exercise of any right or power over, tangible personal property under a lease which is a continuing" purchase of such proper- ty for any period of time for which the lessee is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed prior to the operative date of this ordinance. 4) for the purposes of subsections '(3) and (4), .storage, use or other con- sumption, or possession, or exercise of any right or power over, tangible -per- sonal property shall be deemed not to be ' obligated pursuant to a contract or lease for any period of time during which any party to the contract or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract or lease' upon notice, whether or not such right is exercised. d) Any person subject to use tax under this ordinance may credit against that tax any transactions tax or reimbursement for transactions tax paid to a district or retailer imposing a transactions tax pursuant to Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code with respect to the sale to the person of the prop- erty the storage, use or other consumption of which is subject to the use tax. Section 12. Propositions There shall be proposed to the voters of Alameda County the following proposition: "Shall Alameda County voters authorize implementing the Alameda County 20 - Year Transportation Expenditure Plan including: • Expand BART in Alameda County • Expand Altamont Commuter Express service • Expand Countywide Express, Local and Feeder Bus service • I-880/1-580/I-680/1-238/Rouie 84/Route 92 Improvements • Extend special transit services for seniors and persons with disabilities • Improve pedestrian/bike safety Approval of this Measure authorizes continuing the 1/2 cent transportation sales tax during the Plan's implementation. A Citizens Watchdog Committee shall audit all expenditures. CM -16 id Section 13. Limitation on Issuance of Bonds Unless approved by the Authority and by the voters, the Authority shall not s have outstanding at any, one time in excess of $1,000,000,000 in limited tax bonds. Section 14. Use of Proceeds The proceeds of the taxes imposed by this ordinance shall be used solely for the projects and purposes set forth in the 20 -Year Transportation Expenditure Plan and for the administration thereof. Section 15. Appropriations Limit .. For purposes of Article XIIIB of the State Constitution, the appropriations limit for the Authority for fiscal year 2000-2001 and thereafter shall be $300,000,000, unless that amount should be amended pursuant to applicable law. Section 16. Amendments All amendments subsequent to the effective date of this ordinance to Part I of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code relating to sales and use taxes and which are not inconsistent with Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code shall automatically become a part of this ordinance; provided, however, that no such amendment shall operate so as to -affect the rate of tax imposed by this ordinance. Section 17. Enjoining Collection Forbidden No injunction or writ of mandate or other legal or equitable process shall issue in any suit, action or proceeding in any court against the state or the Authority, or against any officer of the state or the Authority, to prevent or enjoin the col- lection under this ordinance, or Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, of any tax or any amount of tax required to be collected. Section 18. Severability If any provision of this ordinance of the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. Section 19. Effective Date This ordinance relates, insubstantial part, to the continuation of the authority to levy and collect the transactions and use taxes to support the 20 -Year Expenditure Plan and shall take effect at the close of the polls on the day of election at which the proposition is adopted by two-thirds vote of the electors voting on the measure. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Members of the Alameda County Trans- portation Improvement Authority on July 25, 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Members Carson, Chang, Cooper, Dean, Haggerty, King, Morrison, Steele, Young and Chairman Green —10 NOES: none EXCUSED: Member Chan — 1. ATTEST: Joan Van Brasch, Acting Clerk of the Authority CM -17 4 CITY OF ROHNERT PARK COUNCIL, AGENDA ITEM TRANSMITTAL REPORT : Building Department Submitted By: Lee Braun, Building Official Title: Code Enforcement Action Plan Council Action: No action required Summary: ***City Clerk Use Only*** Meeting Date Held Until 11-28-00 Item No. Date of Action: Deadline Date for: Council Action: At the October 24, 2000 Council meeting City staff members provided a brief workshop on code enforcement. Issues that were discussed included the current status of code enforcement within the City, proposed revisions to the process and the possibility of obtaining a state code enforcement grant. The workshop concluded with the Council requesting a Code Enforcement Action Plan which would describe the process of implementing changes to the current program and any costs associated with the changes. Additionally, Council requested staff to initiate the grant application process. Staff has initiated the grant application'process and will be submitting the application to State HCD prior to the deadline of December 18, 2000. Attached to this transmittal is the requested Code Enforcement Action Plan. The Action Plan describes the various components to a revised code enforcement program, ascribes associated costs and provides implementation dates for the components. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION: O Consent Item O Regular Time ( } Approval ( ) Public Hearing Required ( ) Not Recommended J O Submitted with Comment ( ) Policy Determination by Council ( ) City Comments:'— e City Manager's Signature: Date: ' Council Action . Vote: JH-h:Shells\Council Agenda Transmittal City Clerk Use Only City of.Rohnert Park Code Enforcement Action Plan On October 24, 2000 staff provided an outline of a. proposed code enforcement program to the City Council.. During that brief workshop presentation staff described how code enforcement is currently being handled in the City, proposed a revised approach and discussed the City's eligibility for a State Code Enforcement Pilot Program Grant. Based on the October 24th presentation, Council requested staff to make application for the Grant and furnish a Code Enforcement Action Plan that would also describe associated costs. This Action Plan identifies the various components involved in developing a comprehensive code enforcement program, whether or not the City receives the grant. In addition to associated costs, it also describes "benchmark" dates and implementation dates. It should be noted that if the City is a successful grant applicant, there would be a number of changes to the proposed code enforcement program including the cost to the City, the amount of time devoted to code enforcement. and the administration of the program. Should the City not be successful in obtaining the grant, a community services officer (CSO) would be assigned to part time code enforcement duties (20 hours per week). In this scenario there would be no additional cost to the City and this aspect of the CSO's duties, as well as the code enforcement program, would be administered by the Fire Commander, A successful grant application, however, would mean that the City would provide a full-time code enforcement officer (40 hours per week) and the officer, as well as the program, would be administered from one of the departments within the City's Development Services. Rohnert Park's grant application is in the amount of $225,000 and there is a matching requirement. (The matching funds could be provided in equivalent support staff time, however.). Thus, there is a potential cost to the City in this scenario: The grant program is for a three-year period: The City would be required to provide 25% in matching funds the first year, in the amount of $18,750; 50% in the second year, in the amount of $37,500; and 75%, in the amount of $56,250, the third.year. Code Enforcement- Program Components Code Enforcement Pilot Program Grant Council approved a Resolution on November 14, 2000 approving the application for a Code Enforcement Pilot Program Grant in the amount of $225,000. The application deadline is December 18, 2000. According to the application information, successful applicants will be notified in mid-January, 2001. It is a staff's opinion, because of grant ranking criteria, Rohnert Park has a modest chance for success with this application. Review of San Rafael's Code Enforcement Procedures The City of San Rafael has developed a model code enforcement program. Primary features of that program are administrative citations and the use of a contract hearing officer. These are two new components that are being proposed for Rohnert Park's Code Enforcement Program. Thus, staff has contacted San Rafael's Code Enforcement Program manager, Linda Ferris, for information on these aspects of their program. Members of Rohnert Park's staff will be visiting with Ms. Ferris early next year for the purpose of discussing San Rafael's program. Administrative Citation , Administrative citations, and appropriate fines, are often key components of successful municipal code enforcement programs. That being the case, an Administrative Citation ordinance will be prepared by City Attorney Strauss for Council's consideration. Along with the ordinance will be the presentation of a proposed resolution adopting an Administrative Fine Schedule. Administrative Fine Schedule Staff is currently conducting a survey of cities within Sonoma County, as well as other cities of similar size in the North Bay, to ascertain the appropriate fine assessment for various infractions of the Municipal- Code. By conducting a survey, staff intends to develop a fine schedule that is equitable yet sufficient to discourage repeat violations. Administrative Hearing Officer It is important to provide an impartial appeal process for those who feel that they have been wrongly cited for Municipal Code violations. Staff members who have been working on the development of the City code enforcement program have determined that providing a hearing ,officer, other than City administrative staff members, would be the most efficient and the most appropriate means for this provision of the code enforcement program. The responsible party for hearing costs has yet to be determined. Revisions to City Nuisance Abatement Ordinance Attorney Strauss has identified several revisions to the City's Nuisance Abatement Ordinance which are needed to conform to the proposed City code enforcement program. These minor revisions will be presented to the Council, along with other ordinance provisions and necessary resolutions in early 2001. Hotel & Motel Inspection Program The City's lower-priced motels are frequent sources of Public Safety calls, as well as citizen complaints. Most often citizen complaints have to do with unclean room conditions.. It is important to note that, while motel conditions may be deplorable, there are no local, county or state laws which regulate this aspect of the lodging industry. To rectify this lack of regulation authority, reduce the number of Public Safety calls to these facilities and to provide greater assurance of Rohnert Park's reputation, staff will be proposing a yearly inspection program of all motel and hotel rooms within the City. Along with the inspection requirements will be the establishment of minimal standards of cleanliness. Code Enforcement Benchmark . Implementation Program component &.. Date Date Council Resolution Council Approval Grant Application Approving Grant Application November 14, 2000 December 8, 2000 Code Enforcement Draft Application Application in mail Grant Application November 30, 2000 December 8, 2000 Visit San Rafael Contact Attend San Rafael Code Enforcement Program San Rafael Program Administrative Hearing Manager — 1112100 Mid -January, 2001 Code Enforcement See footnote No. 1 See footnote No. 1 Officer Selection below Below Administrative Fine Survey completed & Council Resolution Schedule Draft Schedule March 13, 2001 January 10, 2001 Administrative Citation Draft Completed Ordinance Hearing Ordinance February 1, 2001 March ,13, 2001 Revisions to Nuisance Draft of Revisions Ordinance Hearing Abatement Ordinance February 1, 2001 March 13, 2001 Hotel Motel Inspection Draft Completed Ordinance Hearing Ordinance February 1, 2001 March 13, 2001 Administrative Hearing Draft Completed Council Resolution Costs & Procedures February 1, 2001 March 13, 2001 Code Enforcement Draft Completed Completed Manual Procedure Manual May 4, 2001 June 15, 2001 ' Should the City be successful in its code enforcement grant application, recruitment for a code enforcement officer would be dependent on the Personnel Department's schedule. One would assume that the recruitment could begin in late February to early March with the selection and hiring process being completed in early May. However, should the City not be a successful grant applicant, one would assume that the selected CSO could begin the 20 hours per week code enforcement duty in mid-January to mid- February. In this scenario the code enforcement officer would begin with specialized in-house training (primarily building & zoning regulations), help draft the new & revised ordinance provisions and contribute to the writing of the code enforcement procedure mamial. t COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS. 11/28/00 Dated Information G. Assc. Of Bay Area Gvrmmnts. [Agenda] Determination of Final Housing Unit Allocation by the ABAG Executive Board, Appeal Due 12/19/00. H. CA. Falun Dafa Practitioners Request Proclamation of Talun.Dafa Week" for 12/11-17/00 1. City of Santa Rosa Bay Area Smart Growth Strategy and Regional Livability Footprint Project, 12/14/00, 9:30 am — noon Information 12. H. Stiefer, Jr./Resident [Agenda] Supports Mr. Sanchez's Use Permit for 2nd Residential Unit *Originals Previously Distributed/Fazed to Council COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS 11/28/00 Dated Information A. P. Kilkenny/Housing Leadership Coalition* So. Co. Housing Coalition Meeting, 11/17/00,9-11 AM B. L. Tracy/RP Chamber of Commerce* Universal Services Ribbon Cutting, 11118100, 5 PM Information 1. J. Pekkain/President of Association Retired Employees City of RP Request Compensation of Retired PS Employee for Court Time 2. R. Olufs/So. Co. Farm Bureau Bureau Recommends a 'Yes" Vote on UGB Measure 3. N. Frey/So. Co. Grape Growers Assc. Workplan to Keep So. Co. Free from the Glassy -winged Sharpshooter 4. S. Gremmels/Novato City Clerk City of Novato Council Reorganization 5. EPS 1 Economic Planning Systems Final Report Housing Strategy Evaluation *Originals Previously Distributed/Faxed to Council COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS 11/28/00 mr,�w,"7a'tt"�timsY'���g.��-+ :. ��,�'/+krte"�;.'} �.F �1+,�t. t,i..TWr[ '� �1'liv.n0"- i.,•r•Tr'(ai �� �[,-:.., �q,...T�'iz,`�:^:.:.F:.:x"� ,'��- ..}s,r?np?^t., 3�x�w. �}-y. ..�,t,+,�, ,,-,'. ,� Dated Information C. CA Highway Patrol Traffic Congestion Relief Panel,11127, 7:30am-noon D. So. Co. Tourism 2001 Schedule and Additional Materials E. Chamber of Commerce* Holiday Lights Celebration, 11130, 6-7 PM F. Chamber of Commerce* Annual Holiday Reception, 1217, 5:30-7:30 PM Information 6. P. Major/American Golf* Improvement Plans for Mountain Shadows Golf Course 7. Center for Livable Communities The Ahwahnee Principles for Smart Economic Development:: An Implementation Guidebook 8. Noll & Tam Architects and Planners Advertising Brochure 9. S. Hoefling/Resident Contacts from other Cities with Experience Working with American Golf 10. N. Kaufman/Planning & Community Status Report on General Plan Implementation & the Development Director Wilfred-Dowdell Specific Plan 11. N. Kaufman/Planning Director Alternative Proposals for Public Review of Draft Zoning Ordinance *Originals Previously Distributed/Faxed to Council rl DATED MATERIAL t tip Sonoma County Housing Leadership Coalition In Organization c/o National Bank of the Redwoods _ (� P.O. Box 402 Wx Santa Rosa, CA 95402 November 2, 2000 COUNCIL: ,b'� MISCELLANEOUS ywd COMMUNICATIONS Vicki Vidak-Martinez AGENDA Mayor COPY T0: City of Rohnert Park 6750 Commerce Blvd. COPY TO: Rohnert Park, CA 94928 (707)573-4916 Reference: SONOMA COUNTY HOUSING COALITION MEETING Dear Ms. Vidak-Martinez: We need you at the Housing Table! There is no question that the North Bay is an extraordinary place to live. We have the opportunity, if not the responsibility, to plan for a balanced Housing Policy in Sonoma County. The Chris Coursey Column in the November 1, 2000 Press Democrat sets the stage for what we are attempting to accomplish (article included). Earlier this year Santa Rosa's Mayor, Janet Condron, convened a forum on housing. As an out growth of that forum an Ad hoc Committee was formed to decide how to deal with the findings. The conclusion was, now is the time to create a Sonoma County Housing Coalition to work towards a balanced Housing Policy with an emphasis on work force housing. To that end a small Leadership Committee was formed to move the coalition concept forward. This letter serves as an invitation to you to join with the Leadership Committee of the Ad hoc Committee to explore the possibility of creating a large group coalition of stakeholders to tackle the housing issue in an organized fashion. The Organizing Leadership Committee consists of: Jay Abbe — Original Chairman of the Santa Rosa Housing Forum. Keith Christopherson — President, Christopherson Homes Michael Parman — Publisher, Press Democrat Valerie Brown — Former Assembly Woman 7th District. Patrick Kilkenny — Chairman & CEO National Bank of the Redwoods Others are being added at this time. Sonoma County Housing Coalition Meeting November 2, 2000 Page 2 The concept of the Housing Coalition is not new and does exist in the Silicon Valley. If anything, the Silicon Valley wishes that they had started the program sooner. The initial tasks are as follows: Organize the group with a broad base representation. Study various elements of housing. Public Policy Finance Land Utilization Develop positions regarding our Housing Policy for Sonoma County. Educate and advocate our Housing Policy to political community leaders and the citizens of Sonoma County Housing is a fundamental resource and a vital part of our local infrastructure. To achieve a balanced Housing Policy we need you, your ideas, and your entities support. Therefore, we are asking you to attend the initial informational meeting of the proposed Coalition on Friday, November 17, 2000 at the Doubletree in Rohnert Park at 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. The Leadership Committee will be in attendance to explain the vision and solicit your feedback and hopefully support. Please RSVP to our voice mail reservation number by calling (707) 573-4916 no later than November 15, 2000. Sincerely, Patrick W. Kilkenny On behalf of the Organizing Leadership Committee PWK/cd enclosures Community should decide housing mix is getting close to Election Day, so there's a lot of hand -wringing going on about affordable housing in Sono- ma County. Considering the squabbling that sur- rounds other issues, there's remarkable unanimity when it comes to this one. No one wants this to become a community in which all but the rich are priced out of the housing market But how do we keep from getting there? Earnest minds are cogitating about so- lutions. Suggestions include Increasing "the fees that developers pay in lieu of pro- •viding lower-priced homes. Some want to add a fee on commercial construction to help pay for below-market housing. Oth- ers suggest loosening the rules for park- ing, setbacks or other requirements that Increase the price of low-cost projects. All of those suggestions point In the right direction. But none addresses the most vexing question: Where is this affordable housing going to be built? Unlike Santa Fe, N.M., which was de- scribed on Monday's front page as an af- fordable housing success story, Santa Rosa doesn't have an 860 -acre tract of land available at a deep discount Even if we did, cramming thousands of below- market units into one corner of town is not the best way to address the issue. Af- fordable housing should be spread throughout the community. But building lower-priced homes means increasing density and bringing more traffic into existing neighborhoods, which almost always galvanizes opposi- tion to such projects- Elected officials, faced with crowds of angry neighbors, tend to side with the voters in front of them rather than approving controver- sial housing for some unknown voters of the future. Can you blame them? C BuUding affordable housing takes more than money, man- power and materials. It takes a community willingness to make tough decisions. Without that will- ingness, we're left with hand -wringing. Here's how we might get beyond that Let's convene a communitywide discus- sion on the best use of the remaining de - 34 years in SR murder -for Wife left'emotionally paralyzed' after husband convicted of plotting with stepson to kill her By MRK MASON THE PRESS DEMOCRAT Paul Loutzenhiser, a longtime Santa Rosa resident convicted of a murder -for - hire plot targeting his wife, was sen- tenced Tuesday to 34 years to life in pris- on. Authorities say Loutzenhiser wanted to collect about $1 million in life insurance on his wife and tried to enlist his son to kill her or hire a hit man. :> In handing down the maximum sentence, Judge Robert Boyd de- scribed Loutzenhiser as "dangerous and { evil." . Loutzenhiser, 46, won't be eligible for pa- role until he is 73. Paul Douglas During the trial, g Myles Loutzenhiser LOenh testified that he nearly fulfilled his father's re- quest but lost his nerve and disclosed the plot to Santa Rosa police. The intended victim, Leslie Loutzenhis- er, is his stepmother. The jury also heard secretly recorded tapes of telephone conversations betwi father and son in which they discus -various plans to kill her or hire a hit rr to do it instead. Loutzenhiser was arrested while ha ing his son $9()0 to buy a gun and a ph of his wife to provide to the hit man, v actually was an undercover Santa R, police officer. The casual manner in which Loutz hiser spoke of murdering his wife was flected in taped conversations in wh he said that killing her in a staged car cadent would be easy, "badda-bing, bad mm.