2019/07/23 City Council Agenda PacketROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL Rohnert Park Financing Authority (RPFA) Successor
Agency to the Community Development Commission
JOINT REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, July 23, 2019
Open Session: 5:00 pm
MEETING LOCATION:CITY HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBER
130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park, California
The Rohnert Park City Council welcomes your attendance, interest and participation at its regular city
meetings scheduled on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month at 5:00 p.m. in the Council
Chamber. Contact the Office of the City Clerk, 707-588-2227 or cityclerk@rpcity.org for more
information regarding the Rohnert Park City Council or any item on the agenda. City Council agendas,
minutes, and meetings may be viewed at the City’s website: www.rpcity.org on the meeting central page.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: Council/RPFA may discuss and/or take action on any or all of the items listed on
this agenda. If you challenge decisions of the City Council or the Rohnert Park Financing Authority of the
City of Rohnert Park in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised
at public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Rohnert
Park at, or prior to the public hearing(s).
RIGHT TO APPEAL: Judicial review of any city administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1094.5 may be had only if a petition is filed with the court no later than the deadlines
specified in Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, which generally limits the time within
which the decision may be challenged to the 90th day following the date that the decision becomes final.
SIMULTANEOUS MEETING COMPENSATION DISCLOSURE (Government Code § 54952.3):
Members of the City Council receive no additional compensation as a result of convening this joint meeting
of the City Council and the Rohnert Park Financing Authority.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Provides an opportunity for public comment on items not listed on the agenda, or
on agenda items if unable to comment at the scheduled time (limited to three minutes per appearance and
a 30 minute total time limit, or allocation of time determined by Presiding Officer based on number of
speaker cards submitted). PLEASE FILL OUT A SPEAKER CARD PRIOR TO SPEAKING.
DISABLED ACCOMMODATION: If you have a disability which requires an interpreter or other person
to assist you while attending this City Council meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (707)
588-2227 at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to ensure arrangements for accommodation by the City.
Please notify the City Clerk’s Office as soon as possible if you have a visual impairment requiring meeting
materials to be produced in another format (Braille, audio-tape, etc.)
“We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to
Build a Better Community for Today and Tomorrow.”
1
ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL Rohnert Park
Financing Authority (RPFA) Successor Agency to the
Community Development Commission
July 23, 2019
Page 2 of 6
ANNOUNCEMENT: Please turn off all pagers, cellular telephones and all other communication devices
upon entering the Council Chamber. Use of these devices causes electrical interference with the sound
recording and TV broadcast systems.
1. CITY COUNCIL/RPFA/SUCCESSOR AGENCY JOINT REGULAR MEETING - CALL
TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
(Adams__ Stafford __ Mackenzie __ Callinan __ Belforte __)
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. PRESENTATIONS
4. DEPARTMENT HEAD BRIEFINGS
4.A.Public Safety Update
4.B.Department of Public Safety Emergency Management
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Persons wishing to address the Council on any Consent Calendar item or on City business not
listed on the Agenda may do so at this time. Each speaker will be allotted three minutes. Those
wishing to address the Council on any report item listed on the Agenda should submit a
“Speaker Card” to the City Clerk before announcement of that agenda item.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
All items on the Consent Calendar will be considered together by one or more action(s) of the
City Council and/or the Rohnert Park Financing Authority and Successor Agency to the
Community Development Commission, whichever is applicable, unless any Council Member or
anyone else interested in a consent calendar item has a question about the item.
6.A.Acceptance of Reports:
1 City Bills/Demands for Payment dated June 29, 2019 - July 12, 2019
2 Successor Agency to the CDC Bills/Demands for Payment dated June 29, 2019 - July 12,
2019
3 City- Cash Report for Month Ending June 30, 2019
4 Successor Agency- Cash Report for Month Ending June 30, 2019
5 Housing Successor Agency- Cash Report for Month Ending June 30, 2019
6 RPFA- Cash Report for Month Ending June 30, 2019
6.B.Adoption of Resolution 2019-088 Approving the City of Rohnert Park Current Pay Rates and
Ranges Revised July 10, 2019 2
ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL Rohnert Park
Financing Authority (RPFA) Successor Agency to the
Community Development Commission
July 23, 2019
Page 3 of 6
Item 6B
6.C.Adoption of Resolution 2019-089 Approving The Plans and Specifications for the Downtown
Infrastructure Improvements Project (Project Numbers 2018-40 & 2018-43), Finding the
Project Consistent with the Priority Development Area Environmental Impact Report, Awarding
the Construction Contract to Ghilotti Construction Company, Inc., Approving Task Order No.
2019-06 for Construction Management Services by GHD Inc., And Related Actions
Item 6C
6.D.Adoption of Resolution 2019-090 Establishing “No Overnight Parking Areas” at the Roberts
Lake Road Park & Ride, Rohnert Park Community Center, Rohnert Park Senior Center,
Goldridge Recreation Center and Spreckels Performing Art Center
Item 6D
6.E.Adoption of Resolution 2019-091 authorizing and approving a Notice of Completion for Storm
Drain, Traffic Signal and Related Intersection Improvements and Accepting Storm Drain, Traffic
Signal and Related Intersection Improvements
Item 6E and 6F
6.F.Adoption of Resolution 2019-092 authorizing and approving a Reimbursement Payment in the
Amount of $286,180 and an