„ "He talked about murder the way tors talk on TV," Sonoma County prose for Jill Ravitch said In court Tuesday, a "We have basically demolished the entire school." SUPERINTENDENT KEN RANELLA PHOA15 BY MARY WAMEUAI I Dave Amaral works on the rebar in the courtyard as part of the remodeling of 4Q -year-old Brook Haven School in Sebastopol. SEBASTOPOL TI.T r flcell Willi crnwds nrangly n6viihors. lcnrl to ;irle. with thr, voters in front or c -Aero rnthrtr Ih:u1 approving controver- 's1U housing for some unknown voters of tire future. Can you blame them? 13 uilding affordable housing takes more than money, man- power and materials. It takes a community willingness to make tough decisions. Without that will- ingness, we're left with hand -wringing. Here's how we might get beyond that:- Let's hatLet's convene a communitywide discus- sion on the best use of the remaining de- velopable land. Whether it's limited to parcels inside Santa Rosa's Urban Growth Boundary or whether it includes every city and every piece of property in Sonoma County, let's get started some- where. Let's put the questions on the table: Are we willing to build taller buildings in our downtowns? Are we willing to re- quire mixed uses in areas that today might be all residential, or all business? Are we willing to tell industries that pro- vide jobs that they also must build hous- ing? Are we willing to tell neighborhoods that the vacant parcel down the street isn't going to be filled with 2,500 -square - foot homes, but with three times as many 900 -square -foot apartments? Are we willing to make affordable housing a priority? That's the question that needs to be asked. Because this isn't a question about whether housing can be less expen- sive. It's a question about whether we as a community can generate the political will to do it That will won't come from three or four people on a council or board. It must be developed with a clear plan that spells out exactly where the community is going. A plan that says where there will be new apartments, condos, attached homes and mixed-use developments. A Plan that says how we will make room in our community not just for teachers and cops and government workers, but for students and service workers and pen- sioners. A plan that shows how we will shelter the homeless. Of course we already have general. Plans. This is a suggestion for general Plans that specifically address the afford- ability issue. We could get started on such a plan right now. Take a break from the piece- meal approval of new development, step back from contentious neighborhood beefs about density and traffic, set aside some time to look at the big picture. It would be very difficult. It would make a lot of people mad. It would put po- litical careers in jeopardy. But if we truly believe that something needs to be done to create more afford. able housing, wouldn't it be worth a try? Call Coursey at 521-5223 or e-mail ccOu seyCpressder-rocral.com PHOTOS By MARY GAROERA / Dave Amaral works on the rebar in the courtyard as part of the remodeling of 40 -year-old Brook Haven School in Sebastopol. SEBASTOPOL New gym o crown Y n Brook aver $12 million school P -- ��as renovation project ur Ave. Coven Ln. nears completion Brook Haven V. nuneAve_ Middle School 121 By ROBERT DIGITALS THE PRESS DEMOCRAT SEBASTOPOL — The only items left from the old Brook Ha- ven Middle School campus in Se- bastopol are the land and the scoreboard. And even the land is getting strengthened to better support $12 million worth of new facili- ties. This winter the students will enjoy the old scoreboard inside a new 550 -seat gymnasium. Near the gym stands a new li- brary and performing arts class- room. And workers have inject- ed a special grout nearly 30 feet 1R mile \1 -,.J N The Press Democrat into the earth to stabilize the soil for a future industrial arts facility and other classrooms. "We have basically demol- ished the entire school," said Su- perintendent Ken Ranella. Students said the new build- ings will be a big improvement over the 40 -year-old campus. Even the new portable class- rooms "are a lot nicer than the old school," eighth -grader Aaron Scott works on the ventilation system at Brook Haven 5 new gym, which is scheduled to open in January. Emma Uribe said Tuesday. funds. Another $6. - The Brook Haven renovation came from a bond mE is. the largest of $18 million in Proved by voters in 19 projects undertaken during the Even so, school off- ffpast pasttwo years in the Sebastopol mate they still need ab Union School District Pine lion more to complete Crest Elementary School and ernization work at Brc Park Side Elementary are also and the other two sch undergoing significant face lifts. ing the next year they To finance the projects, the voter approval for a district of nearly 1,300 students measure for some or received $11 million in state TURN TO SQiOOl, PF if Ukiah r�an test'Affies he feared tne sc Prosecutor rejects firefighter Gary Bruchler's claim of self-defense By UCILIA WANG THE PRESS DEMOCRAT UKIAH — Gary BrucWer told ju- rors in his murder trial Tuesday he was so afraid of his son he knew he had to do something to protect him- self. "He is coming after me," said Bruchler, recalling his thoughts just before he killed John Bruchler on May 10, 1999. "If he sees me with something, I air a dead man." The "something" Bruchler re- ferred to was an ax, which the 64 -year-old retired Ukiah firefighter used to kill his 30 -year-old son. The elder Bruchler is charged with first- degree murder. John Bruchier died after being struck by the blunt end of the ax while lying on the living room floor of his parents' home shortly before 6:30 a.m. Gary Bruchler called police shortly afterward to report the inci- dent. While Gary Bruchler has been de- send an scribed by his attorney, David Nel- cause• he son, as a parent who had been terror- to know. ized by his son for years and acciden- "It was tally ' killed his son out of self -de- but I did fense, prosecutor Richard Martin ren," Gar presented Bruchler as a cold-hearted John f killer. being tak . During questioning by the prose- Bruchl cutor Tuesday, Bruchler admitted commun he knew the ax could kill and that he He appea struck John Bruchler at least twice and will while his son was lying on the floor, day. not physically threatening him. A wir Bruchler, who admitted he was a BrucWer proud man, told the police not to TU ♦ ROHNERT PARK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE November 9, 2000 )' Mr. Joe NetterCity Manager Q� 16 2000 City of Rohnert Park cVV 0: 6750 Commerce Blvd. Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Dear Joe, Please be advised of the following Chamber of Commerce Ribbon Cutting: Business: Universal Services Contact: Diana Calderon Location: 2 Padre Parkway Rohnert Park Phone: 792-1803 Date: Saturday November 18, 2000 Time: 55 p.m. Additional Continents: a catered reception will be held immediately following ribbon cutting. O 1 NOV 16 2000 Please let our office know by 11/17/2000, if you will be attending. Th you, L' da racy ember Services ' COUNCIL: MISCELLANEOUS , COMMUNICATIONS AGENDA COPY TO: COPY TO.7)2'r - C (707) 584-1415 • FAX(707)584-2945 EMAILChamber@rpnet.net • http://www.rpchamber.org 5000 ROBERTS LAKE ROAD, SUITE B 9 ROHNERT PARK, CALIFORNIA 94928 .11/17/2000 12:32 17075361404 CAL=F HIGHWAY PATROL PAGE 01 ALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 8100 L&Gath Avenue ROHNERT PARK. CA 94928.20 CMID Telephone No.: 707-588-1400 SANTA ROSA AREA 380 FAX NO.: 707.588-1404 NOTICI�: THIS DOCUMENT, WHICH IS BEING FAICd. 13 INTENDED ONLY FOR TH USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY INDICATED BELOW AS THE ADRESSEE. TH DOCUMENT MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EX9MPT FROM DESCLOSURE UNDER APPLcAELE LAW. IF YOU HAY/ RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICAT*N IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US, THE SENDEF IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL TO US AT THI 7 ADDRESS INDICATED ABOVE. VIA THE US POSTAL SERVICE. YOU ARE HERES, NOTIFIED THAT ANY.UNAUTHOR>ZED DISS�EMlNATION, OtSTRIBUTIQN OR erOPYEN( OF THIS COMMUNICATION tS STRICTLY PROHI . .13 SAW 17"S A SOD LAW I TO: _ n ..r,� N� C� ���--- _ FAX NO.: - ATTENTION: MESSAGE PAGES SENT: 2-- anclades cover sheat) The following Public notice is forwarded to you inviting you to be part of this Departments effort to work towards solutions in our communitids dealing with traffic congestion. If you have any questions regarding this town hall meeting please feel free to contact Lt. Kelly Young at the Santa Rosa Area CIDP Office @ (707) 588-1400 DATE: SENDER:(� C7► 1 TITLE: (--` IF THIS MESSAGE 1$ INCOMP9L __ OR ILLEGIB E, MISCELLANEOUS �L j COMMUNICATIONS >'l_ao-rao � AGENDA I COPY TO: • {,SPY TO: .11/17/2009 12:32 1707588=404 CALIF HIGHWAY PATROL PAGE 02 LJ NEWS/PUBLIC NOTICE Contact (1VIEDAA [NQUIatIES ONLY): Golden Gate Division, Otfcer Pete Bara (747) 64$-4180 extension. 275 November X¢, 2000 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING Officials to Conduct Traffic Congestion Town Hall.Meeti ngs "The California Highway Patrol (CHP) with other state and local agencies is chairing a California Traffic Congestion Relief Panel on Monday, November 27, .2000, from 7:30 a.m. to 12:00 noon at the Cal Trans District 4 ,Auditorium at 111 Grand Avenue in Oakland. The Public is invited to attend and participate in the meetings, which are focused on identifying potential solutions to traffic congestion problems throughout the state. For additional information please contact the CRP's Golden Gate Division Office at (707) 648-4180." ### E O �IQV 17 2000 OUNTY COUNCIL: MISCELLANEOUS COMMUNICATIONS AGENDA COPY TO: COPY T0: CITY OF RpyiNERT PARK 49 if C 520 Mendocino AVENUE SUITE 210 SANTA ROSA, CA 95401 TO: Distribution FROM: Nancy Fuller, Data Coordinator SUBJECT: Sonoma County Tourism Committee Meeting Agenda Supplement DATE: November 16, 2000 Attached are copies of the materials distributed at yesterday's meeting. Please note the schedule for 2001 is enclosed for your convenience. Should you have any questions about the information after you have reviewed it, please do not hesitate to contact us. Encl. CC: Sheila Romero, Executive Director, Sonoma County Tourism Program Distribution: Carol Kozlowski -Every Michael Martini Christine DeLoach Steve Page Norm Blackburn Carlo Galazzo Suzanne Green Norman Krug Thomas Cochrane John Muir Claudia Haskel Mike Reilly Michael Hirschberg Jeff Langley Randall Neuman Investors' Committee Mike Cale, Board of Supervisors Mike Chrystal, County Administrator Terry Saunders, BOS City Managers Susanne Woodrum, SCTP Catherine DePrima, EDB Lainey Gerber, BOS so XI- IV SONOMA COUNTY TOURISM COUNCIL Wednesday, November 15, 2000 3:00 PM Sonoma Mission Golf and Country Club Zinfandel Room 17700 Arnold Drive, Sonoma, CA AGENDA 3:00 PM 1.0 WELCOME 3:05 PM 2.0 PUBLIC COMMENT 3:10 PM 3.0 APPROVE MINUTES 3:15 PM 4.0 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 3:25 PM 5.0 COMMITTEE REPORTS 5.1 Executive 5.2 Investors' 5.3 Marketing 5.4 Public Relations 3:30 PM 6.0 OLD BUSINESS 6.1 Visitor's Guide 2000-2001 Distribution Update 2001-2002 Recommended Production 4:00 PM 7.0 NEW BUSINESS 7.1 Web Site Recommended Advertising Strategy Recommended Site Changes 7.2 Accommodation Survey 7.3 Community Relations "Road Show" 7.4 SCTC Calendar Updates 4:45 PM 8.0 MEMBERS COMMENTS/INDUSTRY ROUNDTABLE 5:00 PM 9.0 ADJOURN S:\EDB\PROJECTS\TourismProgram\Agendas\SCTC 111500. doc 11/8/00 Y SONOMA COUNTY TOURISM PROGRAM VISITOR'S GUIDE RESERVE (Progress Report) Reprint: 4-6 weeks 50,000 qty = $32,000 printing/$1,600 freight 100,000 qty = $45,150 printing/$3,173.00 freight New Issue: 18-24 weeks ' NCCA has limited storage. Initial allotment over-estimated. 2 Tour & Travel initial allotment over-estimated. 3 VC and CVBs requested fewer than allotted. 4 Move 3,000 to sales kit reserve 01-02 5 No allotment reserved in initial calculations. INITIAL JUL 1 TO YEAR END BALANCE - ALLOTMENT OCT 31 PROJECTIONS RESERVE (Based on 48 weeks - thru 9/2001 SCTP - WEEKLY 18,200 6,791 21,600 (10,191) (Average 377 per week Based on 350/wk Based on 450/wk FREERUN - WEEKLY 15,600 312 3,600 11,688 (Average 52 per week Based on 300/wk Based on 75/wk SFCVB - WEEKLY 26,000 2,513 24,000 (513) (Average 418 per week Based on 500/wk Based on 500/wk ONE TIME MAILINGS 7,400 3,660 3,740 0 PRESS KITS 900 180 720 0 SONOMA WINE 525 75 450 0 COUNTRY MEETINGS FILM COMMISSION 1,200 353 847 0 TRADE SHOWS 3,150 375 175 2,600 CONCIERGE ASSOC 48,000 13,255 13,200 21,545' TOUR & TRAVEL 3,000 37 1,500 1,4632 COMMUNITY 31525 748 2,777 0 RELATIONS VISITOR CENTERS/CVBs 22,500 10,2003 0 12,300 9,3004 SALES KIT RESERVE 01- 05 0 3,000 0 02 TOTALS 150,000 39,669 74,439 35,892 Reprint: 4-6 weeks 50,000 qty = $32,000 printing/$1,600 freight 100,000 qty = $45,150 printing/$3,173.00 freight New Issue: 18-24 weeks ' NCCA has limited storage. Initial allotment over-estimated. 2 Tour & Travel initial allotment over-estimated. 3 VC and CVBs requested fewer than allotted. 4 Move 3,000 to sales kit reserve 01-02 5 No allotment reserved in initial calculations. Sonoma County Tourism Program i6 ��4 qq si#osr Guiderµ* eJ•,, m'ss R"t i„Ih:. , Ld-� F. � Actual_ kReco . 3" : .bftN33 .c.w .R" .., x o Fmenclation: V.w s+.t moi: .,✓S.r. vr .•b' Quantity 150,000 1501000 Out of County Distribution 127,500 / 85% 127,500 / 85% In County Distribution 221500/15% 22,500/15% Editorial / Advertising Ratio 67%/33% 50%/50% SCTP Production Costs $89,000' $40,000 SCTP Distribution Costs $75,000 $751000 Advertising Revenue $821000 $115,0002 Total Costs $246,000 $230,0003 Note: Should advertising revenue surpass the 2001/2002 goal, it is recommended that additional revenue be examined to offset the costs of producing and distributing more Guides at a local level. 'SCTP incurred the cost of the 00/01 guide in FY 99/00 budget. 2 A increase in participation from the private sector is projected. In addition, overall ad rates need to be revisited and possibly increased based on similar destination guide comparisons. 3The total costs as well as the projection for costs for the SCTP and advertisers is for general direction/discussion purposes. The figures are based on costs from the previous year and include projections of minimal cost savings since the guide will not have to be built from scratch. VISITOR'S GUIDE COMPARISON Destination Quantity Distribution Distribution # Advertising Charge to Annual Full Page Produced Out of in the Area pgs Editorial Visitor? Budget Ad Cost Area Ratio SERMON - Sonoma County Tourism 150,000 124,000 26,000 68 32.6%-67.4% No charge $1.5 million $3,375 Program Napa Valley CVB 65,000 25,000 by 40,000 120 50%-50% $5.95 $1 million $6,375 Dan Howard NVCVB through Produced by Vintage 40,000 by retail outlets Pubs Vintage Pubs Santa Barbara CVB 90,000 70,000 20,000 96 50%-50% No Charge $1.4 million - $6,000 Jennifer Talt member 805-966-9222 ext 109 $6500 non- member Monterey County VB 50,000 38,000 12,000 160 60%-40% No Charge $1.5 million $7,683 Pam Hart 831-649-1770 Palm Springs Desert 90,000 80,000 10,000 46 70%-30% No Charge $4.5 million Free listing Resort (Total cost of included w/ Jim Labay guide membership 760-770-9000 Ext 105 incurred by Palm -Desert Resorts) Tri -Valley 50,000 38,000 12,000 34 60%-40% No charge $.5 million $3,500 Lisa Dial 925-846-8910 I isa@trivaI Ieycvb.corn ti Insert Date Here Dear Tourism Partner: The Sonoma County Tourism Program (SCTP) and the Sonoma County Lodging Association is conducting a survey of the accommodation sector. The survey will help to increase the Tourism Program and the Sonoma County visitor industry's understanding of its current visitor profile. SCTP staff and tourism industry leaders of the Sonoma County Tourism Council will use the information collected in this survey to further define target markets, to maximize marketing resources, and to identify opportunities for expanding the Sonoma County visitor base. All responses will be kept strictly confidenti i ual property or business data will not be released in any form. Only colle in rmation will be published. All survey respondents will automatically re a copy of the final report of the findings. The information collected in this the visitor industry when mark take a few moments to complete Nle used to help us better serve you and ma County as a visitor destination. Please questionnaire. Upon completing the questionnaire, please return it via fax to 707-565-5385 before December 8, 2000 or via the mailing address located on this letterhead and on the survey. If you have questions about the Accommodations Survey or other research regarding visitors to Sonoma County please contact at sheila@sonomacounty.com. If you want to know more about the Sonoma County Lodging Association please contact Kate@SonomaValleylnn.com. Sincerely, Sheila Romero, Executive Director Kate Caldwell, President Sonoma County Tourism Program Sonoma County Lodging Association S:\EDB\PROJECTS\TourismProgram\Research\accomsurveylet.doc 11/15/00 2000-2001 Visitor Profile Survey Sonoma County Accommodations "Business Name: Address: City: ZIP: Phone: Fax: Email: Website: 1. What is your primary lodging type? (Please circle one and complete blanks) 1. Full Service/#Rooms 2. Limited Service/#Rooms 3. Bed & Breakfast/Inn #Rooms 4. Vacation Rental #Homes #Bedrooms 5. Campground/RV Park # Spaces 2. What is the purpose of your guests' visit to your accommodation? (Percentages should total 100) 1. Leisure/Pleasure % 2. Primarily Business % 3. Combined Business and Pleasure % 4. Visit Friends/Relatives % 5. Other (specify) -%- 3. What percentage of your customers are from the following? (Percentages should total 100) 1. *Greater Bay Area % 2. Sacramento % 3. Other Northern California % 4. Southern California % 5. Out of State % 6. International % *Greater Bay Area is defined as Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties. 4. What types of travelers are your customers? (Per t ges should total 100) 1. Individuals % 2. Couples % 3. Fa ' ies 4. Part of Group % 5. Other (specify):% 5. What is the average age range of your gues ntages should total 100) 1. 35 and under % 2.35-55% .5 and over % 6. On average, how long before thei rival your guest make travel arrangements at your facility? (Please circle one) 1. Day of arrival 2. 2-7 Days Before Arrival 3. 1-3 Weeks in Advance 4. 1-6 Months Ahead 5...6 Months or More 6. Other(specify): 7. What is the average length of overnight stay at your facility in the following time periods? (Please complete all by listing the number of nights) 1. Jan.,Feb., Mar. # 2. Apr.,May,Jun.# 3. JuI.,Aug.,Sept.# 4. Oct.,Nov.,Dec.# 8. What is the Average Daily Rate at your facility in the following time periods? (Please complete all by listing the dollar amount) 1. Jan.,Feb., Mar. $ 2. Apr.,May,Jun.$ 3. Jul.,Aug.,Sept.$ 4. Oct.,Nov.,Dec.$ 9. What is the Average Occupancy at your facility in the following time periods? (Please complete all by listing the percentage) 1. Jan.,Feb., Mar. % 2. Apr.,May,Jun.% 3. Jul.,Aug.,Sept.% 4. Oct.,Nov.,Dec.% 10. Additional Comments: (attach additional pages if necessary) Thank you for completing this questionnaire. Please return this survey to the Sonoma County Tourism Program by December 15, 2000 via fax at 707-565-5385 or via mail at 520 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 210, Santa Rosa, CA 95401 SONOMA COUNTY TOURISM COUNCIL 520 MENDOCINO AVENUE SUITE 210 SANTA ROSA, CA 95401 2001 SCHEDULE PLEASE NOTE THESE DATES ON YOUR CALENDAR REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS DATE DAY TIME February 21, 2001 Wednesday 3:00 PM April 18, 2001 Wednesday 3:00 PM May 16, 2001 Wednesday 3:00 PM August 15, 2001 Wednesday 3:00 PM October 17, 2001 Wednesday 3:00 PM November 28, 2001 Wednesday 3:00 PM OTHER COUNCIL EVENTS/ACTIVITIES DATE DAY TIME PURPOSE January 8, 2001 Monday 3:00 PM Orientation January 17, 2001 Wednesday Noon/5:00 PM Workshop April 12, 2001 Thursday 8:00 AM/2:OOPM Tourism Conference December 5, 2001 Wednesday 3:00 PM Social Gathering COMMITTEES EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE DATE DAY TIME March 20, 2001 Tuesday 3:00 PM May 8, 2001 Tuesday 3:00 PM August 7, 2001 Tuesday 3:00 PM November 13, 2001 Tuesday 3:00 PM MARKETING COMMITTEE DATE DAY TIME February 8, 2001 Thursday 2:00 PM April 5, 2001 Thursday 2:00 PM August 9, 2001 Thursday 2:00 PM October 11, 2001 Thursday 2:00 PM PUBLIC RELATIONS COMMITTEE DATE DAY TIME February 7, 2001 Wednesday 1:00 PM April 4, 2001 Wednesday 1:00 PM August 8, 2001 Wednesday 1:00 PM November 7, 2001 Wednesday 1:00 PM INVESTORS' COMMITTEE DATE DAY TIME February 7, 2001 Wednesday 3:00 PM TP\Nancy\sctc2001 calendarxls 11/14/00 PUBLIC RELATIONS ' 6J - The Birmingham News TRAVEL Sunday, October 8, 2000 Wine festivals make_ a good first step in demystifying wine By BRENDA D. FARRELL For 7heAssockued Press From the Green Mountains of Vermont to the sandy shores of Hawaii, autumn is wine festival time in America. And even if you don't know your chardonnay from your chianti, you'll be made to feel as wm elcoe as are the most discerning oenologists. "Wnemakers want wine to be accessible to everyone,' says Betsy Fischer, owner of Wines - peak, a'wine consulting and ed- ucation firm based in a Sonoma, Calif. 'The time has come for Americans to learn that wine is not a mysterious subject with a secret language. Attending a wine festival or wine tasting event is a good first step in 'de- mystifying' wine appreciation." For travelers, wine festivals and wine tasting events can be an ideal introduction to the cui- sine and history of the place they are visiting. "Lots of people make their travel .plans around wine festi- vals, because they know that they're a good place to go to get a 'snapshot' of the local restau- rant scene," Fischer says. "They're, also great places to learn about things like cycling and hot-air balloon trips, in the wine country, and other area at- tractions. 'And best of all, you71 meet locals and other travelers who share your interests, and that always makes a vacation more memorable." -Although most of the nation's premier wine events are held In autumn, plenty of good ones are held at other times of the year. Among them: ► California: Year-round, the celebrated wineries and restau- rants of Sonoma, Napa Valley and Monterey participate in dozens of wine festivals and events, ranging from intimate to expansive in size and scope. These Web sites are your best bet for finding them: www.wine- coantry.com www.sonomacoun- ty.com, www.sonoma.corn, www.napaualley.com and www.gomonterey.com. In' Southern California, the We pEnt Beconw ax WoAdS Fasten al C. $eller N SmmN, Praoft! Tourists hold up glasses to examine the hue of the wine in the tasting room at Beringer Vineyards in St Helena, Calif. The tasting room is inside the company's 114 -year-old Rhine House. With its long, sunny days and wisp, cool nights, the Napa Valley has long been America's prime wine -growing region.' annual Grape,Stomp Festa in Ju - Ban, a gold -rush era town lo- cated about 60 miles east of San Diego, is no highbrow event. Visitors get to hop into barrels, stomp "until they're purple," drink some wine, and pick up a bottle or two of 'Chawe La - Feet" For information, tall 1-760-765-1657 or visit the Web site: www.juliancacom. ► Hawaii: More than 50 wine- ries from around the world will participate in the Ninth Annual Winter Wine Escape, set for Nov. 9-11 at the Mauna Kea Resort on the Big Island of Hawaii. This year's theme is a comparison of Old World versus New World wines. For information, call the 'Mauna Kea Resort, ► Nevada: In Las Vegas, Odyssey 2000: A Celebration of Wine, Food & Art, will feature world-class vintages specifically selected by master sommeliers, gourmet dinners and cooking demonstrations by some of the nation's finest chefs. Highlights of the three-day event (Oct 26-29) include an uncorking of vintage wines, a symposium on Californian and Oregonian pivot noirs; a discussion and tasting of high-end cabernets by Master Sommelier Greg Harrison, and the Masters Dinner, Auction and Celebration. For information, call 1-877-370-9182, or visit the Web site www.lasvegasodys- Lakes Wine Festival, a two-day event held annually in July, fea- tures 40•of the region's 70 -plus wineries, with arts, crafts, semi- nars, live entertainment and cui- sine from the area's best restau- rants. For information, go to the Web site unumtheglen.coml winefest. For general informa- tion on the Finger Lakes wine country, go to www.frngerlakes- urinecountry.com. demonstrations from the Col- lege of Culinary Arts at Johnson & Wales University, and a rare .vertical tasting of Opus One' (1979-1996). In 2001, organizers plan to expand it to a two-day event, with wine dinners sched-. uled- in some of the city's best restaurants. For more informs-' tion, call 1-401-438-3797. No- Toms: The San Antonio New World Wine and Food Fes- Do- Rhode Island: The inau- tival, Oct 26-29; features wines gural Providence Festival of the._, .from Texas, Italy, Spain, Chile, Vine, held in August, featured Argentina, and the Bajas of Call - more than 600 wines, cooking fomia and Mexico. Festival events include a Meet -the -Wine - maker reception and `Texas in Tuxes," a black -tie dinner fea- turing celebrity chefs Mark Miller (Coyote Cafe in Santa Fe, N.M. and Red Sage in Washing- ton, D.C.), Stephan Pyles (Star Canyon in Dallas) and Grady Spears (Ream Restaurant in Al- pine and Fort Worth, Texas and Hollywood, Calif.). For informa- tion, call 1-210-518-.1155 or go to the San Antonio CVB's Web site: uwwSanAntonioCVB.com and click on the link to the Fes- tival. ► Vermont: Guests of The Equinox resort in Manchester Village can learn about wines di- rectly from the winemakers dur- ing a Food & Wine Weekend scheduled for Nov. 17-19. Wine - ties include Banfi Vintners (Italy), Chateau & Estate and Fredrick Wildman (France), Mertin Ray (Craton, Calif.), Cha- teau 'St. Michelle (Washington State), Clos du Bois, Kenwood Vineyards and Valley of the Moon (Sonoma, Canir), and Sterling, Stag's Leap Wine Cel- lars and Trelethen (Naappaa,, Calif J. Events include a welcome re- ception with the vintners, edu- cational seminars, a grand wine tasting, a wine auction and a wi- nemaker's dinner gala. Phone The Equinox at 1-800-362-4747. ► Virginia: From January through March, the Boar's Head inn in ChardottesvIDe will hold a series of 3 -day, 2 -night wine tasting weekends. Activities in- clude a cocktail reception with the vintners, a wine apprecia- tion seminar, a cooking demon- stration by the Inn's chef, and.a 'behind the scenes' tour and barrel tasting at one of three lo- cal wineries. For Information on dates and, package rates, call 1.800-476=1988, or visit the Web site waw.boarshmdtnn nom. Brenda D. Farrell is the senior writerfor The Hospitality College at Johnson& Wales Unfuerstryin Providence, RL •'1'� 'T�,:o ".r"i�Yida;}tS„."a�.+'?a4'Fr` eNew York state: The Finger.s :4'.N,aS'''.':7'6Kti-•}r—�,x. . We treat all our _ ,: si4MONY TOTURR �- � '•.,guests this way. Denver, CO POST Deaver— Boulder—Longmont Met Area Sunday SUN 558,560 SEP 17, 2000 IIIII I II IIII III I IIII I IN I III I III III IIi 1111 ©© P 1606 PRESS CLIPPINGS UNTANGLING THE WEB Every month, in conjunction with Laura Bly's Electronic Explorer column, The Post publishes a list of new or perti- nent Web sites for travelers. ■ www.mesaexpress.com—offers free listings of ar- ea events and activities in western Colorado. Click on the travel section. K www.gonelomorrow.com — specializes in maps of Mexico and Latin America, allowing purchase over a se- cure server. ■ www.restaurantrow.com — allows registered users to make reservations at more than 100,000 restaurants in 7,000 cities. ■ www.shutterfly.com — Is a service that turns digital photography files into 35mm -quality custom prints. Users upload digital images to the site. Prints are. mailed to you, family or friends. A www.cruisestandbys.com — a site run by Omega World Travel, promises rock -bottom fares (think week- long eastern Caribbean cruise for $249 per person, In- cluding taxes and port charges) for passengers willing to play fast and loose. Passengers won't know which cruise line or ship they're on until after picking an Itinerary and sailing dates. - ■ www.fly.faa.gov — is the FAA's Air Traffic Control System Command Center Real-time Airport Status page, updated every five minutes, alerting you to weather-relat- ed bottlenecks, which make up about two-thirds of all air traffic control delays, at about 40 major airports across the country. A www.etravelprotection.com — Access America of- fers Insurance that covers nonrefundable penalties on air- line tickets. Costs vary; Insurance for a $250 airfare costs $22. ■ www.officialtravelinfo.com — sponsored by the In- temational Association of Convention and Visitor Bu- reaus, the site links the official Web sites of convention and visitor bureaus and tourist boards around the world. 1t► www.auroraexpeditions.com.au — is Aurora Ex- peditions, an Australian -based travel company that orga- nizes trips to the Arctic and Antarctic. 0 www.fieidingtravel.com/df — is a site of the world's most dangerous places, managed by Fielding guidebooks. ■ www.budgettravel.com — bills itself as a "central location" for region, country and activity ■ www.studenttraveler.coni — is an a -zine that of- fers information on everything from inexpensive clubs and bars to finding out how to "learn about the world while teaching English abroad." ■ www.who.InUemc/diseasesrindex.html — for valu- able data on diseases and where they're appearing from the World Health Organization. ■ www.royal.gov.uk — is British Monarchy, the offi- cial site for the queen, her family, royal succession and more. ■ www,vindigo.com — Vindigo supplies restaurant, shopping and entertainment information for Boston, Chi- cago, New York, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., through a personal navigator service available on han- dheld digital devices. St� P P►'e55 ■ wwv� s pomacounty.com — showcases the many facets oft "e premier "Wine Country" destination, a favor - Ile for Of and getaways in nortliem California. Run by the Sonoma County Tourism Program. Compiled from staff and wire reports r m .2 c N CO3J��W�°3 m CL. y M N ca,3 °E - � 0 ao `a w CD n tD N v L C O p O�� p, i C zUy _ ¢ —© C °00 64'= as o co® — n� vhCaq u p 7 (%% fir' D Oi v� a� Oty a0+ UNTANGLING THE WEB Every month, in conjunction with Laura Bly's Electronic Explorer column, The Post publishes a list of new or perti- nent Web sites for travelers. ■ www.mesaexpress.com—offers free listings of ar- ea events and activities in western Colorado. Click on the travel section. K www.gonelomorrow.com — specializes in maps of Mexico and Latin America, allowing purchase over a se- cure server. ■ www.restaurantrow.com — allows registered users to make reservations at more than 100,000 restaurants in 7,000 cities. ■ www.shutterfly.com — Is a service that turns digital photography files into 35mm -quality custom prints. Users upload digital images to the site. Prints are. mailed to you, family or friends. A www.cruisestandbys.com — a site run by Omega World Travel, promises rock -bottom fares (think week- long eastern Caribbean cruise for $249 per person, In- cluding taxes and port charges) for passengers willing to play fast and loose. Passengers won't know which cruise line or ship they're on until after picking an Itinerary and sailing dates. - ■ www.fly.faa.gov — is the FAA's Air Traffic Control System Command Center Real-time Airport Status page, updated every five minutes, alerting you to weather-relat- ed bottlenecks, which make up about two-thirds of all air traffic control delays, at about 40 major airports across the country. A www.etravelprotection.com — Access America of- fers Insurance that covers nonrefundable penalties on air- line tickets. Costs vary; Insurance for a $250 airfare costs $22. ■ www.officialtravelinfo.com — sponsored by the In- temational Association of Convention and Visitor Bu- reaus, the site links the official Web sites of convention and visitor bureaus and tourist boards around the world. 1t► www.auroraexpeditions.com.au — is Aurora Ex- peditions, an Australian -based travel company that orga- nizes trips to the Arctic and Antarctic. 0 www.fieidingtravel.com/df — is a site of the world's most dangerous places, managed by Fielding guidebooks. ■ www.budgettravel.com — bills itself as a "central location" for region, country and activity ■ www.studenttraveler.coni — is an a -zine that of- fers information on everything from inexpensive clubs and bars to finding out how to "learn about the world while teaching English abroad." ■ www.who.InUemc/diseasesrindex.html — for valu- able data on diseases and where they're appearing from the World Health Organization. ■ www.royal.gov.uk — is British Monarchy, the offi- cial site for the queen, her family, royal succession and more. ■ www,vindigo.com — Vindigo supplies restaurant, shopping and entertainment information for Boston, Chi- cago, New York, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., through a personal navigator service available on han- dheld digital devices. St� P P►'e55 ■ wwv� s pomacounty.com — showcases the many facets oft "e premier "Wine Country" destination, a favor - Ile for Of and getaways in nortliem California. Run by the Sonoma County Tourism Program. Compiled from staff and wire reports r ..e. �° ��3 oo m e V C:k o N � ry O~ C Gqa m . Ly VI �7 pq d m Ja UPcm Miami, FL Herald ® N) a Mlaml Met Area Sunday SUN 453,375 SEP 17, 2000 IIIII I II 1111 III 1 IIII 1 IIII 1 II III III 1 IIII [JJ. JJ©N 1846 PRESS CLIPPINGS vuAT'q HAPPENING IN ... NAPA AND•SONOMA COUNTIESPre5s 2�1� Summer in Napa and ;0noma Counties is all giant )lue skies, lush green vine-cov- :red hills and crowds. The nost joyous time of the year in .�is celebrated wine region tomes when the light softens ind the throngs of tourists thin gut a little September is the height of :he harvest season, when nearly 500 vineyards pick and s4uash the grapes that may turn out the next big wines. Each year, thousands of wine pil- gnms make their way through t�e Napa Valley, just 30 -miles long and 5 miles wide, and its more down-to-earth sister, 9onoma County, and discover that there is more'to this beau- tiful stretch of Northern Cali- fornia than vineyards. WINERIES There` are more than 250 vineyards in the Napa Valley, and over 190 in Sonoma Coun- ty, Many offer tours and free samples. The wine -aging caves at Ber- inger Vineyards, 2000 Main St, St. Helena, 707-963-4812, are just one of the reasons this win- ery is a perennial on the -must - see list. The 17 -room Victorian Rhine House, on the National Register of Historic Places, wows the crowds with its stained-glass and ornate wood panels. Kenwood Vineyards, 9592 Sonoma -Hwy., Kenwood, 707-833-5891,. with its Old World lodge and peaceful gar- dens, is best known for its exclusive rights to Jack Lon- don's vineyards and the wine it bottles each year in the writer's honor. Winery lists are available from the Napa Valley Confer- ence and Visitors Bureau, 707-226-7459, or at vvww.na- pavalley.com For :those in Sonoma, contact the Sonoma 'County Tourism • ;Fbgram, 800-576-6662, dr see www.so- noma.com EVENTS The 103rd Valley of the Moon Vintage Festival, Califor- nia's longest -running harvest celebration, opens Friday with a patron's night; wine and food tasting costs $40 a person. On Saturday and Sunday , admis- sion is free for a grape=stomp- ing competition, a firefighters' water fight, a historic re -enact - meat of the 1846 Bear Flag Revolt, and other events, in or near Sonoma•Plaza, the historic eight -acre Spanish -style square. Information: 707-996-2109, or wwwsonomavinfest-com At the Sonoma County Har- vest Fair, Oct. 6-8 at the county - fairgrounds, 1350 Bennett Val- ley Rd., Santa Rosa, there will be grape stomping, wine tast- ing, food, arts, crafts, beer booths and children's exhibits. SIGHTSEEING The pleasures of Yountville, a picture -postcard town in the heart of the Napa Valley, include -Vintage 1870, 6526 Washington St., a winery con-_ verted into a mall of Boutiques, and, next. door, the Depot Gal- lery, an artists' collective Petaluma is becoming a des- tination for a downtown chock- full of antiques stores and bou- tiques. A good walking tour brochure is available at the Pet= alumna Chamber of Commerce, 799 Baywood Dr., Petaluma, Calif. 94952; 707-762-2785. WHERE TO'STAY The -Mount View Hotel; - 1457 Lincoln Ave., Calistoga, 707-942-6877, fax 707-942-6904, is a beautifully restored 1917 house. Rates are $125 to $275, with a Continental breakfast served in the 29 rooms and 3 cottages.. 'Budget; The Village Inn, 20822 River Bld., 707-865-2304, fax 707-865-2332, is funky and comfortable,. with 10 rooms, with bathrooms, costing $65 to $140. Luxury: The Madrona Manor, 1001 Westside Rd., Healdsburg, 800-258-4003, fax 707;.}33-0703, is a Sonoma insti- tution. The 1881 Victorian man- sion and renovated outbuild- ings have 18 rooms and 4 suites, all decorated differently, some with antiques, most with fire- places. WB1RRE TO EAT The French Laundry, 6640 Washington St" Yountville, 707-944-2380, is so exclusive it' sometimes doesn't even answer; its reservations line. The res- taurant is strictly prix fixe — $80 a person for a five -course' vegetarian offering; $90 for'a.. more robust meal, $105 for the7: nine -course chefs tasting menu. Reserve well ahead. The Restaurant at the Sonoma Mission Inn and: Spa, 18140 Sonoma. Hwy., Boy.es Hot Springs; 707-938-9000, is noted for what is known as the "wine country . style" menu . Dinner for two, with wine, about $90. Deuce, 691 Broadway, Sonoma, 707-933-3823, is a - clean, well -lighted place with both contemporary and tradi-., tional American food. Dinner for two, with wine, about $70:' — EVELYN NIEVES Way To GolFeatures- Marion, OH Star Monday D 15,549 JUL 24, 2000 N4dGn ®®®®PRESS CLIPPINGS I. ®By MARY ANDERSON Scripps Howard News Service Sonoma County, in the heart of.Cali- fornia's wine country, has been com- pared to the Tuscany region of Italy, the emerald green hills of Ireland, and the richness of South Africa. While Sonoma County is allof these things, it is also- a wonderland that delights at every turn with deep valleys, resplen- dent hillsides and inspiring shorelines. Just north of San Francisco .and Oakland, Sonoma County is a testa- ment to everything that is quintessen- tially California. The people are eclec- tic and warm, the climate is nearly per- . fect all year, and the landscape. leaves nothing to the imagination in terms of remarkable beauty. With more square miles than Rhode Island, Sonoma County has a wide variety of activities. "The area was entirely agricultural not long ago," says Greg Jacobs, a Sonoma County resident "It had vine- yards, dairies, and ranches. Its prox- imity to the San Francisco Bay area has lured many people to live here, away from the city. In recent years, grapes and wineries have replaced all of the agricultural things. It's a more interesting and diverse place to live, than before." And interesting and diverse it is. For starters, there are over 150 wineries in Sonoma County to explore. "Things grow wonderfully here," said Sandi Martini of Martini & Pratt Winery in Santa Rosa "The climate and topogra- h . I al 0 This California region is.perfect • mix of town and country scnpps nowara news 0-VIL0 Scenic overlooks along Sonoma's County's coast provide views :of the wide expanse of the water and the billowy, unending waves that pound the shore with the natural rhythm of the sea. award winning Cabernet Sauvignon, Chardonnay, Zinfandel, and Pinot Noir. Many of the wineries boast tasting rooms that are open to. the public, while others offer tours to show how the wine moves from the vineyard to the bottle. The growing season is long in Sono- ma County, producing a harvest of excellent grapes. "You don't really get great wines without great fruit," says p y are sunilar to t y sa vrrre Ed Killian of Chateau Souverain Wm - yards .produce. fine wines, including ems' The Russians were the first to plant grapes in Sonoma County in 1812, and from that time the tradition of wine making blossomed and expanded to rival even the best of French vine- yards. Italian, French, Russian, and Greek families have made their way to Sonoma, and Old World influence and heritage are prevalent in the wineries and their designs. Try a tasting at any one of the winer- ies scattered about Sonoma County, including Valley of the Moon, one of California's oldest wineries; Arrowood Vineyards, offering specialty wines; Martini & Prati, probably the center of theItalian wine industry; Lake Sono- ma, offering breathtaking views of the countryside,, Topolbs Russian River Vineyards, a spectacular hillside win- ery; Ferrari-Carano, with astonishingly pretty gardens; Kendall Jackson's Cali- fornia. Coast Wine en er and Organic Gardens, offering an educational cen- ter for Kendall -Jackson, Artisan, and Estate wineries; Chateau Souverain, nicknamed the "Jewel .of Alexander Valley"; and Viansa Winery ' & Italian Marketplace, with its unique Italian - inspired architecture. Sonoma County is far more than wineries, though You may want to try bicycling or horseback riding along the daffodil -lined country roads of the wine country, ballooning over vine- yards, or shopping at Petaluma Village Premium Outlets, where you'll find Ann Thylor, Donna Karan, Bose Facto- ry Store, and Harry and David. Rant for heirloom -quality antiques through- out the county, or relax and listen to music at an outdoor caf6. Sonoma County is the place to be pampered with many day spas offering everything from enzyme baths to salt scrubs to full massages. Osmosis is well known for its incredible enzyme baths, and the Spa Off The Plaza delights with massage, body treat- ments, and facials, combined with nat- ural products and aromatherapy. Golf is also available on 16 courses, includ- ing Bob Hope's favorite, Northwood in Monte Rio. The Knoxville News-SwInel, Sunday, August 20, 2000 m TMVEL Varied climates keep scenic Sonoma delightful • ft Mta�haelsonan The name "Sonoma" can call to mind images as varied as the brand name of a truck or a bottle of fine wine About an hour north of San Mrmiclaoo Beg the "Sonoma" arun ide, which extends tlurougghi scenic valleys to the l?adfic Coast and up to the redwood forests. Sonoma is h California county In which the rich divert of coastal areas, fin& valleys and woodlands :creates distinctive miamlimates. Fbr examples the warm climate in one valley is peh%ct ibr the 7rfandel grape while miles awety the morning fbg and river's cooling influence make the Russian l3iver Valley right for Chardonnay and Pinot Nair ■ WARDS: More tlhan 190 wineries puce fine wines in 11 Wphfcally distinct growing m. A few of the better known ap tions are Chalk Hill, Dry Creek Russian River Valley and Sonoma Valley. Many winerhsag, including Kendall. Jackson, Karbel and Iron Home, aro open to visitors'' ■ FlAC1FiC COAST. The dramatic Sonoma coastline extends ibr tib mils. Scenic Highway 1 pmaesannad ��mg then coast and Russian outpost of Fbhii Rcos and Photo Courtesy sosama County convahtloa & VIeltOre Bureau A rural Imiti ape of Sonoma County, Calf. tawne with names like Bodega Bay and Sea Raarb 8etreral B&Bs have panoramic views of the ocean. N SCENIC VIEWS: One anild Mend the entire ixip enjoying (lie ever-changing landscapeThe ultimate is looking across the fog- filled valley to an early morning sundso over distant mountains N REDWOODS: At the northern end of Sonoma County is the 752 - am Armstrong Redwoods State Reserve. Walking on the easy trails through andent.forests can be a religious experience. These redwoods teach 300 feet, While all redwoods ere big coastal redwoods an not as wide as mountain redwoods. ■ 90NNOO oMyA TOWN On a recent dst[txir small toivas� miles east of the Placifle to Oecldental, where we had lunch in an outdoor Visited ,: w=and NW spent a pleasant afternoon in . Healdslo g taft a tour on a home•drawn earriage, visiting the shags around the central plaza and reading menusdpeadsted oa windows ae are dee vrhidh of matt�y restaurants to choose Santa Rosa is the seat of Sonoma County and the biggest city in the region. It to even more important to know diet this is Chadie,Brown's hometown and the site of the Charles Schulz Museum that is expected to open next year: ■ UV" TO VISIT. 'Iiiie area ninth of San P4anclsco is where the city folks pend their weekends. Highsseason in Sonoma County raps hm. April through October. Best room Nrgains are November thio March. Plan your ovemights&am �ndeur thtottgh Thursday and ratm you'll hese iraiiic and dower N RESTAURANT& We enjoyed a Sunday btunch at the John Ash & Co.,reslmuant,just north of Santa Rose. Conde Nast calls it "one of 50 restaurants in the US a rth thea p" The entire area is SPAS'. �eeppae�mrmtry. Travel & >(,cie voted 081116818 Enzyme Bathe one of the counWa to day epee i LOOMING: The area has many fine hotels and inns. Pbr several nights we stayed in Santa Rosa at the Pbuntsfngwn hm. Fbr more arforrnatton and the of scud Visitor% Guide to Sonoma County, call 1-900-6-SONOMA or visit Via Web at www.ear!anaoatmgr.oam. JWTV OW *mOw . Pft OAMW asci &MM aor I Nd j@ at ww buns. dmdwmmn or sex 988 to soee. >insIde ■ AIRFARES F2 ■ SMART TRAVELER SECRETS F3 .nuu 'r, a--- I®1!g!P 1168 ceras cL►rr►rvcs Iature7RAVELER ;nnnma offer, more to taste than just wine BYADELEMNL07T NEW YORK TIMES SPECIAL FEATURES September and Sonoma — the vo go together. Though known for its wines, on Cor�nty, Cali£, is an agri- paradise, with a benign & late year-round. However,.it is specially bountiful in September ►lien apples, corn, figs, plums, aspberies, strawberries and toma- ,)es, as well as wine grapes, reach' heir peak. Along with farm prod- icts, roadside stands overflow with avender, bonsai, honey, flowers, nukard, herbs, cheese and bread.' Since surveys confirm that nany mature iravelers.spend their eisure hours gardening when they u-en't traveling, the best part of vis- . ting Sonoma for some may be ming from farm to farm through- gut the county, admiring the ripe produce. And many Sonoma farm - also sell a tempting array of items made from their products: apple butter or cider, jams, olive oil, relishes, breads and fruit -Med past ries. Sonoma County, 45 miles north of San Francisco, stretches from the Pacific Ocean on its western edge through inland redwood for-. ests to the Mayacamas Mountains in the east Here, you will find the romance of small-town California — and. plenty of history. Sonoma was the . site of California's northernmost mission, San Francisco Solano de Sonoma, begun in,1823 when Cali- fornia was under Mexican rule. (The present church was built in 1840) And the central plaza in the town of Sonoma is where the Short- lived hort lived Bear Flag Revolt against Mex ico took place in 1846, with the insurgents declaring California a republic until U.S. troops rode in and took over. . History of another sort is here for literary aficionados who can visit Jack London State Parkin Sonoma's Valley of the Moon. A trail meanders through a forest of oaks and firs to the ruins of the . author -adventurer's lavish four- story mansion, which burned doyen one hotAugust.night in 1913, a few weeks before he and his wife planned to move in. The stone Oicnic stop' A farm'in Sonoma County.provides scenic views. walls, fireplaces and window open- ings remain. . - In Santa Rosa, the county seat, tourists can visit the home and, gar- dens of horticulturist Luther Bur:. bank, who'lived here for more than half a centiny. Here, he developed more.than 800 plantvarieties, including the potato that helped defuse the Irish potato famine. He called Sonoma, "die -chosen spot of all this earth as far as nature is con- cerned." The Burbank home is at the corner of Sonoma and Santa Rosa avenues. Call (707) 5245445'.. After leaving the city and travel- ing along the winding roads of Sonoma's Farm T ails map, mature travelers may find themselves per- suaded to stop at roadside stands to buy tomatoes and apples that glis- ten like jewels. Call (800) 207-9464 orvisitwww.farmtrails.6rg on the Internet. There are also dozens of esta&- . fished stops along the trail, such as Kozlowski Farms in Forestville, a three -generation business now in its 50th year. This is'a good place to pick up an apple pie or any the . other 99 items made there in small batches. Call ('107) 887-1587 or visit www.kozlowskifarms.com on the Internet. Sonoma's special events are tied . closely to food: many center on farmers markets such as the one in Santa Rosa on Thursday nights, where you can wander from stand ` to stand -sampling the food and feasting your eyes on the work'of. county artists and artisans. . Other markets are held in Healdsburg on Tuesdays, Peta- luma etaluma on Saturdays; Sebastopol on Sundays and Sonoma on Fridays. Many of these towns also offer markets on other. days, dependirig on the time of year. Ln the fall and winter, you can pick your own pumpkins and cut your own Christ- mas hristutas trees. Other. food events include the Pumpkin Festival (October). in. Healdsburg, Butter and Egg days . in. Petaluma (Apra, the Graven - stein Apple Fair. in Sebastopol: (Au- gust).and wine tastings and auc . tions in many of the romantically groinggsin the named area. For those with aninterest in - cooking,Sonoma County offers a variety of classes and demonstra tions such as those at Ramekins in the town of Sonoma where the culi- COURTESY.OFSONUMA000.NtY IUUrciaM nary director, Bob Nemerovski, urges students to "come hungry" since eating is part of experience. The three-hour demonstrations cost from $35$65, while hands-on classes in anything from a Chinese Dim Sum party to Chocolate Show- Stoppers howstoppers run from $50$80. Call (707) 933.04W or visit www.ramekins.com on the Inter- net. The Depot Hotel, also in Sono- ma, has classes, too. Call (707) 938- 2980 or visit www.depothotel.com on the Internet, Sonoma's visiting foodies are not finished after touring a few farms, festivals and farmers mar- kets. An exciting mix of restaurants serve Sonoma products with style. Conversation over breakfast might include an item by -item review of what each personate the night before, and as they rehash yester- day's meals, they will not fail to compare the wines — possibly 'from the county's more than 190 wineries —with which they washed it all down For more information, call the Sonoma County Tourism Program at (800) 5766662 or visit . . www.sonomacounty.com on the Internet. Doylestown, PA Intelligencer Philadelphia Met Area Sunday SUN 26,600 SEP 10, 2000 IIIII 111 Illi III 111111111111111111111111 ®1K®®N4630 PRESS CLIPPINGS Scottsdale, AZ TRIBUNE Phoenix Met Arse Sunday SUN 18,429 AUG 27, 2000 11111 I III III III I IIII 111111111111111111 1111 1111®© P 1186 PRESS CLIPPINGS Willingbom, NJ Burlington County Times Philadelphia Met Arse Sunday SUN 44,444 SEEP 10, 2000 IIIII I II IIII III I IIII i IIII I II III II III III ®©©®N3878 PRESS CLIPPINGS _ Springfield, Il Stste Journal— Register Springtisid Met Area Thursday 062,132 AUG 31, 2000 mu � �t � �Ilfll I silt 1 IIII 11111 II 1 III Ill San Antonio, TX EXPRESS— NEWS MORNING ED San Antonio Mei Arse Sunday SUN 375,297 SEP 10, 2000 IIIII I II IIII III 111111 Illi 1111 IIII III III U11f-111PRES.'?P5388 rr rno--•— Mesa, Al EAST VALLEYTRIBURE Phoenix Mei Area Sunday SUN 1101679 AUG 27, 2000 Doylestown, PA Record Philadelphia Met Area Sunday SUN 15,057 SEP 10, 2000 IIIIIEIIIII[IIIIIIIIIII[ilIIIIIII[Ilill 1111®© N4678 PRESS CLIPPINGS USEFUL WEBSITES: www.sonoma-county.6rq/develop/eservice/qreen.htm Sonoma County Green Business Program www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/enviro/qbus/gb.htmi Bay Area Green Business Program www.turismo-sostenible.co.cr/EN/home/shtmI Website for the Costa Rican Tourism Institute which has guidelines on hotel standards including water and energy consumption, gardens, management of solid waste, general supplies consumption THE SONOMA GREEN BUSINESS PROGRAffis a voluntary partnership among business leaders, government agencies and nonprofit organizations whose goal is to publicly recognize and promote businesses that... Comply with environmental regulations and Implement sound environmental practices IS YOUR BUSINESS ELIGIBLE? Does your business... Comply with environmental regulations? Conserve energy, water, materials and other resources? Prevent pollution and waste? If your business answers yes to these questions (or you want to answer yes), apply for a Green Business certification. HOW TO ]BECOME A CERTIFIED GREEN BUSINESS Contact Sophia Galifaro, Sonoma County's Green Business Program Coordinator at the Dept. of Emergency Services, 707-565-1152, with the following information: • Your business' name, address and telephone number. • Name of your contact person and his or her phone, fax and e-mail address. Once you've received a Green Business checklist and reviewed it for compliance, call the program coordinator to answer any questions you may have. Arrangements will be made to have a verification team visit your business to help determine what, if any, improvements need to be made. If need be, we can also help you locate funds for making these environmental improvements. Best of all, our services are free! BENEFITS OF BECOMING A (GREEN BUSINESS Businesses that achieve Green Business certification enjoy free adverting courtesy of the Sonoma Green Business Program. These businesses will be provided with a Green Business Kit which includes: Green Program window logo, Green Business certificate and, promotional materials. The Sonoma Green Busin ess Program will also hold an event to recognize your business' certification. THE GREEN BUSINESS PROGRAM WORKS The window decal and logo enhance marketing and advertising. Current and new customers see your business in a positive light. Compliance and pollution prevention are simplified through our assistance and documentation. Want more information? Simply write, call or fax: Sophia Galifaro, Coordinator Dept. of Emergency Services 2300 County Center Dr, Ste. 221A Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Phone: 707-565-1152 Fax: 707-565-1172 e-mail: sgalifar@sonoma-county.org How the Green Business Program Works 2 LEvELs OF CERTIFICATION Sonoma Green Level I Compliance with environmental regulations: air regulations, water regulations, hazardous materials/ hazardous waste regulations. Bay Area Green Level 2 Conserving water and energy. Recycling. Pollution Prevention: good housekeeping, inventory control, use of alternative products, reduced use of hazardous materials which generate hazardous waste. S A Y A -R GREEN BusINLSS PROGRAM Partner organizations participating in the Sonoma Green Business Program: Santa Rosa Industrial Waste/Santa Rosa Fire Department/Santa Rosa Public Works/Petaluma Industrial Waste/ Petaluma Fire Department/Healdsburg Fire Department/County of Sonoma Emergency Services/County of Sonoma Public Works/County of Sonoma Sheriff's Department/County of Sonoma Water Agency/Cal-EPA North Bay Permit Assistance Center/San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Management District/Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District/CA Department of Fish and Game/North Coast Water Quality Control Board/San Francisco Bay Region Water Quality Control Board ® OSP 00 40233 SONOMA UREEN BUSINESS Sophia Galifaro, Coordinator Sonoma County Dept. of Emergency Services 2300 County Center Dr, Ste. 221A Santa Rosa, CA 95403 707-565-1152 Fax: 707-565-1172 C,01INC, IL: rrp.n IINICAT ION Rttfuz.et-Put-k- s 1Sth A��nu l AGFNDA Y 3d: — �WOU' LIG CELEBRAVION j� Produced by Rohnert Park Chamber of Commerce City of Rohnert Park b * Thursday, November 30 6:00 — 7:00 P.M. Rohnert Park Community Center (corner of Snyder Lane & Rohnert Park ExpresswaY) Sponsored by 49er Pet Check Center Redwood Credit Union Michael's Harley-Davidson Next Level Communications ;l, Contributors Exchange Bank, First American Title Michael Loomis State Farm Agent Bay View Bank, Dr. George Malkemus, DDS c Featuring Santa Claus and his elves Rohnert Park Children's Choir Rohnert Park Community Chorale Rohnert Park Community Band Sing -along Ballet Califia Holiday Refreshments i� 3 Help Light Up Rohnert Parc for the Holidays! This year the tradition of lighting up Rohnert Park for the holidays is 18 years old and continues to be treasured by all of us but especially by our children. Please join with us in insuring that this community tradition continues. For information on how you can help Light Up Rohnert Park, see the reverse side. Lighting lip Rohnert Park � for the Holidays � Continuing a tradition. For the holidays, the Rohnert Park Chamber of Commerce and the City of Rohnert Park will again light up the redwoods along Rohnert Park Expressway. Our dream is to include more trees each year. This year your contributions.will light two additional trees at the intersection of Snyder Lane and Rohnert Park Expressway. The lighting display is a beautiful reflection of our community spirit. We need your help to insure that this treasured holiday tradition continues. Please make a financial contribution to Light Up Rohnert Park for the Holidays. Thank you for your community spirit.@; Js • 7k t • • • o •.• 6 • • • a • • • • • 6 • • • O • • m O O • Y • • • • • • • t • • • • • • t • e • • • • • 1 • • 1 support this community tradition. Here is my contribution. JS 10 ®$20 ®$30 I want to be a Holiday Tradition Benefactor. Here is my contribution of $100 (or more). Holiday Tradition Benefactors will be included on an engraved plaque on display at the Community Center. Name Company Address Please mail your contribution to Rohnert Park Chamber of Commerce, 5000 Roberts Lake Road, Suite B, Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Checlrs or money orders. No cash please. _ _ � _ e, � •� 9.i- � is '�� �� .a � r � +,'^ F � .^, z "�' X�-�"�� - . O 1 .l YOU ARE�CtJALY�TN�IiTD=T4 THE a -00NERT PARK. CHA-MBF_R •OFC z ANNUAL,- Q; b _ i e:. `� �. � 'y� ' i - � � 5 fa 3 •' 'p.4, rI VV�� � -r a � + HOSTEV B) Vii. r IA Ilir0 i's`'� .e SLC-y T��'.i.c A V _: �, >L A - i /�+�• Y V ls1�k 0D,tERCE DtlLEVR�b w � `2"x' Y > 4„ �• K �. �' Se} [lCiIIN C[i! I�11lCTi � ' •t, s i ;t .r �� L;_ � J3 l Ll n j .§ _ �.,� n� Y*+ ,y 1c k. y Y.. 'c" '� •y. ,r 1.5 5 y 's ': 7 Yaw S'�✓ ,a '�� � ; k aS� f' '�je A- a R t�i1�.:'1J111 1 3 Kms, Y'7' ew- k :�y W s"' ,�. r'' A � � y •` � � k x r v z SANTA RosA Pli STRtN' NSE BLS s 1p Im 14 ,.f P x 11tfE L O fi�?R� VA W. - SEE�i+I�G' (O[ TWEE. fr'3=i y� _ }* .. ,.� 4'�� 44a." '[ 1 14 tk ,S'r.,-,S /1.y 4 } ➢i. y4,',{. t l:-„ _i� i� Lai - � � x; ,�� a x�, z s ';fir,.' �, , Ln} -,a �.� �: � r �� K ^� • � r r � h x 4 .� �� � � .y � rx �}i _�a ° +�-� t 'T �;� `'' � _..; ssi .+'r � z �,,• aZr � .c S a, a V.. >c{.. REGULAR INFORMATION ASSOCIATION RETIRED EMPLOYESS CITY OF RONNERT PARK 1009 Holly Ave. Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Fax 707-585-3485 Home Phone 707-584-5984 Email jpekkain@sonic.net Honorable Mayor Vicki Vidak-Martinez and Members of the City Council City of Rohnert Park 6750 Commerce Blvd. Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: COUNCIL: MISCELLANEOUS COMMUNICATIONS AGENDA COPY TO: COPY TO: At our Association's meeting on October 11, a matter was brought to our attention which our members feel warrants City Council discussion and consideration. The matter is the refusal of the city administration to compensate a retired public safety employee for the time he is required to spend in court on matters related to criminal cases initiated during his employment with the City, for example cases involving serious crimes such as rape. We are sure that the council realizes that the lag time between an arrest and a trial can often be many months and even years. It only seems reasonable that retired public safety officers who are required to spend personal time on court duty for job related cases when they were an active employee should be compensated by the city for the time they spend in court. The rate of pay suggested is the hourly rate for the first step in the pay scale for a Public Safety Officer. This seems'very fair to the City, and we hope you agree. We would appreciate it if the City Council will schedule this matter for public discussion and consideration at the earliest date possible. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation and for ongoing efforts on behalf of our City. Sincerely, Vice Mayor Jake Mackenzie Councilmember Armando Flores Councilmember Linda Spiro Councilmember James Reilly City Manager Joseph Netter Director of Public Safety Jeff Miller Personal Manager Pamala Robbins NOV 15 20M SONOMA COUNTY FARM BUREAU l A1filiated with the California Farm Bureau Federation and the American Fane Bureau Federation October 24, 2000 City of Rohnert Park Mayor Vicki Vidak-Martinez 6750 Commerce Blvd Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Dear Mayor Vidak-Martinez, COUNCIL: MISCELLANEOUS COMMUNICATIONS AGENDA COPY TO: COPY T0: I write to inform you and your council that the Board of Directors of the Sonoma County Farm Bureau has voted to recommend a yes vote on the urban growth boundary measure on the November ballot in your city. We have decided to endorse your measure in order to be on record as supporting restriction of sprawl development. Farm Bureau is devoted to protecting the agricultural land base in Sonoma County in order to ensure that the agricultural economy in our county remains strong and diverse. Thank you for your attention to our concerns. S'erel p � r Richard Olufs President 0 5 k KON 970 Piner Road e Santa Rosa, CA 95403 , Phone (707) 544-5575 o Fax (707) 544-7452 5000 Roberts Lake Rd, Ste A Rohnert Park, CA 94928 November 1, 2000 Mayor Vicki Vidak-Martinez City of Rohnert Park 6750 Commerce Boulevard Rohnert Park,, CA 94928-2489 COUNCIL: MISCELLANEOUS COMMUNICATIONS AGENDA COPY TO: COPY TO: Dear Mayor and Council Members: The Sonoma County Grape Growers Association supports the Sonoma County Workplan that will be presented to the Board of Supervisors for consideration on November 7. The primary objective of the workplan is to keep Sonoma County free from the glassy -winged sharpshooter (GWSS). Inspection of imported plant materials is the centerpiece of the workplan. Free -from status is important for Sonoma County, not just grape growers. The reasons are as follows: • If we can keep the GWSS from entering the county, there will be no spraying and no restrictions on Sonoma County nurseries, grape growers, nor farmers who sell plant materials outside the county; • If an infestation occurs, it will likely be limited to a small area. It is important to use insecticides that are approved for use on infested plants to eliminate the infestation. This means treating the few infested properties, and thereby preventing the need for future insecticide applications if the GWSS were to spread; • If the county becomes infested, quarantine restrictions will be imposed on local nurseries, grape growers and farmers who sell plant materials outside our county. Those restrictions require inspections before shipment and shipments must be certified free from GWSS and under blue -tag quarantine requirements. Those requirements will be the same for organic or conventional growers. • If the county is infested, the agricultural commissioner will not be spraying any private property. Farmers or homeowners may choose to treat for GWSS, but those treatments will be at their cost and restricted to their properties. It is important for Sonoma County to remain free from the GWSS. That may require mandatory spraying of a few properties if a localized infestation is found. That spraying will be done by certified pesticide applicators complying with US EPA pesticide label restrictions that are designed to protect the health and safety of the applicators and residents. The GWSS is a serious threat to Sonoma County's agriculture and ecosystem. The insect feeds on hundreds of plants species, including native oaks. We need to keep the insect out of the county if possible, which may require spraying localized infestations that may occur. We need you support. SONOMA COUNTY grape growers ASSOCIATION Sincerely, Nick Frey Executive Director P.O. Box 1959 • Sebastopol, California 95473-1959 • (707) 829-3963 THE CITY OF NOVATO CALIFORNIA 900 Sherman Avenue Novato, CA 94945 415/897-4311 FAX 415/897-4354 www.mnovato.ca.us City Manager Roderick J. Wood Nov 16 2000 CITY OF ROHN£RT PARK. NOTICE OF REORGANIZATION At the November 14, 2000, meeting the Novato City Council reorganized as follows: Mayor James W. Henderson Mayor Pro Tem John Mani Councilmember Michael Di Giorgio Councilmember Carole Dillon -Knutson Councilmember Pat Eklund Shirley Gremmels City Clerk COUNCIL: MISCELLANEOUS COMMUNICATIONS AGENDA COPY TO: COPY TO: -A Economic er Planning Systems Public Finance NO Real Estate Economics 4: ZoOO Regional Economics Land Use Policy Cl.l'Y (.)r c.vl-11,4r.RT PARD ;AGENDA CIL: CELLANEOUS FINAL REPORT MUNICATIONS HOUSING STRATEGY EVALUATION of Prepared for: City of Santa Rosa Prepared by: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. P.O."ox 16713 Santa Pne . CA 95402 OCT 3 0 October 2000 DEPART' EHT 6F COWUNITY D rEI aiLu EPS #9324 0 E R K E L E• S A C R A M E N T O D E N V E R 2501 Ninth Street. Suite 200 phone: 510-841-9190 - phone: 916-649-8010 phone: 303-575-8112 Berkeley, CA 94710-2515 fax: 510-841-9208 fax: 916-649-2070 fax: 303-623-1294 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................i Findings...........................................................................................................................i Recommendations....................................................................................................... iii I. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1 II. AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT..............................................................2 Overall Housing Demand and Supply......................................................................2 Numberof Units Required..........................................................................................2 Required Subsidy Calculation.....................................................................................6 III. HOUSING PROGRAM OPTIONS......................................................................................9 Programs to Increase Housing Funding Sources..................................................:..9 Other Housing Programs...........................................................................................20 APPENDIX A: Santa Rosa Affordable Housing Analysis LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Page Table 1 -- Impact of Proposed Affordable Housing Funding Sources iv Table 2 -- Santa Rosa New Home Sales 1995 -1999 3 Table 3 — Affordable Housing Production Requirements 5 Table 4 — Affordable Housing Subsidy Requirements 7 Table 5 -- Santa Rosa Housing Program Evaluation 10 Table 6 -- Illustrative Employment Linkage Fee Calculation 15 i Final Report Housing Strategy Evaluation October 27, 2000 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., (EPS) was retained by the City of Santa Rosa to conduct an evaluation of the City's housing programs and policy. During the past year a special committee (the Committee) constituted by the Mayor has considered housing - related issues in the City and identified various programs and policy changes. The consultant effort involved analysis of housing need; i.e., demand for housing at the full range of income groups served and pricing, and an evaluation of the proposed programs and policy changes. A series of recommendations has been developed reflecting direction from the Committee following their review of program options developed by City staff and the Consultant. These recommendations provide City Council with the opportunity to initiate programs and policy changes or otherwise direct staff as a part of other ongoing efforts (e.g., the General Plan and Housing Element update). The City faces a significant challenge in meeting affordable housing needs and in maintaining the supply of moderately priced housing. - FINDINGS The key findings of the Housing Strategy Evaluation are as follows: Population growth in the City during the next five years is projected to be 12,700, a 9.2 percent increase over existing levels. This growth rate is expected to slow through 2020, but the overall population is still expected to grow by an additional 20,100 people between 2005 and 2020. Population growth will be supported by a continued expansion of the local economy, including the emerging high-technology sector as well as service and trade industries. • Housing demand will continue to escalate as the population grows. ABAG projects total housing demand for approximately 725 units per year through 2005. Housing prices, which have been escalating, dramatically, are likely to continue escalating during this period, making housing affordability an increasingly difficult problem. • The City has adequate land resources and basic infrastructure to accommodate projected housing expansion, although increasing land prices and limitations on affordability will begin to focus development activity on higher density development and reuse and intensification of existing developed areas. • State and regional housing policy, as reflected in the City's Housing Element, will require the development of between 796 and 1,321 new housing units affordable to low income (50 to 80 percent of the median household income) and very -low income (less than 50 percent of the median income) households between 2000 and 2005. 9324rpt5.doc Final Report Housing Strategy Evaluation October 27, 2000 Although the local housing market has historically provided homes affordable to a wide range of income levels, recent trends have indicated that an increasingly large proportion of units are priced well beyond the means of lower and moderate income households, and fewer new and existing units are affordable for such households. This may result over time in the need to provide subsidies to moderate income households as well as to the low and very -low income households. • The estimated cost to produce a prototype unit exceeds the affordable spending limit for a low income household by roughly $13,000 to $36,000 per unit, depending on the type and size of the unit. For very -low income households, the financial shortfall ranges from $30,000 to $54,000 per unit. • The total subsidy required to produce the demanded number of units affordable to low and very -low income households in Santa Rosa is estimated to range from $19.8 million to $42.2 million, depending on the methodology used to calculate demand. • The City's current level of affordable housing funding is projected to provide roughly $11 million over the next five years -- $9 million less than is required under even the most optimistic affordable housing need scenario and $31 million less than the most pessimistic housing need scenario. • The ongoing update of the General Plan and related revisions to the Zoning Ordinance, Housing Allocation Plan, and Growth Management Ordinance offer opportunities for stimulating the supply of affordable housing by assuring adequate land supply, removing disincentives, and creating incentives for affordable housing. While such revisions to correct planning policy and ordinances are essential, they will not, taken by themselves, result in the production of housing that meets low and very -low income housing needs. The vast majority of the needed subsidy would be most efficiently used for the production of multi -family rental units for low and very -low income households. While home ownership subsidies (e.g., Mortgage Credit Certificates, equity participation, etc.) can be useful methods of achieving moderate income housing objectives, such programs applied to low and very -low income households are likely to be far less cost-effective. The supply of homes of any type (attached or detached, new or existing) available in Santa Rosa at price levels affordable to low and very - low income households, even with home ownership subsidies, is extremely limited. Moreover, even if units are purchased at these prices through City intervention, long-term affordability is not achieved unless controls are in place restricting the resale to a buyer at an identified target income. Without resale controls, which are typically problematic to enforce, there are examples where the City's original subsidy amount would need to be significantly increased to fund the new down - payment gap due to housing costs outstripping any increase in the target household income. Nevertheless, the overall affordable housing strategy should include provisions for both homeownership and rental unit production programs. ii 9324rp6doc Final Report Housing Strategy Evaluation October 27, 2000 RECOMMENDATIONS The following policy recommendations were agreed upon by the Committee for consideration by the City Council. These recommendations derived from an evaluation of 25 housing policy and program options developed by City staff, the Consultant, and the Committee during the past year. The recommendations have been grouped into the. four categories used to classify the broader set of programs considered by the Committee: (1) Increase housing funding sources. (2) Encourage housing production/retention. (3) Alter regulatory requirements. (4) Increase City financial participation. INCREASE HOUSING FUNDING The following recommendations would increase funding for low and very -low income affordable housing over the next five years from approximately $11 million to $26 million. This amount is within the range of estimated funding needed according to the scenarios included in this evaluation, which was shown to be between $19.8 million and $42.2 million, depending on how "need" is defined. Based on the recommendations described below, the implementation of these top three recommendations could result in sufficient funding for 490 to 712 more affordable housing units than the current levels of funding can provide through 2005.' Table 1 shows a breakdown of the individual funding sources and their existing and proposed contribution to affordable housing funding. 1. The City should commit to the adoption of a Housing Impact Obligation on Non - Residential Development — The City's first step should be to appropriate $50,000 for the completion of a Nexus Study, which will document the relationship between new employment and the demand for housing at a range of affordability levels. Such a study is also legally required as a basis for an affordable housing impact fee, should it be decided to impose such a fee. While such fees have been successfully imposed in other jurisdictions and can contribute substantial funding for affordable housing, a number of issues exist including negative impacts upon commercial (economic) development absorption and balance (equity) with other funding mechanisms. The Nexus Study would determine the technical relationship between various land use categories and housing demand. A key consideration that will be explored in the Nexus Study is the Committee's expressed preference for "incentive based" approaches for encouraging new or expanding employers to provide employee 'The current level of funding from various revenue sources can subsidize the production of roughly 367 affordable units through 2005. i11 9324rpt5.doc Table 1 Impact of Proposed Affordable Housing Funding Sources Santa Rosa Affordable Housing Study Source 5 -Year Existing Projected Rate Revenue % of Total In -Lieu Fee $2,600/unit Non -Residential Obligation $0 Real Property Transfer Tax $0 RDA Set -Aside Funds $310,000/yr Other (3) $590,000/yr. Total 5 -Year Possible Projected Rate Revenue . % of Total $6,500,000 59% $5,200/unit $13,000,000 51% $0 0% See Note 1 $5,200,000 20% $0 0% See Note 2 $3,000,000 12% $1,550,000 14% No change $1,550,000 6% $2,950,000 27% No change $2,950,000 11% $11,000,000 100% $25,700,000 100% 5 -Year Production Capacity 367 units 857 units (low and very low income units only) (1) EPS analysis has used rates equal to those Imposed by the City of Sacramento Office/R&D/Hotel = $0.92/SF Retail = $0.79/SF Wrhse./Manu. = $0.45/SF (2) Assumes total increment of growth over FY98/99 revenues is dedicated to affordable housing production. (3) Other funding Includes CDBG and HOME Investment Partnership Funds Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Final Report Housing Strategy Evaluation October 27, 2000 housing. Moreover, a regional perspective is strongly recommended wherein the City would collaborate with the County and the County's other cities in an effort to address affordable housing needs on a regional basis. Given expected commercial development in Santa Rosa and an obligation equivalent to the fee that is currently charged in other cities (e.g., Sacramento), preliminary estimates suggest that 173 additional affordable units would be constructed through 2005. 2. Increase Inclusionary Housing Production -- The City's current fee of $2,600 per unit does not generate sufficient revenue to produce the desired number of affordable units (20 percent of all units in subdivisions of greater than 20 acres). Using the same methodology employed to calculate the fee in 1995, a fee of nearly $8,000 per unit would be required to achieve the 20 percent objective today. Thus, the current fee does not achieve the equivalent of 20 percent inclusionary housing; rather, it equals, de facto, an 8 percent inclusionary requirement. Based on recent estimations of required subsidies per affordable unit, an increase that matches the 20 percent requirement would result in sufficient funding for 656 additional affordable housing units over the next five years. A smaller increase in the fee to $5,200 per unit could result in enough funding for 433 additional affordable housing units in that time. The nexus between new home construction and the need for affordable housing could be explored and documented in the Nexus Study recommended under Recommendation #1, or as a separate analysis. In either case, the Nexus Study should also explore the full range of options for meeting inclusionary requirements. One issue to be specifically addressed would be a sliding scale, whereby the applicable in -lieu fee would vary with the size or other characteristics of the new home rather than being a flat fee for all new homes. The Nexus Study should carefully study any impacts of such changes to avoid counter-productive results. 3. Designate a portion of the Real Property Transfer Tax for Affordable Housing — Some portion of the Real Property Transfer Tax (Pd7M revenue source should be returned, through annual budget appropriations, to affordable housing programs. The Committee recommends appropriation of all incremental RPTT funding above the current level (FY 2000/2001). If the RPTT revenue continues to increase as in recent years (roughly $200,000 per year), the resulting funding could subsidize the production of 100 units over the next five years. To balance the increased effort by the private sector (new and increased fees, etc.) over time, it would be desirable to return the entire RPTT to affordable housing .funding as it was originally intended. 4. Continue RDA Commitment to Affordable Housing -= The Redevelopment Agency currently commits 20 percent of its increment to affordable housing programs, consistent with requirements of the State law. With implementation and development of the new project area in Southwest Santa Rosa, additional funding v 9324rpt5.doc Final Report Housing Strategy Evaluation October 27, 2000 will be available; however, it will be several years before such funding will be available. It is recommended that development efforts within the Southwest Area Project Area be facilitated so that these increment revenues become available at the soonest possible time. S. Seek State and Federal Affordable Housing Funding — Affordable housing requirements are currently set at the State and regional level, and additional funds are required to meet these requirements. The success of this effort will be contingent upon the scale of the State's new programs and the City's success at attracting related grants, tax credits, and other support. The Governor's recent proposal to allocate $500 million of the State's budget surplus to affordable housing programs statewide suggests that additional funding should be available, especially for jurisdictions with State -approved Housing Elements in their General Plans. An increased local funding effort will potentially enhance the amount of funding available from State sources. ENCOURAGE HOUSING PRODUCTION / RETENTION The Committee strongly supports efforts to retain existing affordable housing and to make the higher density housing product essential to achieving housing policy more acceptable to the City's neighborhoods. 6. Improve Community Acceptance of Higher Density Housing — A broad-based effort to address neighborhood resistance and objection to intensification should be initiated by the City. This effort should include educational elements during the General Plan Program, community-based outreach efforts, and, most importantly, the assurance of well-designed projects that address neighborhood concerns. 7. Retain Existing Affordable Housing Units and Programs -- The current supply of affordable units must be retained, because the replacement costs for producing new units is significantly higher than the subsidies required for retention of existing units. As it has done in recent years, the City should continue to facilitate transactions that keep the owners of affordable units from opting out of their affordability agreements as agreements expire or units are sold. Monitor Affordable Housing Program Performance Annually — Each year, the performance of the affordable housing programs should be reviewed and documented. Of particular interest should be the number of affordable units developed or planned, the revenues received and projected from various funding sources, the number and income levels of households assisted through the various programs, the number of existing homes sold at prices affordable to lower income households, and an identification of new opportunities including sites, programs, and funding mechanisms. vi 9324rpt5.doc Final Report Housing Strategy Evaluation October 27, 2000 ALTER PLANNING AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS The City is presently engaged in an update to its General Plan and a redrafting of its Zoning Ordinance. These ongoing efforts -can offer opportunities to expand market -rate housing production. While these efforts may not contribute directly to the provision of low and very -low income housing, they can promote overall production, especially for housing affordable by moderate income families that currently do not require a subsidy in the Santa Rosa housing market but may in the future if current housing price trends continue. 9. Rezone Land to Allow for Higher -Density Housing Development -- The supply of land available for higher density housing should be increased substantially as a part of the ongoing General Plan update. This increase will provide additional housing opportunities in various parts of the City, and it will help to reduce the cost premium on higher -density residential land (by increasing supply). This intensification effort should focus upon the downtown area as well as other locations in the City, where higher -density development may be feasible and acceptable. The increase in development capacity derived from such increases in potential density must be carefully balanced against overall constraints, including policy - based population caps and infrastructure capacity limits, particularly those related to water and sewer infrastructure and other General Plan policy direction. 10. Identify Amendments to Zoning Ordinance Provisions that Encourage Housing Production — During the process of amending the Zoning Ordinance, City staff and their consultants should identify aspects of existing zoning regulations that pose a disincentive to housing production. Specific edits and amendments should be included in the new Zoning Ordinance that eliminate these disincentives and, where possible, include incentives for housing production (e.g., density bonuses, etc.). Allowances or requirements for second units adjacent to new single family units should be strongly considered, as should incentives for developing housing near employment centers. In addition to these specific regulatory changes, the Committee will continue to review the Housing Allocation Plan and the Growth Management Ordinance to identify areas of potential improvement. To date, the Committee has not reached consensus on its recommendations regarding these two regulatory documents. INCREASE CITY FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION The Committee recommends that the City seek opportunities to participate directly in production through partnerships with public and private entities. Additionally, the City's current participation in homeownership assistance should be expanded through additional funding and/or appropriations as opportunities permit. vii 9324rpt5.doc Final Report Housing Strategy Evaluation October 27, 2000 11. Seek Public/Public Partnerships -- The financial and administrative cooperation of the City with the County and other cities can help to alleviate the affordable housing problem regionally. By sharing both the administrative and financial resources, efficiencies can be gained in facilitating affordable unit production.- A regional housing strategy and production effort should be initiated by the City in cooperation with other cities and the County. Such an effort should involve coordination of policies, sharing of resources, and cooperative action with regional and State agencies. The Nexus Study discussed in Recommendation #1 should adopt this regional perspective, rather than focusing solely on the City of Santa Rosa's affordable housing needs. 12. Seek Public/Private Partnerships -- The relationship between public housing agencies, non-profit housing developers, and private investors is key to producing new housing units and can help to alleviate the financial and administrative burden on the public sector. Private sector participation and contributions, especially from local employers, are keys to maintaining many of the locational advantages (quality of life, accessibility, labor market, etc.) that initially attract employers to Santa Rosa. The City could participate by contributing land and/or providing credit enhancements. 13. Maintain and Expand City's Credit Enhancement Programs — The City currently offers programs to assist lower income and/or first-time homebuyers through Mortgage Credit Certificates and a Loan Pledge Pool. These existing programs should be maintained and expanded as funding opportunities permit. Any additional funding appropriated to these programs should be proportional to the need to provide subsidies to moderate income households and in balance with other funding priorities. Other innovative programs may also be developed, such as partnerships with private employers or financiers linked to the employer housing obligation discussed upon under Recommendation #1. Sources of funding for such programs may include those mentioned above, as well as private or non-profit contributions and re- allocations of local government revenues. viii 9324rpt5.doc Final Report Housing Strategy Evaluation October 27, 2000 I. INTRODUCTION Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., (EPS) has been retained by the City of Santa Rosa to assist in the evaluation of the City's affordable housing problem. Specific tasks included an assessment of the demand for affordable housing, a calculation of the financial gap between production costs and households' ability to pay, and an evaluation of the various programs and policies being considered as part of a solution to the affordable housing problem. To undertake this current effort, the City of Santa Rosa assembled a Housing Subcommittee comprised of elected officials as well as stakeholder representatives of City agencies, non-profit housing activists, and private development interests. This group convened with EPS several times over the past year to discuss the findings of technical analyses and the implications of various policy and program alternatives on the provision of affordable housing, as well as other economic and political concerns. From general consensus reached at these meetings, a series of recommendations have been formulated and are set forth in this document. Several factors have made this a critical time for such an analysis. First, advocates of affordable housing and other interest groups have long been debating the merits of certain program and policy options, with no consensus having been reached. Second, the Housing Subcommittee was formed specifically to address these issues and is in need of technical support for its own evaluations. Finally, the Housing Element of the City's General Plan is scheduled for revision this year, and an effective approach to the need for additional affordable housing production must be included. The findings and recommendations of this report are intended to guide the City as it proceeds toward "next steps" in its affordable housing strategy. These next steps will include the weighing of policy implications and the determination of official courses of action. In addition to those recommendations formally presented in this document, it is anticipated that the City will revisit the issues related to the Housing Allocation Plan and Growth Management Ordinance, both of which have been generally reviewed by the Subcommittee, although no formal recommendations for change have been defined. 9324rpt5.doc Final Report Housing Strategy Evaluation October 27, 2000 II. AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT OVERALL HOUSING DEMAND AND SUPPLY The City of Santa Rosa has experienced significant population and housing growth in recent years. These trends are projected to continue through the next decades. According to ABAG's Projections 2000 data, the population of the City of Santa Rosa has grown from 123,700 in 1995 to 137,400 in 2000 — a net increase of 13,700 in those five years. In the five-year span from 2000 to 2005, the population is expected to grow by an additional 12,700, representing a growth rate of 9.2 percent over the current population. Housing demand is also expected to increase as a result of population growth. ABAG's regional housing distribution model projects a need for 3,643 total units between 2000 and 2005, an average of roughly 725 units per year. This increase in demand will _ parallel recent trends, which have caused the median home value in the City of Santa Rosa to escalate from $162,250 in 1996 to $219,000 in 1999 — an increase of 35 percent in only three years. As shown on Table 2, the percentage of new homes in Santa Rosa selling for under $200,000 has greatly diminished in recent years, while the proportion selling for more than $300,000 has increased significantly. The City has an adequate supply of developable land to accommodate the expected housing growth. A recent inventory found that 3,179 acres of land zoned for residential use were still available within the City limits. On this land, an estimated 12,956 units could be produced, according to current zoning regulations. However, the current zoning of the available land includes only 10 acres for medium-high density development (average density of 24 units per acre), and no acreage for higher density development. The economics of affordable housing typically require that affordable units be built in higher density developments; as the costs to develop lower density units are prohibitively expensive for affordable housing producers, given the sale or rent prices the lower income households can afford. Thus, if the current zoning remains, the land that is practicably available to affordable housing development will be limited. NUMBER OF UNITS REQUIRED EPS has utilized four different methods to estimate the need for new affordable housing units in Santa Rosa between the years 2000 and 2005. These four methods, or "options," are similar in that they all utilize ABAG growth projections, and they apply percentages to the number of the new housing units that will fall into various income categories. The four options vary, however, in which ABAG growth projections are used and in the 2 9324rpt5.doc Table 2 " Santa Rosa New Home Sales 1995-1999 (1) City of Santa Rosa Affordable Housing Fee Analysis $150K - $200K - $250K - Year <$150K $200K $250K $300K $300K+ 1995 17% 33% 20% 15% 14% 1996 39% 25% 10% 14% 11% 1997 18% 39% 17% 13% 13% 1998 9% 18% 27% 17% 29% 1999 0% 18% 31% 10% 40% (1) Includes new homes sold in projects of 30 or more units. Sources: Builders Marketing Group; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 3 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10/24/2000 Islidesids Final Report Housing Strategy Evaluation October 27, 2000 source of the percentages that are applied? As shown on Table 3, the number of affordable units required ranges from 796 to 1,321. These figures only include those units for low and very -low income households and not moderate income households. Option One uses the growth figures and allocation percentages directly from ABAG's Regional Housing Distribution Model. ABAG projected a need for 5,465 total new housing units in the 7.5 -year period between 1999 and 2006. Pro rating these figures for a five-year period (2000 to 2005) results in a total demand for 3,643 new units. ABAG's model then holds that 20.2 percent of new units must be affordable to "very -low income households" (households with income of less than 50 percent of the regional median income). Thirteen percent of new units must be affordable to "low income households" making (households less than 80 percent of the median), and 27.5 percent must be affordable to "moderate income households" (households making less than 110 percent of the median). Option Two uses the household growth figures ABAG has projected for the entire Santa Rosa Subregional Study Area (SSA), which includes the LAFCO-defined sphere of influence beyond the City's political boundary. As such, the projected household growth for this slightly larger geographic area exceeds the ABAG projections for the City proper. However, the allocation percentages used to distribute housing units among income categories are the same as those used by ABAG and in Option One. Option Three again uses the ABAG growth projections for the Santa Rosa SSA, but it allocates only 20 percent of new units as affordable to low and very -low income households. This allocation is consistent with the City's Housing Allocation Plan .policy. For purposes of this calculation, EPS has assumed that these affordable units would be evenly distributed (50/50) between low income and very -low income households. Option Four again uses the ABAG household growth projections for the SSA. However, the allocation percentages are based upon an income distribution scale determined by the projected employment in various industries. EPS has utilized ABAG's projections for employment growth by industry and has applied a County average for wage earnings per employee for each industry to determine the new wage income that will be generated by the projected employment growth in each industry. The industry totals were summed, and the projected total new earnings figure was divided by the projected total new employment figure to determine the average wage per employee. To determine the average household income, EPS multiplied the average earnings per employee times the ABAG standard of 1.7 employees per household. This average earnings -per -household figure was calculated at $55,468 -- acceptably close to the . current median income of $52,300 for a three-person household and $58,100 for a four - person household in Sonoma County. EPS then assumed that household incomes would be normally distributed (in a "bell shaped" curve) around the average, and 'ABAG has recently determined that a review of its projections and allocation methodology is required, so these figures are subject tp change. 4 9324rpt5loc Table 3 Affordable Housing Production Requirements (2000-2005) City of Santa Rosa Affordable Housing Fee Analysis (1) Affordable units include those for low income and very low income. Sources: ABAG; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5 Economic 8 Planning Systems, Inc 10/24/2000 Widesids Units Required by Option Income category Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Total Units 3,643 3,980 3,980 3,980 Very Low Income 734 804 398 119 Low Income 475 517 398 677 Moderate Income 1,001 1,095 1,592 2,388 Above Moderate Income 1,433 1,564 1,592 796 Total Affordable Units (1) 1,209 1,321 796 796 (1) Affordable units include those for low income and very low income. Sources: ABAG; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5 Economic 8 Planning Systems, Inc 10/24/2000 Widesids Final Report Housing Strategy Evaluation October 27, 2000 accordingly estimated that roughly 20 percent of household incomes would fall below 80 percent of the mean/median (low income), but only about three percent would fall below 50 percent of the mean/median (very -low income). These percentages are thus applied to the total SSA household growth projection to create Option Four's income allocation. Table 3 summarizes the results of these four options, illustrating the number of housing units required for various income levels under each method of calculation. REQUIRED SUBSIDY CALCULATION EPS estimates that the subsidy required for affordable housing production programs over the next five years will range from $19.8 million to $42.2 million. Table 4 summarizes the required subsidies for the various demand projections. While the analysis has resulted in a wide range of estimated subsidies depending upon the - number of units to be produced in each income category, the most important finding is that under any of the above options the required subsidy greatly exceeds the City's current funding. As detailed on Table 1 above, a continuation of the City's recent revenues and budget allocations would result in a total of $11 million in funding over the next five years. This figure falls roughly $9 million short of the required subsidy under even the most optimistic scenario. To estimate the amount of funding subsidy that would be required to produce the number of affordable units suggested by the four calculation options, EPS has subtracted the amount that various households can afford to pay for housing from the total cost to develop appropriate housing for each household type. These calculations assume that a. household can afford to spend 30 percent of its total annual income on housing costs if residing in a multi -family rental unit, or 25 percent of its annual income if residing in a single-family home -ownership unit. This distinction accounts for the required down payment for an ownership unit. For the detailed calculations of these affordable unit prices, please see Table A-1 in the Appendix to this memorandum. To calculate the costs to produce the necessary units for each household type, EPS has estimated the value of the units differently for rental housing and for for -sale housing. For rental housing, the unit value was based on the capitalized value of current average market rents for two-bedroom and three-bedroom apartments, less 30 percent for operating expenses. For the for -sale units, the development costs were assumed at $101 per square foot (SF), inclusive of all costs except land. EPS then applied this figure ($101/SF) to housing unit sizes of 850 square feet for a three-person household (two- bedroom unit), and 1,100 square feet for a four -person household (three-bedroom unit). These unit sizes are consistent with minimum standards found in other jurisdictions. Land costs are assumed to be 25 percene of the total costs of each housing unit, and this 'The proportion of land costs to total development costs may be as high as 30 percent under certain market conditions, but 25 percent is an appropriate approximation for a multi-year estimation. 6' 9324rpt5.doc Table 4 Affordable Housing Subsidy Requirements (2000-2005) City of Santa Rosa Affordable Housing Fee Analysis Affordable Option Units Required Subsidy Required Option One 1,209 $38,553,725 Option Two 1,321 $42,171,718 Option Three 796 $24,082,863 Option Four 796 $22,826,756 Current Funding Level 367 $11,000,000 Sources: City of Santa Rosa; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 7 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1 0/2 412 0 0 0 Islides.;ds Final Report Housing Strategy Evaluation October 27, 2000 proportion is added to the other development costs to comprise the total. For each unit type, the amount that a household can afford to pay is subtracted from the value of the unit, to estimate the per-unit subsidy that is required. These per-unit subsidy figures were then applied to the number of housing units of various types required for each income category. EPS has assumed that half of all households will require two-bedroom units, while the remaining half will require three- bedroom units. This is a simplifying assumption, and in fact the range of unit types would be wider to accommodate more household sizes. EPS has also assumed that 100 percent of the very -low income households would be residing in rental, multi -family housing, while 75 percent of low income households would be in rental housing and the remaining 25 percent would be residing in for -sale, single family units. The calculation of the subsidy per unit multiplied by the number and types of units required in each income category indicates the total subsidy required to produce the needed units in each of the four options. Table 4 summarizes the results of these calculations, which are shown in more detail in the Appendix to this report. 8 9324rpt5.doc Final Report Housing Strategy Evaluation October 27, 2000 III. HOUSING PROGRAM OPTIONS Through extensive discussions among City staff and with various stakeholder groups, the City has compiled a list of potential programs and policy initiatives that may contribute to increasing the supply of affordable housing in Santa Rosa. The list can be subdivided into four general categories, based on their most directly intended effects. These four categories are as follows: • Increase Housing Funding Sources • Encourage Housing Production/Retention • Alter Regulatory Requirements • Increase City Financial Participation All 25 policies and programs in all four categories are described on Table 5, which details the purpose, status, potential effects, and other considerations for each. Those policies and programs that are specifically aimed toward increasing funding sources for affordable housing production are described in more detail below. PROGRAMS TO INCREASE HOUSING FUNDING SOURCES Six of the prospective programs are specifically aimed toward increasing the amount of specific revenue sources that are contributed toward the production of affordable housing units. These six programs are shown on the first page of Table 5 and are described in further detail as follows: 1. IMPOSE HOUSING IMPACT OBLIGATION ON NEW EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT There is no question that the regional affordable housing shortage is due in large part to the rapidly growing economy, which has attracted firms and workers more quickly than housing has been produced. The escalation of housing prices in Silicon Valley, where median prices now exceed $500,000, is the most recognized example of a truly regional crisis. Employment growth in Santa Rosa directly contributes to the need for additional housing by attracting more workers and their households to the City. According to prior analysis submitted to the Committee, "Nearly half of new jobs projected for Santa Rosa will be lower paying, increasing the need for. affordable housing units.j4 'From City staff "Strategies to Increase Affordable Housing' memo, February 2G00- 9 9324rpt5.doc N 0 Table 5 Santa Rosa Housing Program Evaluation 1A nnnncl Increase Housing Funding Sources Purpose Status Potential Housing Benefit Other Potential Effects 1. Impose Housing Impact Fee Internalize cost of Not existing Fees similar to City of May detract from City's on New Employment housing to employers Sacramento could generate competitiveness as business Development creating demand $5.2 million by Year 2005 location if not regionally imposed. 2. Increase Housing In -Lieu Approach inclusionary Current in -lieu fee is Doubling current fee could May slow market -rate housing Fees through amendment policy set forth in zoning $2,600 per unit generate roughly $6.5 development due to increased to Housing Allocaton Plan ordinance (requires 20% million by 2005 fee burden of units to be affordable 3. Allocate Real Property Appropriate RPTT for its Currently appropriated Allocating future increment RPTT revenues are currently Transfer Tax (RPTT) to originally intended use to General Fund of RPTT revenue growth to used for other City programs, housing programs for housing production housing could generate $3 which could be reduced if million by 2005 replacement revenues not obtained 4. Increase RDA funding or Generate additional Currently, 20% of Set-aside cannot be readily Shifting of RDA funding could revisit allocation priorities housing funding from redevelopment tax increased, but funds can be detract from funding for other redevelopment area tax increment revenues appropriated to low/very low priority downtown projects, and increment, or redistribute are set aside for income projects rather than allocating funds to more needy to projects with greater housing production, moderate income projects projects would result in fewer financial shortfalls and other funds are total units produced provided on discretionary basis 5. Increase State/Federal Utilize possible inflow of Unclear, but State Contingent upon amount Funds may not be made grants inter -governmental surplus may be available on a continuing basis transfer money to directed to housing increase housing programs production capacity 6. Amend Housing Allocation Gain in -lieu fees not Reserve A units are May result in up to $1 Production of Reserve A units, Plan & Growth Management currently paid by currently given priority million in additional fees by which are relatively small and to eliminate in -lieu fee Reserve A units that are entitlement status, and 2005 affordable, may decrease due exemption for market rate not priced at affordable do not pay $2,600/unit to increased fee burden Reserve A entitlement units income levels housing fee May reduce production of apartments, which are already in short supply prmwi .doc Encourage Housing Housing Production/RetentionPotential Purpose Status Benefit Other Potential Effects 7. Amend Housing 1) Facilitate development of Qualifying units are 1) May encourage Production of qualifying units, Allocation Plan & more affordable units by currently given priority developers to maintain which are small and relatively Growth Management by forcing market -rate qualifying Reserve A entitlement affordability of smaller affordable, may decrease due a) eliminating qualifying units to compete for Reserve status, and do not pay units or develop affordable to increased fee burden units from Reserve A B entitlements; 2) gain in -lieu $2,600/unit housing fee; units due to less entitlements; and/or b) fees not currently paid by annual entitlements are competitive entitlement Lowering cap on Reserve B re -mixing the 50-50 qualifying units; and 3) lower split 50-50 between process, and 2) could production may not result in share of Reserve A and Reserve B production to Reserve A and B but result in up to $1 million in more Reserve A production, B entitlements "force" Reserve A production few A units are built additional fees by 2005 and total units produced may decrease 8. Subsidize/waive City Reduce development costs City is considering the Proposed funding level will Not recommended -- Impact is impact fees for second for affordable units to appropriation of cover fee costs for 4 to 6 minimal, and reducing or units encourage production $50,000 to subsidize units per year eliminating fees for other fees for second units in facility programs (e.g., schools, 2000 traffic) creates funding deficit that must be recovered from other sources 9. Retain existing Prevent units currently No set policy in effect, Using public funding as in Does not contribute to need for affordable units affordable to lower-income but number of units at Minnesota, current owners additional affordable units households from being risk is relatively low of affordable rental units upgraded to market -rate could receive incentives to continue to participate in Section 8 programs 10. Improve community Facilitate community planning Pilot program currently Will not directly provide Minimal effectiveness for the acceptance of and approval process to proposed funds or incentives, but outreach effort expense, and affordable housing and make affordable unit rezoning would result in rezoning for higher density rezone underutilized production more attractive to more land available for may increase site-specific land land for higher density developers affordable projects values and development costs residential development 11. Sustain existing housing Continue to provide funding Current housing Will continue to provide Current level of funding falls programs and administrative support for programs include rehab funding for production of well below needs to produce housing programs loans, development new units (capacity for adequate number of units subsidies, rent roughly 50 per year) and assistance and prevent net loss stabilization, etc. 12. Encourage mobile Add to the number of units Not existing Maintains affordability of Effects likely to be marginal -- home parks to that will be affordable to lower existing mobile homes mobile homes are already participate in HUD rent income households relatively affordable subsidy programs promlldoc N N Alter Regulatory Requirements Purpose Status Potential Housing Benefit Other Potential Effects 13. Amend Housing Expand or refine Current ordinance Would increase production Would increase costs of production Allocation Plan inclusionary requirements requires 15 percent or funding of affordable of market -rate units and projects requirements for to promote more affordable affordable units if units proportionate to any proportionate to any amendment percentages, unit housing production on-site, 20 percent amendment details details types, project size if off-site, or in -lieu thresholds fees 14. Require Mixed Use Increase number of Mixed use City's expected job growth May limit downtown economic Development in some affordable units, and development would be accompanied by development if mixed use is areas decrease cost of living allowed in some production of new units required rather than incentivized through proximity to areas, but not workplaces required 15. Rezone Downtown to Increase number of lower- Not existing Depending upon sites made Increasing density allowances will allow significant cost/dense units, and available, could increase increase land value, create higher increase in housing decrease cost of living development capacity and costs for development through proximity to supply in City workplaces 16. Require percentage Increase supply of smaller Not existing Could increase supply of Increased densities in single family of studios with single housing units likely to be affordable units in City neighborhoods may meet with family units (link to affordable to lower incomes community resistance inclusionary housing ordinance 17. Allow SRO hotels in Produce affordable units for SROs not currently Would facilitate Depending on location, may meet commercial and lowest income and accommodated by development of new SROs with neighborhood resistance residential districts transitional residents zoning or reuse of older buildings as SROs 18. Amend Housing Facilitate development and Not existing Could increase supply of Depending on location, may meet Element to encourage operation of shared housing housing for lower income with neighborhood resistance transitional housing programs and transitional households 19. Grant "amnesty" for Presence housing stock Not existing Retains existing units, Does not contribute to new illegal units currently utilized by lower prevents net loss production requirements, may income households maintain substandard housing proeval3doc H W increase City Financial Participation Purpose Status Potential Housing Benefit Other Potential Effects 20. Lease City -owned land for Reduce Not existing Could lower cost of subsidies Initial assessment suggests housing development costs depending upon availability of appropriate sites are limited by providing land at City -owned lots favorable rates 21. Build permanent homeless Provide transitional Not existing Could create a permanent Would require significant public shelter and commit stable housing for lowest solution to an existing housing investment and continued source of funding income residents problem funding 22. Seek public/public Reduce public costs City and County Through leveraging assets Would require significant inter - partnerships to build of affordable currently among jurisdictions, can jurisdictional coordination affordable/transitional housing production cooperate in approach regional solution to housing by enlisting support Section 8 and affordable housing shortage from private sector RDA programs 23. Seek public/private Reduce public costs City is currently Partnerships among non -profits, Local/regional employers may be partnerships to build of affordable working toward public sector, and investors enlisted as investors affordable housing housing production partnerships with have proven highly effective at by enlisting support non-profit and producing affordable housing from private sector corporate entities 24. Provide City equity Assist lower income Not existing May lower cost of Tying up City collateral may have partnerships for no -down- households in homeownership by modest other budgetary impacts payment, no -points securing ownership amount secondary mortgage of housing units financing 25. Deferral or waiver of City Reduce cost of Informal, case- Would lower development costs Funding deferred or waived fees (impact fees, production for by -case for certain units would need to be made up from permitting fees, etc.) affordable units other City funding sources proemildoc Final Report Housing Strategy Evaluation October 27, 2000 Some communities have sought to address this issue by assessing affordable housing linkage fees or production obligations on new employment growth. A Nexus Study would be required to determine the appropriate linkage fee amounts to be paid by various types of employment in Santa Rosa, but the basic calculation works as follows: 1. (Employment Space Growth by Industry or Building Type) - (Avg. Square Feet per Employee by Industry or Building Type) = Estimated Number of New Emplo, e�y Industry or Building Type 2. (New Employees by Industry or Building Type) _ (Number of Employees per Household) = Estimated Number of New Households 3. (New Households) X (Percent of New Households Locating in Santa Rosa) _ New Households Locating in Santa Rosa 4. (Number of New Santa Rosa Households by Industry or Building Type) X _ (Percent Earning Between (x) and (y) Percent of Median Income) = Number of New Households Requiring Affordable Housing in Designated Income Bracket I (Number of New Households Requiring Affordable Housing in Income Bracket) X (Avg. Cost to Subsidize Production of Unit for that Income Bracket) = Total Cost of Providing Housingfor r Employees in that Income Bracket 6. (Total Cost to Provide Housing in All Affordable Housing Income Brackets) (Employment Space Growth) = Maximum Linkage Fee per Square Foot of Employment Development by Industry or Building Type An example of this methodology is shown on Table 6. Again, this calculation represents the maximum amount of a linkage fee supportable for various employment types. Any linkage fee amount less than or equal to this maximum supportable figure should be defensible in legal disputes. Some communities have chosen, as a policy decision, to not charge the maximum supportable linkage fee to employment generators, in recognition of the responsibility and capability of other entities (e.g., existing employers, market -rate housing producers, public agencies at various levels, non-profit organizations, etc.) to address affordable housing demand. An employment -based linkage fee may also be reduced from its maximum supportable amount because the jurisdiction wishes to remain optimally competitive as a location for revenue -generating employment growth. 14 9324rpt5.doc Table 6 Illustrative Employment Linkage Fee Calculation Santa Rosa Affordable Housing Studv Building Type Item Function Office Industrial Retail Employment Space Growth 50,000 50,000 50,000 Square Feet per Employee - 450 800 450 Total Employees = 111 63 111 Employees per Household - 2.0 2.0 2.0 Total Households = 56 31 56 Percent of Households Locating in Santa Rosa x 30% 30% 30% Total Households Locating In Santa Rosa = 17 9 17 Percent between 0% and 50% of Median Income 10% 15% - 20% Households between 0% and 50% of Median Income 2 3 3 Subsidy Cost per Very -Low Income Unit x $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 Total Cost for Very -Low Income Units = $90,000 $135,000 $135,000 Percent between 50% and 80% of Median Income 10% 15% 20% Households between 50% and 80% of Median Income 2 3 3 Subsidy Cost per Low Income Unit x $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 Total Cost for Low Income Units = $60,000 $90,000 $90,000 Percent between 80% and 120% of Median Income 20% 25% 30% Households between 80% and 120% of Median Income 3 4 5 Subsidy Cost per Moderate Income Unit x $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Total Cost for Moderate Income Units = $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 Total Costs for Affordable Housing Subsidies $165,000 $245,000 $250,000 Employment Space Growth - 50.000 50.000 50.000 Maximum Linkage Fee per Square Foot = $3.30 $4.90 $5.00 Source: Economic $ Planning Systems, Inc. 15 Final Report Housing Strategy Evaluation October 27, 2000 If the City of Santa Rosa were to enact an affordable housing linkage fee program similar to that found in the City of Sacramento; EPS estimates that the City could generate as much as $5.2 million dollars through the year 2005. Such a program could subsidize the production of roughly 175 affordable units, at an average of $30,000 per affordable unit. The methodology for calculating this figure is shown below. Type of Employment SF/ Total Avg. Fee/ Total Employment Growth Employee SF SF $ Office/Hotel/R&D 9,760 440 4,294,400 $0.92 $3,950,848 Retail 1,660 440 730,400 $0.79 $577,016 Wrhse. /Manu. 1,830 800 1,464,000 $0.45 $658,800 Total 13,250 6,488,800 $5,186,664 Other Means of Employer Participation As noted above, it may be undesirable as public policy to impose the full cost of required affordable housing subsidies on new employment development. In particular, such a policy may penalize new development while imposing no such costs on previously existing employers who are arguably responsible for much of the current excess demand for housing. Also, as policy, it may be desirable to provide alternatives for employers (both new and existing) to address the housing problem. Examples and brief descriptions of these follow: Direct Housing Production: Rather than pay a linkage fee on a per -square -foot basis, some employers may deem it desirable to directly produce affordable housing units. Such an investment may be undertaken for various reasons, including: (a) possible benefits from affordable housing tax credits; (b) recruiting and retention advantages of making housing available to their specific employees; (c) ability to capitalize on land already owned; (d) long-term income generation from rental properties; or (e) general civic -minded philanthropy and community good will. The Cities of Alameda, Sacramento, and San Francisco all provide opportunities for new employers to directly produce units rather than pay a linkage fee, with the number of units produced based on calculation similar to those described above. Housing Trust Fund Contributions: In the Silicon Valley, a non-profit organization called the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group is promoting the Housing Trust Fund of Santa Clara County. Contributors to the Fund include City and County governments, non-profit agencies, and private sector entities such as Knight Ridder publications, Cisco, Adobe, Intel, and Mid -Peninsula Bank. When the fund-raising campaign began in 1999 the initial goal was to raise $20 million, and over $10 million has been achieved thus far. The objectives of the fund are to provide first-time homebuyer assistance, produce affordable rental units, provide incentive loans for transitional housing, and leverage other private financing through grants and s Sacramento linkage fees are substantially lower than those illustrated on Table 6, and range from $0.45 per square foot for industrial space to $0.92 per square foot for office space. 16 9324rpt5.doc Final Report Housing Strategy Evaluation October 27, 2000 completion loans. The Fund is intended to replenish itself through repayment of loans over time. There is also an initiative to appropriate linkage fees from commercial development in various jurisdictions toward the Housing Trust Fund. In Santa Rosa, such an organization could serve as the designated manager of linkage fees and/or housing in -lieu fees from new development, and could also promote participation from existing employers and other funding sources, as has been successfully achieved in Silicon Valley. Also, new employment development in Santa Rosa could make contributions to a Housing Trust Fund in -lieu of linkage fees, either at a fixed rate or a negotiated rate. Employee Home -Ownership Assistance Programs: Employers in Santa Rosa may also individually or collectively establish programs to assist their employees through credit enhancement programs to facilitate home -ownership. For instance, employers could create a funding source to contribute down payments, or to directly provide lower interest mortgages or underwrite mortgage from other lenders. Various provisions would be required to maintain the affordability of the units and/or to - protect the employers from undue enrichment to employees. Again, such a program may be a fixed or negotiated alternative to linkage fees for new employment development, and may also be applied to existing employers if appropriate incentives can be determined. These examples illustrate some of the ways in which new and existing employers can contribute to the affordable housing problem in Santa Rosa. It must be noted, however, that the most effective means of achieving employer participation may be to establish a linkage fee program, and then offer alternative methods of participation. Relying solely on voluntary contributions is much less likely to be effective at generating funds for affordable housing. EPS also acknowledges that the means through which participation from existing employers can be achieved have far less certainty of success than do linkage fees or other programs for new employers. 2. INCREASE HOUSING IN -LIEU FEE Currently, many residential development projects in the City of Santa Rosa pay an in - lieu fee toward the development of affordable housing units, as an alternative to providing affordable units within the project. The current in -lieu fee for affordable housing is $2,600 per market -rate unit. This fee was calculated in 1995 by determining the average cost of subsidy for an affordable unit, and then dividing that figure by five, in reference to the percentage of total housing units in a project that was to be market rate (100 percent) not directly providing affordable units, versus the percentage that should be affordable (20 percent) in accordance with the Housing Allocation Plan. 17 9324rpt5.doc Final Report Housing Strategy Evaluation October 27, 2000 Using this same methodology today, the actual figure for the in -lieu fee would be calculated as follows: $39,336 - 5 = $7,867 Avg. Subsidy Required Market Rate Units per In -Lieu Fee per per Affordable Unie Affordable Unit Market Rate Unit If the average subsidy required per affordable unit is only $30,000, the current in -lieu fee would be $6,000 per market -rate unit. In either case, the figure is well over twice the current in -lieu fee. An in -lieu fee of $5,200 per unit -- double the current rate -- could generate an additional $6.5 million over the next five years, based on the recent level of funding from in-lieu- fees. n-lieufees. This $6.5 million increase could subsidize the production of 217 additional affordable housing units. A fee of $7,867 could subsidize 439 additional units, if recent housing growth trends continue. _ In considering changes to the In -Lieu Fee, variables that may be altered include not only the amount of the fee, but also the types of units and development projects required to pay the fee. These issues warrant further consideration as part of the overall strategy for the production of more affordable units in Santa Rosa. 3. ALLOCATE REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX (RPTT) TO HOUSING PROGRAMS The Real Property Transfer Tax (RPTT) was originally intended to be appropriated for the production of affordable housing. In recent years, however, the revenues from this source have been appropriated to the City's General Fund and are utilized for City expenses such as public safety. Changes to the allocation of RPTT funds would require a ballot measure. In 1999-2000, the RPTT generated roughly $2.8 million. Based on that funding level, re- allocating 10 percent of these RPTT funds toward affordable housing could assist in the production of 47 affordable units over the next five years. Higher levels of re -allocation would, of course, produce greater results for affordable housing; however, the General Fund would be negatively affected, and alternative funding sources would be required to maintain the current funding levels for other City functions. It should be noted that, in total, the RPTT revenues currently represent just over three percent of the total General Fund expenses for the City of Santa Rosa. 'Subsidy estimate taken from City staff memo "Strategies to Increase Affordable Housing." February 2000. 18' 9324rpt5.doc Final Report Housing Strategy Evaluation October 27, 2000 Alternatively, if the RPTT revenues increase as a result of higher housing production or home prices, the increment of growth could be appropriated to affordable housing, while the base remains utilized for General Fund purposes. Last year, RPTT revenues increased by roughly $200,000 over the previous year. If this trend continues, the increment over the next five years would amount to $3 million over the current base -- enough to subsidize the production of roughly 100 affordable units. 4. CONTINUE RDA COMMITMENT TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING The City has an existing policy to set aside 20 percent of tax increment revenues from two redevelopment areas for the purpose of maintaining and developing affordable housing units. In addition to this 20 percent minimum set-aside, the Redevelopment Authority (RDA) has contributed $3.1 million to affordable housing programs since 1994. These RDA funds amounted to roughly $310,000 for affordable housing programs in 1999/00, and an additional $500,000 is currently being proposed for a downtown _ housing demonstration program in 2000/01. There are limitations, however, on the RDA funding source. Beyond the 20 percent set- aside, the projected tax increment revenue stream from the Downtown RDA is committed to the repayment of existing debt on other projects and programs. Thus, it is impracticable to increase the percentage of tax increment funds that are specifically set aside for affordable housing. And although reserve balances are possible, and have been generated in years past, any reserve balances are restricted under a reserve policy. However, the Southwest RDA is projected to generate $749,000 in housing set-aside funding through 2005. This funding level can subsidize as many as 25 affordable units. In addition to this minimum effort, the Redevelopment Authority's laudable past commitment to affordable housing should be maintained as possible. It may also be advisable to reconsider the current distribution priorities of the RDA funding. For instance, the current allocation of funds for moderate income housing developments, rather than lower income projects, may be re-examined. As shown in EPS's subsidy analysis, the development of units for moderate income households may not require any subsidy, while the production of units for low and very -low income households clearly does. The effectiveness of the funding can be improved by appropriating RDA funds toward projects that clearly require financial assistance. However, EPS also recognizes the need to continue to support moderate income housing production as well as units for lower income households. 5. SEEK STATE / FEDERAL GRANTS The State of California has a current revenue surplus. One of the proposed uses for the surplus revenues would be an increase in State aid to local communities for affordable housing programs. An increase in inter -governmental transfer revenues, whether from 19 9324rpt5.doc Final Report Housing Strategy Evaluation October 27, 2000 the State or the Federal government, would represent a highly desirable funding option. However, the effectiveness of such a revenue source is dependent upon the amount of the increase in funding, which has not been determined and may or may not be realized. Moreover, an increase in funding as a result of a State -level budget surplus may not be made available on a continuing basis. OTHER HOUSING PROGRAMS PROGRAMS TO ENCOURAGE HOUSING PRODUCTION / RETENTION In addition to raising funding for affordable housing production, it may be necessary to implement some programs that help to produce or retain affordable units through other measures. As shown on the second page of Table 5, such programs include community outreach programs to reduce opposition to affordable housing projects, rezoning of land for higher -density development, waiver or subsidy of City impact fees for certain units, and active retention of existing affordable units. These programs should be assessed for their potential effectiveness, and priority should be placed on those programs that will contribute most to the production of new affordable housing or retention of existing affordable units. Retention of units is key, as the replacement costs to develop new affordable units is significantly higher than the costs of continued subsidies for currently affordable units. PROGRAMS TO ALTER REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS Regulatory changes can also facilitate the process for the production of affordable housing units. As shown on the third page of Table 5, the production of affordable units can be facilitated through rezoning to increase the land available for higher density or mixed use development in the Downtown area or throughout the City. It also can allow small units or transitional units (such as single -room occupancy hotels) in certain areas, reduce design or use regulations that are particularly onerous to affordable housing developments, and establish special districts for overlay zoning or financing. One specific recent proposal would create a "Walking District" as part of a "Workforce Housing Plan" in Downtown Santa Rosa or in other areas near employment centers within the City. This concept would establish a down payment or financing assistance fund into which employers could contribute money for their employees to purchase homes within a specified geographic area, in exchange for reduced parking requirements and employee recruitment/retention advantages. While this idea is an interesting and possibly practicable suggestion for a regulatory alteration and public/private partnership, the impact of the program as currently proposed would likely be a reduction in the homeowner's cost for housing, but not a subsidy for the developer whose cost to produce housing would still exceed the affordable purchase 20 9324ryt5.doc Final Report Housing Strategy Evaluation October 27, 2000 price for a low or very -low income household. The amounts of money being initially proposed for such programs are insufficient subsidies for low or very -low income housing units (as shown on Appendix Table A-2). While the proposal described above and other regulatory alterations may help to facilitate the production of more housing in Santa Rosa, the specific focus must remain on producing units that are affordable to lower-income households. The City's recent history has shown that the production of small units (e.g., qualifying units) or higher - density units does not guarantee the affordability of these product types. Nevertheless, a concerted effort should be made to reduce the administrative and regulatory impediments to affordable housing production. PROGRAMS TO INCREASE CITY FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION In addition to finding other external sources of income for affordable housing programs (such as impact fees, in -lieu fees, State funding, etc.), it may also be necessary for the City to increase its own budgetary contributions to such programs. Such programs are described on the fourth page of Table 5. These include leasing of City -owned land, development and operation of a permanent homeless shelter, and establishment of credit enhancement programs for affordable housing mortgage programs. Opportunities for the City's participation in funding agreements with the private sector or with other public sector entities are especially promising. However, limitations on. the City's fiscal capacity and competition with other City programs would require that the entire community reach consensus that affordable housing should be a top priority, which consensus may be difficult to achieve. 21 9324rpt5.doc Economic Planning Systems Public Finance Real Estate Economics Regional Economics Land Use Policy APPENDIX A: SANTA ROSA AFFORDABLE HOUSING ANALYSIS Table A-1 Income and Affordable Housing Assumptions City of Santa Rosa Affordable Housing Fee Analysis Item Assumption note: 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom Moderate Income Category Single Family Home Cost Amount spent on mortgage 25% of 110% of median income (1) $14,383 peryear $15,978 peryear Home Value (2)-(4) $185,480 per home $206,049 per home Multi -Family Home Value Amount spent on rent 30% of 110% of median income (1) $17,259 peryear $19,173 peryear Operating and Expense Costs $350 per month (5) ($4,200) peryear ($4,200) per year Net Operating income $13,059 peryear $14,973 peryear Value of Unit 8.5% cap rate $153,635 $176,153 Low Income Category Single Family Home Cost Amount spent on mortgage 25% of 60% of median income. (1) $7,845 peryear $8,715 peryear Home Value (2)-(4) $101,171 per home $112,390 per home Multi -Family Home Value Amount spent on rent 30% of 60% of median income (1) $9,414 peryear $10,458 peryear Operating and Expense Costs $300 per month (5) ($3,600) per year ($3,600) per year Net Operating Income $5,814 peryear $6,858 peryear Value of Unit 8.5% cap rate $68,400 $80,682 Very Low Income Category Single Family Home Cost Amount spent on mortgage 25% of 50% of median Income (1) $6,538 peryear $7,263 per year Home Value (2)-(4) $84,309 per home $93,659 per home Multi -Family Home Value Amount spent on rent 30% of 50% of median income (1) $7,845 peryear $8,715 peryear Operating and Expense Costs $275 per month (5) ($3,300) peryear ($3,300) per year Net Operating Income $4,545 peryear $5,415 per year Value of Unit 8.5% cap rate $53,471 $63,706 (1) Median Income for Single Family 4 -person HH is: $58,100 (HUD Income Limits 2000) Median Income for MuWFamlty 3 -person HH is: $52,300 (HUD Income Limits 2000) (2) Interest rale: 8.W/ (3) Payment period: 30 (4) Downpayment: 20% (5) Based on comparable operating expenses for Bay Area rental units. Source: City of Santa Rosa, Economic and Planning Systems, Inc. Economic Planning Systems 9324hous.x1s 67/00 Table A-2 Unit Characteristics and Per Unit Subsidy Required Citv of Santa Rosa Affordable Housing Fee Analysis Affordable Home Price Shortfall Per Unit Home Moderate Low Very Low Moderate Low Very Low Unit Type Value (1) Income Income Income Income Income Income Multi -Family Units 2 BR $89,000 $153,635 $68,400 $53,471 $0 $20,600 $35,529 3 BR $104,000 $176,153 $80,682 $63,706 $0 $23,318 $40,294 Single Family Units 2 BR $114,463 $185,480 $101,171 $84,309 $0 $13,292 $30,154 3 BR $148,129 $206,049 $112,390 $93,659 $0 $35,738 $54,470 (1) Imputed market value for Multi -Family units are based on avg. rent of $900/mo for a 2 -BR apt., $1,050/mo for 3 -BR apt., expenses equal to 30% of gross revenues and capitalized @ 8.5%. Single Family home price Is based on development costs of 850 SF unit for 2 BR unit, 1100 SF for 3 BR unit. Sources: Marcus & Millichap; City of Santa Rosa; California Association of Realtors; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economic Planning Systems 9324hous.xls 617100 Table A-3 Affordable Housing Needs 2000-2005 Option One City of Santa Rosa Affordable Housing Fee Analysis Total Affordable Units 3,643 (1) Pro rata share of ABAG Draft Regional Housing Needs, 1999-2006 Allocation; represents City jurisdictional numbers only and excludes SOI housing allocations, which are unresolved. (2) 20M Income Limits, Department of Housing and Community Development, Division of Housing Policy Development. (3) Median Income for Single Family 4 -person HH Is: $58,100 (HUD Income Limits 2000) (4) Median Income for Multi -Family -3 -person HH Is: $52,300 (HUD Income Limits 2000) Sources: ABAG; HUD; City of Santa Rosa, Community Development Department; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economic Planning Systems 9324hous.xls 6/7/00 9 New Income Annual Income Annual Income Unit Type Units (1) Range (2) for 4 -person HH (3) for 3 -person HH (4) % of Med. Inc. Annual Inc. % of Med. Inc. Annual Inc. Above Moderate Income 1,433 >120% 120% $69,720 120% $62,760 Moderate Income 1,001 80-120% 110% $63,910 110% $57,530 Low Income 475 50-80% 60% $34,860 60% $31,380 Very Low Income 734 0-50% 50% $29,050 50% $26,150 Total Affordable Units 3,643 (1) Pro rata share of ABAG Draft Regional Housing Needs, 1999-2006 Allocation; represents City jurisdictional numbers only and excludes SOI housing allocations, which are unresolved. (2) 20M Income Limits, Department of Housing and Community Development, Division of Housing Policy Development. (3) Median Income for Single Family 4 -person HH Is: $58,100 (HUD Income Limits 2000) (4) Median Income for Multi -Family -3 -person HH Is: $52,300 (HUD Income Limits 2000) Sources: ABAG; HUD; City of Santa Rosa, Community Development Department; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economic Planning Systems 9324hous.xls 6/7/00 9 Table A-4 Affordable Housing Mix 2000-2005 Option One City of Santa Rosa Affordable Housing Fee Analysis Total Number of Required........................................................Affordable Units.(2).............................................., Unit Type New Units (1) Mod. Income Low Income V. Low Income # % of total # % of total # % of total Multi -Family Units (3) 1,822 501 27% 356 20% 734 40% 2 BR 250 178 367 3 BR 250 178 367 Single Family Units (3) 1,822 501 27% 119 7% - 0% 21311 250 59 - 3 BR 250 59 - Subtotal 3,643 1,001 27% 475 13% 734 20% Affordable Housing Required (4) 1,209 475 39% 734 61% (1) 2000-2005 pro rata share of ABAG RHND Projections 1999-2006 for all Income categories. (2) Assumes 100% of very low income households, 75% of low income households, and 50% of moderate income households will be in multi -family units. (3) Assumes new units to be developed will be evenly distributed between multi -family and single family units, and evenly between 2 BR and 3BR units. (4) 2000-2005 pro rata share of ABAG RHND Projections 1999-2006 for afforable housing income categories. Sources: ABAG; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economic Planning Systems 9324hous.xls 617100 Table A-5 Estimate of Gross Affordable Housing Subsidy 2000-2005 City of Santa Rosa Affordable Housing Fee Analysis Option One Unit Type Mod. Income Low Income V. Low Income Total Subsidy Cost Subsidy Cost Subsidy Cost Subsidy Multi -Family Units 2 BR $0 $3,666,800 $13,039,294 3 BR $0 $4,150,541 $14,787,941 Single Family Units 2 BR $0 $788,679 $0 3 BR $0 $2,120,470 $0 Gross Housing Subsidy Required $0 $10,726,490 $27,827,235 $38,553,725 Sources: Economic R Planning Systems, Inc. Economic Planning Systems 9324hous.xls 67/00 o �. Table A-6 Affordable Housing Needs 2000-2005 Option Two City of Santa Rosa Affordable Housing Fee Analysis New Income Annual Income Annual Income Unit Type Units (1) Range (2) for 4 -person HH (3) for 3 -person HH (4) % of Med. Inc. Annual Inc. % of Med. Inc. Annual Inc. Above Moderate Income 1,564 >120% 120% $69,720 120% $62,760 Moderate Income 1,095 80-120% 110% $63,910 110% $57,530 Low Income 517 50-80% 60% $34,860 60% $31,380 Very Low Income 804 0-50% 50% $29,050 50% $26,150 Total Affordable Units 3,980 (1) Household growth In Santa Rosa SSA from ABAG Projections 2000, distributed according to ABAG income distribution recommendations from RHND 1999-2006. (2) 2000 Income Limits, Department of Housing and Community Development, Division of Housing Policy Development. (3) Median Income for Single Family 4 -person HH is: $58,100 (HUD Income Limits 2000) (4) Median Income for Multi -Family 3 -person HH Is: $52,300 Sources: ABAG; HUD; City of Santa Rosa, Community Development Department; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economic Planning Systems 9324hous2.xls 617100 Table A-7 Affordable Housing Mix 2000-2005 Option Two City of Santa Rosa Affordable Housing Fee Analysis Total Number of Required Affordable Units (2) ............................................................................................................................................................... Unit Type New Units (1) Mod. Income Low Income V. Low Income # % of total # % of total # % of total Multi -Family Units (3) 1,990 547 28% 388 20% 804 40% 2 BR 274 194 402 3 BR 274 194 402 Single Family Units (3) 1,990 547 28% 129 7% - 0% 2 BR 274 65 - 3 BR 274 65 - Subtotal 3,980 1,095 28% 517 13% 804 20% Affordable Housing Required (4) 1,321 517 39% 804 61% (1) 2000-2005 pro rata share of ABAG RHND Projections 1999-2006 for all income categories. (2) Assumes 100% of very low income households, 75% of low Income households, and 50% of moderate income households will be in multi -family units. (3) Assumes new units to be developed will be evenly distributed between multi -family and single family units, and evenly between 2 BR and 3BR units. (4) 2000-2005 pro rata share of ABAG RHND Projections 1999-2006 for afforable housing Income categories. Sources: ABAG; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economic Planning Systems 9324hous2.xls 617100 Table A-8 Estimate of Gross Affordable Housing Subsidy 2000-2005 Option Two City of Santa Rosa Affordable Housing Fee Analysis Unit Type Mod. Income Low Income V. Low Income Total Subsidy Cost Subsidy Cost Subsidy Cost Subsidy Multi -Family Units Single Family Units Gross Housing Subsidy Required Sources: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2 BR $0 $3,996,915 $14,282,113 3 BR $0 $4,524,206 $16,197,429 2 BR $0 $859,682 $0 3 BR $0 $2,311,372 $0 $0 $11,692,175 $30,479,542 $42,171,718 Economic Planning Systems 9324hous2.xls 617100 Table A-9 Affordable Housing Needs 2000-2005 Option Three City of Santa Rosa Affordable Housing Fee Analysis Total Affordable Units 3,980 (1) Household growth in Santa Rosa SSA from ABAG Projections 2000, with 20% affordable units per City's Housing Allocation Plan, evenly distributed between low- and very -low Incomes. (2) 2000 Income Limits, Department of Housing and Community Development, Division of Housing Policy Development. (3) Median Income for Single Family 4 -person HH is: $58,100 (HUD Income Limits 2000) (4) Median Income for Mulfi-Family 3 -person HH is: $52,300 Sources: ABAG; HUD; City of Santa Rosa, Community Development Department; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economic Planning Systems 9324hous3.xls 617100 New Income Annual Income Annual Income Unit Type Units (1) Range (2) for 4 -person HH (3) for 3 -person HH (4) % of Med. Inc. Annual Inc. % of Med. Inc. Annual Inc. Above Moderate Income 1,592 >120% 120% $69,720 120% $62,760 Moderate Income 1,592 80-120% 110% $63,910 110% $57,530 Low Income 398 50-80% 60% $34,860 60% $31,380 Very Low Income 398 0-50% 50% $29,050 50% $26,150 Total Affordable Units 3,980 (1) Household growth in Santa Rosa SSA from ABAG Projections 2000, with 20% affordable units per City's Housing Allocation Plan, evenly distributed between low- and very -low Incomes. (2) 2000 Income Limits, Department of Housing and Community Development, Division of Housing Policy Development. (3) Median Income for Single Family 4 -person HH is: $58,100 (HUD Income Limits 2000) (4) Median Income for Mulfi-Family 3 -person HH is: $52,300 Sources: ABAG; HUD; City of Santa Rosa, Community Development Department; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economic Planning Systems 9324hous3.xls 617100 Table A-10 Affordable Housing Mix 2000-2005 Option Three City of Santa Rosa Affordable Housing Fee Analysis Total Number of Required _Affordable Units ..�2'.V ........................................... ........................ ....... ................ Unit Type New Units (1) Mod. Income Low Income . Low Income # % of total # % of total # % of total Multi -Family Units (3) 1,990 796 40% 299 15% 398 20% 2 BR 398 149 199 3 BR 398 149 199 Single Family Units (3) 1,990 796 40% 100 5% - 0% 2 BR 398 50 - 3 BR 398 50 - Subtotal 3,980 1,592 40% 398 10% 398 10% Affordable Housing Required (4) 796 398 50% 398 50% (1) 2000-2005 pro rata share of ABAG RHND Projections 1999-2006 for all Income categories. (2) Assumes 100% of very low Income households, 75% of low Income households, and 50% of moderate income households will be In multi -family units. (3) Assumes new units to be developed will be evenly distributed between muki-family and single family units, and evenly between 2 BR and 3BR units. (4) 2000-2005 pro rata share of ABAG RHND Projections 1999-2006 for afforable housing Income categories. Sources: ABAG; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economic Planning Systems 9324housUls 617100 Table A-11 Estimate of Gross Affordable Housing Subsidy 2000-2005 Option Three City of Santa Rosa Affordable Housing Fee Analysis Unit Type Mod. Income Low Income V. Low Income Total Subsidy Cost Subsidy Cost Subsidy Cost Subsidy Multi -Family Units 2 BR $0 $3,074,550 $7,070,353 3 BR $0 $3,480,159 $8,018,529 Single Family Units 2 BR $0 $661,294 $0 3 BR $0 $1,777,978 $0 Gross Housing Subsidy Required $0 $8,993,981 $15,088,882 $24,082,863 Sources: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economic Planning Systems 9324hous3.xls 6!7/00 Table A-12 Affordable Housing Needs 2000-2005 Option Four City of Santa Rosa Affordable Housing Fee. Analysis Unit Type Above Moderate Income Moderate Income Low Income Very Low Income Total Affordable Units New Income Annual Income Units (1) Range (2) for 4 -person HH (3) % of Med. Inc. Annual Inc. 796 >120% 120% $69,720 2,388 80-120% 110% $63,910 677 50-80% 60% $34,860 119 0-50% 3,980 50% $29,050 (1) Assumes new housing demand generated by new employment, with employment Incomes normally distributed (see Table 19) (2) 2000 Income Limits, Department of Housing and Community Development, Division of Housing Policy Development. (3) Median Income for Single Family 4 -person HH is: $58,100 (HUD Income Limits 2000) (4) Median Income for Multi -Family 3 -person HH is: $52,300 Sources: ABAG; HUD; City of Santa Rosa, Community Development Department; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Annual Income for 3 -person HH (4) % of Med. Inc. Annual Inc. 120% $62,760 110% $57,530 60% $31,380 50% $26,150 Economic Planning Systems 9324hous4.xls 617100 X17 C��k? Affordable Housing Mix 2000-2005 Option Four City of Santa Rosa Affordable Housing Fee Analysis Total Number of Required Affordable Units (2) ................................................................................................................................................... Unit Type New Units (1) Mod. Income Low Income V. Low Income # % of total # % of total # % of total Multi -Family Units (3) 1,990 1,194 60% 507 26% 119 6% 2 BR 597 254 60 3 BR 597 254 60 Single Family Units (3) 1,990 1,194 60% 169 9% - 0% 2 BR 597 85 - 3 BR 597 85 - Subtotal 3,980. 2,388 60% 677 17% 119 3% Affordable Housing Required (4) 796 677 85% 119 15% (1) 2000-2005 pro rata share of ABAG RHND Projections 1999-2006 for all Income categories. (2) Assumes 100% of very low income households, 75% of low Income households, and 50% of moderate income households will be in multi -family units. (3) Assumes new units to be developed will be evenly distributed between multi -family and single family units, and evenly between 2 BR and 3BR units. (4) 2000-2005 pro rata share of ABAG RHND Projections 1999-2006 for adorable housing Income categories. Sources: ABAG; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economic Planning Systems 9324hous4.xls 617100 Table A-14 Estimate of Gross Affordable Housing Subsidy 2000-2005 Option Four City of Santa Rosa Affordable Housing Fee Analysis Unit Type Mod. Income Low Income V. Low Income Total Subsidy Cost Subsidy Cost Subsidy Cost Subsidy Multi -Family Units Single Family Units Gross Housing Subsidy Required Sources: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2 BR $0 $5,226,735 $2,121,106 3 BR $0 $5,916,270 $2,405,559 2 BR $0 $1,124,199 $0 3 BR $0 $3,022,563 $0 $0 $15,289,768 $4,526,665 $19,816,432 Economic Planning Systems 9324hous4.xls 617100 a - 'A. 'J) FROM : MAJOR FAX N0. : 310 376 5eee Nov. 19 2000 09:00PM P1 UCOUNCIL: Americam Golf' MISCELLANEOUS COMMUNICATIONS November 19, 2000 AGENDA Mr, Joseph Netter COPY TO: City Manager COPY TO: 6750 Commerce Blvd. Rohnert Park, California 94928 t! � Dear Joe: Thank you for taking the time to get together last, Monday_ We enjoyed meeting with you and the entire team and took forward to continuing to work through an exciting improvement plan for Mountain Shadows. As a follow up to our meeting; I wanted to reiterate that we are prepared to continue moving forward on all of the options that David Price set forth in his November 9h letter to you. There are a couple of items that I wanted to clarify as they relate to the second approach that David specified. In general, the overall concept of allocating different tiers of cash flow to the repayment of bonds first, to the repayrnent of ADC's investment next, Then to the City as participation rent, then to ACC's management fee and then a split would remain. However, in the event that a portion of the funding is secured by utilizing the City's general fund, AGC is willing to guarantee an annual payment in the amount necessary to service the debt and also provide an additional credit enhancement to the City in the form of a performance bond issued by a highly rated stational insurance company for an agreed amount (e.g., $1.5 million). The purpose of this would be to provide additional comfort that the City would not actually be called upon to use its general fund. For that to happen, the greatly unproved Rolf courses (with higher market rates) would have to generate less than the amount required to service the debt (highly unlikely given that the debt service may be in the $400,400 range), AGC would then have to default (which has never happened in ADC's 30 -year history) and then the performance bond would kick in. The point is that there will be a lot of protections in place to greatly minimize any risk to the City. In addition to the guaranteed rent for debt service, AGC would alto be willing to convert to guaranteed rent a substantial portion of the participation rent that is payable to the City after the courses are up and gunning and there's a history of performance. For example, beginning after the fifth year of the term, we would convert 60% of the average of the three prior years' participation rent into guaranteed rent. This means that prior to AGC earning any management fee, the City would know it has an additional guaranteed payment (likely in the $210,000 range) through the end of the term as well as all of the additional cash flow due to it under the tiered approach outlined above. You will of course want to review the overall casli flow derived by the City under this structure. However, if you utilize even a portion of'Bill Sherman's projections to be conservative, you'll see the strong results to the City from this structure. If we're able to utilize the tax-free bonds to finance the improvements, we'll likely have to tailor the structure to (oyes FP.OM MAJOR FAX NO. : 310 376 5806 Nov. 19 2000 09:01PM P2 Mr. Joseph Netter November 19, 20Q0 Page 2 comply with the rules an how the course can be operated, but we're hopeful the overa;l concepts could remain substantially the same. Joe, the improvement plan as outlined is clearly a major project and a substantial commitment by everyone involved. While we recognize that the City would like to address the a Qlf course issues all at once, we remain open to discussing more incremental approaches if the plans prove too ambitious to complete all at once, Either way, we hope to be a part of a program to improve the facility and position the golf courses for success over the long term. Sincerely, a A - Paul Major cc: Steve Harker David Price i flden Park Golf Course Grizzly Peak at Shasta Road Berkelev, California 94708 516.545.89411 tARLY, R-1:v11:W,r "At last, a handbook, thoughtfully organized, chock- full of real-life examples,'of the new principles of community-based economic development, global ties, regional alliances and radically improved town design that have been bubbling up across California and America in the '90s:' — Neal Peirce, Co-author, Citistates "This guidebook will be a valuable addition to any economic development organization's library." — Lewis R. Podolske, Program Operations Director, Commerce Department's Economic Development Administration TH 10 CONTM IVOR L,IVABLt COM.MUXITK$' he Center for Livable Communities helps local govern- ments and community leaders be proactive in their land use and transportation planning, and adopt programs and policies that lead to more livable and resource -efficient land use patterns. The Center is a national initiative of the Local Government Commission. A nonprofit, nonpartisan, member- ship organization of elected officials, city and county staff, and other interested individuals throughout California and other states (with over 800 current members), the Commission helps local governments identify and implement solutions to today's problems. The Center grew out of the Commission's work help- ing local officials implement the "Ahwahnee Principles" for resource -efficient local and regional land -use planning. sleep anep :uSlsap V Suulpa ._ U3N.IUVd N0I.IV1U0dsNVV1 Vdd NV ZUUo plena Cl"1 oe a 1aww 9L9 � �} )Ja7ad iJauyo)J to fi4!0 aagwelN 1!ounoo A!G oil WWI IN COUNCIL:AZU-*1856 8ls l MULMd COMMZOZS-06Z (008) aulpo1..1 ialua0 Ad0'o;uaur=eS9tiZ8 8titi (9I6) XE3 ♦ 86l l Bit (916) a s °'.::AGC d3'o`4UQ t�eS ♦ 05Zal?nS 3S)l tltl r5alva W a2nsod -s-n aATJDUFar uorssrmwo0 luamuiaeo0 In.7o7 y 'eruoll-!-2� �;ywd-uoHCOPY4!ununuoo ajquAiZ joj jawao COPY T�: E. � z : hwahnee, J_n 10.1aft VMM. U, :x %rf x f S � 4. , • `1 .'' '. M1 forat�:c 1 x_ % t. A'jY o hh ¢ -o: vMr #t Commissions Center or Livable Communi 1 v. cr •vernmen ' f IT Ak ]Kltf GOOD $'1tk4$'9W1 "As communities are devising ways to balance economic development with neighborhood preservation, we are looking for models. This guidebook will be invaluable." Rosemary Corbin, Mayor of Richmond, CA rosperity in the 21 st century will be based on Ircreating and maintaining a sustainable stan- dard of living and a high quality of life for all. To meet this challenge, a new comprehensive model is emerging which embraces economic, social, and environmental responsibility and recognizes the economic value of natural and human capital. This approach focuses on the most critical building blocks for success—the community and the region. While each community and region is unique, this policymakers' guidebook examines 15 common principles that should guide an integrated approach to promoting economic vitality and regional partnerships for all communities. This new guidebook will help communities to implement a comprehensive set of principles for building prosperous and livable places. Its ideas take policymakers from "ribbon -cutting to results." Included in the 75 -page guidebook are chapters on: ® Industry Clusters ® Wired Communities ® Long -Term Community Development ® Reinvesting in Existing Communities ® Local Collaboration and Global Competitiveness ® Compact Development 0 City Centers and Capitalizing on A Sense of Place ® Regional Collaboration ® Environmental and Corporate Responsibility * We're on the Web! www.lgc.org/cic/ (800) 290--8202 "The Ah wahn ee Principles for Smart Economic Development: An Implementation Guidebook" New from the Local Government Commission's Center for Livable Communities r ----------------------------------------------I tCOXOMIC DVVZL0PA*E*T I GUIMBOOR. ORDER ]'ORV9 ❑ Please send the Smart Economic Development Guidebook for the special introductory price of $30. ❑ Please send me information about other Center . , publications on livable communities. Please add 15% shipping and handling for U.S. orders . _ and 25% for orders from Mexico and Canada. Also, please -add 7.75% for California sales tax. NAME, T j I .. I I I I I ORGANIZATION , I I � I I V ADDRESS , I I � I CITY, STATE & ZIP 1 � I � I � PHONE ♦ FAX V Or Please pay by credit card and fax to: (916) 448-8246 Attn: Karen Cole. VISA/MC Acct. #: Exp. Date Or mail this form with your check payable to: Local Government Commission 1414 K St., Suite 250 Sacramento, CA 95814-3929 SG62 LOCAL GOVICRHAtICHT COAAUMON NOV 16 2000 (111Y ("1* '10 4 -INERT PAPAR C�,11NCIL: ,.._RF I'S1^1-1-1_ANEOUS COMIN ( NICATIONS T A E_N DA COPY P i� I O: COPY T0: NOV 16 zow W Our Basic Services Architectural Design Programming/Needs Assessments Master Planning/Site Planning Space Planning Feasibility Studies Interior Design Our Expertise Public Library Design Academic Library Design Educational Facilities Community Facilities Recreational Facilities Historic Renovation For Information on how we can help you plan, design, and build, contact our office at 510.649.8295. 3 Cesar E. Chavez Student Center, University of California, Berkeley The renovation of the 74,000 sq. ft. Cesar E. Chavez Student Center improved both the functional organization and the aesthetics of this architecturally significant modern campus building. A new main lobby was designed that defines a clear, welcoming point of entry compatible with the modern design of this building. Our design process included conducting interactive design workshops with a diverse group of student service organizations. Fremont Family Resource Center, City of Fremont This 50,000 square foot project transformed two existing office buildings into a "one-stop" cf: social services center made up of 19 different r y, governmental agencies and non-profit social � service providers. The collaborative design and construction process responded to the individuality of each tenant while still achieving a physical and philosophical cohesiveness. The Family Resource Center recently received ' one of HUD's "Best of the Best' awards. a *14 construcrea In lY to unuer rlle L.arucg- uuimy program. Our design process included a number of community design workshops to determine what was most imporrant to the local neighborhood. We brought this unreinforced masonry building up to current seismic and accessibility codes while preserving and enhancing the historical fabric of the library. Our Basic Services Architectural Design Programming/Needs Assessments Master Planning/Site Planning Space Planning Feasibility Studies Interior Design Our Expertise Public Library Design Academic Library Design Educational Facilities Community Facilities Recreational Facilities Historic Renovation For information on how we can help you plan, design, and build, contact our office at 510.649.8295. Noll & Tam Architects Offers thoughtful and creative design. We are committed to active principal involvement in every project. We believe in a design process that. Invites community involvement. We puy careful attention noll and listen closely to our clients' needs. Our history of project management is excellent: from budgets to scheduling and quality control. These qualities help us to create buildings that are innovative, inviting, and Ultimately well -loved. v s a n 7 729 Heinz Avenue Berkeley CA 94710 510.649.8295 fax 510.649.3008 nt@nollandtam.com RECEIVED NOV 2 1 2000 CITY OF November 20, 2000 ROHNERT PORK Rohnert Park City Council, Council: X Date I Miscellaneous Communications Ila ao Agenda Coj)y to: Copy to: Tonight I caught a bit of the City Council meeting on the public access TV. I am sorry that I did not know that the golf coarse renovation has been under discussion but I am currently attempting to qualify the USGA Women's Senior Amateur and working a full time job. This means that almost every weekend I am traveling to golf courses around the state and the entire U.S. I see lots of courses and spend time talking to people in the golf business. I can tell you that American Golf is seen as a "bottom rung" operation. They seem to treat their employees fairly but their style of business and financial business is "Tell them what they want to hear, blame someone else and do as little a possible". I live on North Course and have watched the course deteriorate under their care. I urge you to contact someone who deals with them at your level — not an American Golf salesman or employee. American Golf manages 2 courses in the Sacramento area — Bing Maloney Golf Course and Bartley Cavanaugh Golf Course. Ann Weaver is the Sacramento City Golf Manager and can give you her experience dealing with them from the business/financial perspective. Ms. Weaver has been "loaned" by the city of Sacramento to other cities in the past as a golf course contract consultant. She has been administering golf course contracts for cities since 1989 and has a valuable perspective. You as city planners have a chance to effect necessary change at this juncture and I believe you should get the opinion of someone in your position who was not set up by American Golf. In case the copy of her card is not clear, Ann Weaver can be contacted at 916433-6315 and fax 916433-6317. ov Thank You,6,/? _ CITY OF SACRAMENTO Sherri Hoefling 251 Fauna Ave. 8325 MMR ROAD DEPARDAIWr OF COMMUNITY SACRAMENTO, CA Rohnert Park, Ca. 94928 AND va =Jt SERVICES 95832 707-584-9008 PH 916-133-6315 ANN C WEAVER PAGER 916-592-5644 GOLF MANAGER FAX 916-433-6317 TO: Joseph Netter, City Manager ffAo!nd7 m m-tip City of Agenda,-,--. ROHNERT COPY: Betsy Strauss, City Attorney o: ZA �' K at Bill Stephens, Interim Assistant City Manager FROM: Nancy Kaufman Planning 8s Community Development Director PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: November 20, 2000 SUBJECT. Alternative Proposals for Public Review of the Draft Zoning Ordinance The public review of the Draft Zoning Ordinance is tentatively scheduled to begin in February of next year. Staff has developed the following three alternatives for facilitating public review of the Ordinance as it is developed. 1. Use the General Plan Ad Hoc Committee to guide the process and host public study sessions. 2. Create a new committee to guide the process and host public study sessions. The new committee could be comprised of the following seven representatives: one Councilmember, one Planning Commissioner, two residents, two from the Chamber of Commerce, and one developer. 3. Use the Planning Commission, with a Council representative in attendance, to guide the process and host public study sessions during their regular meeting dates (one meeting each month would be set aside for this purpose). Staff is recommending Alternative #3 for the following reasons: a. Once the revised Zoning Ordinance is approved, it will be the Planning Commission that has the primary responsibility for its implementation. b. The Commission has direct experience with the current Zoning Ordinance and what is working and what is not C. The Commission has expressed an interest in setting aside one meeting a month for this purpose. d. It is staff s intention to do the Zoning Ordinance update in-house. However, staff resources are limited and if a separate committee is 6750 Commerce Blvd., Rohnert Park, CA 94928-2486' (707)588-2212, FAX: (707)588-2274 established it may require the hiring of a consultant to facilitate and/or support the committee with meeting arrangements, meeting notices, mailings and minutes. Staff is also investigating the possibility of creating an on-line public forum/comment board to facilitate public review and input via the internet. This approach can be used with any of the three alternatives. 2 SUBJECT. Status Report on General Plan Implementation and the Wilfred-Dowdell Specific Plan Implementation. A revised General Plan implementation schedule is attached. Due to the number of components associated with the update of the Zoning Ordinance, a separate Zoning Ordinance Update schedule has been prepared, and is also attached. Wilfred-Dowdell Specific Plan. An administrative draft of the . revised traffic analysis was received. The consultant was asked to review the growth projection assumptions used in the analysis with the latest growth projections based on the new General Plan. This work is almost complete and a copy of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report should be ready for public review by the end of November. 6750 Commerce Blvd. ' Rohnert Park, CA 94928-2486 ' (707)588-2212 ' FAX: (707)588-2274 TO: Joseph Netter, City Manager City of ROHNERT �t= COPY.- Betsy Strauss, City Attorney H Bill Stephens, Interim Assistant City Manager F `= FROM: Nancy Kaufman, j Planning 8s Community Development Director PLANNING DATE: November 20, 2000 DEPARTMENT SUBJECT. Status Report on General Plan Implementation and the Wilfred-Dowdell Specific Plan Implementation. A revised General Plan implementation schedule is attached. Due to the number of components associated with the update of the Zoning Ordinance, a separate Zoning Ordinance Update schedule has been prepared, and is also attached. Wilfred-Dowdell Specific Plan. An administrative draft of the . revised traffic analysis was received. The consultant was asked to review the growth projection assumptions used in the analysis with the latest growth projections based on the new General Plan. This work is almost complete and a copy of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report should be ready for public review by the end of November. 6750 Commerce Blvd. ' Rohnert Park, CA 94928-2486 ' (707)588-2212 ' FAX: (707)588-2274 GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE (TENTATIVE) GP Impl Schedule#2 11/16/00 2001 12002 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb I Mar jApr I May I Jun jJul JAug I Sep FOct I Nov I Dec SPECIFIC PLAN & OTHER AREAS City Center Concept Plan` Wilfred Dowdell CEQA ' HOUSING PROGRAMS & PROJ.S Article XXXIV Ballot Measure ORDINANCES Mobile Home Park Conversions Public Art Ordinance Rev Growth Management Ordinance REV[ Urban Growth Boundary -Ballot Measure Heritab a Tree Preservation Ordinance Update Noise Ordinance PROJECTS & PROGRAMS Capital Improvement Pro ram Guidelines for Development Agreements Rev Explore Annexation of SSU Desi n Stds Checklist --See ZO Schedule Trans ortation Demand Mgmt Prog. Update Bicycle Master Plan Review; Parks, Rec. & O .S . Master Plan Review, Urban Forest Management Plan �Ftev; Wastewater Cap. Needs of GP 3��{ Municipal Wellfield MonitoringProgram��ti� F 'Y> j a i{r ..... G' .. �. U T-51,: - a ``� Non-Resid. Wastewater Flow Red. Pr2q. Business BMP for Water Conservation Inventory of Historic & Archaeol. Res. New Sed./Flooding Construction Stds Adopt Dust Abatement Measures Storm Water Management Plan GP Impl Schedule#2 11/16/00 ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE SCHEDULE (TENTATIVE) *Assumes use of Gen'] Plan EIR. GP Impl. Schedule#2A 11/16/00 2001 200.2 ZONING ORDINANCE Jan Feb 'Mar JApr May June July Aug Sept OctNov Dec Residential Districts Review QE QA - Commercial Commercial Districts Review. ; Industrial Districts Review: Mixed -Use District �RevieW, Home Occupations Review Second Dwelling Units Rbview. Emer enc &Transitional Hs Revidw„ Live/Work Review ;°' Accessory Uses Revidw ,.y Density Bonus--Afford.Hsg Review O , . Sp. & Rec Districts Overlay Districts f'eview` S ecific'Plan Procedures Fencing & Landscaping Prov. Review . Hazardous Materials Development Standards Review ' Performance Stds inc.noise Review Parking & Loading Standards Review Design Guidelines Review Inclusionary Housing : Review General Provisions `Review Organization, 9 Rev eW' Admin. & Enforcement Proc. jteViewy CUP, Variances, Zoning ; iReview 5w' Administrator, Appeals, RevaevV�:'; Design Review, .Review Affordable Hs . . Hearin Residential Hsg. -Review Signs (updated after ZO_ Revise'Zonin Map (0 ..:, *Assumes use of Gen'] Plan EIR. GP Impl. Schedule#2A 11/16/00 r ®v %I Z000 1T� OF V,O"toll YPRK C November 21, 2000 CITY OF 'X SANTA ROSA OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 100 Santa Rosa Avenue Post Office Box 1678 Santa Rosa, CA 95402-1678 707-543-3010 Fax: 707-543-3030 Dear Colleague: We invite you to share your knowledge and experience in shaping an innovative initiative that is important to the future of the cities and communities in Sonoma County. Please consider attending the meeting which will beheld: The Reconnaissance Meeting marks the beginning of a two-year process involving Public Workshops in Sonoma County and throughout the region to promote smart growth and sustainable development. The five Regional Agencies - Association of Bay Area Governments, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and Regional Water Quality Control Board - and the Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Development - a coalition of more than 40 businesses, environmental and social equity organizations - recently joined forces to launch a collaborative, inclusive, bottom-up consensus project to develop a "Smart Growth Strategy" and "Regional Livability Footprint" for the Bay Area. They have asked us to convene local leaders to shape the process in Sonoma County and to ensure that it incorporates our local views and goals. Bay Area Smart Growth Strategy and Regional Livability Footprint Project December 14, 2000, 9:30 a.m. to noon Manzanita Room at Finley Community Center JANET CONDRON 2060 West College Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA Mayor MICHAEL F. MARTINI We are concerned that current trends in development and land use may undermine Ma Mayor Vice or y the economic prosperity and quality of life we enjoy locally and within the region. MARSHA VAS UPRE NOREEN M. EVANS Your expertise is needed to: STEVE RABINOWITSH MIKE RUNYAN SHARON WRIGHT * Identify priority local growth and land use issues, Councilmembers Inventory local initiatives that promote smart growth and sustain long-term economic vitality, and . * Help tailor this region -wide process to accomplish the goals of the cities and communities in Sonoma County. The Reconnaissance Meeting marks the beginning of a two-year process involving Public Workshops in Sonoma County and throughout the region to promote smart growth and sustainable development. The five Regional Agencies - Association of Bay Area Governments, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and Regional Water Quality Control Board - and the Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Development - a coalition of more than 40 businesses, environmental and social equity organizations - recently joined forces to launch a collaborative, inclusive, bottom-up consensus project to develop a "Smart Growth Strategy" and "Regional Livability Footprint" for the Bay Area. They have asked us to convene local leaders to shape the process in Sonoma County and to ensure that it incorporates our local views and goals. November 21, 2000 Smart Growth Strategy This effort must be driven by local public officials and civic leaders who are committed to achieving the best future for our communities and who understand the inter -relationships between individual local jurisdiciions and the region as a whole. That is why we are calling upon you to guide the organization of this historic and critical initiative. If you have any questions, please contact any of us or Victoria Eisen at the Association of Bay Area Governments at 510-464-7960. We look forward to seeing you at the Sonoma County Reconnaissance Meeting on December 14, 2000. Sincerely, fir d�-i JANET CONDRON Mayor, Santa Rosa MJF _ MIKE KERNS County Supervisor -'� pk't� STEVE RABINOWITSH Santa Rosa City Councilmember f.\council\members\smartgrowth.wpd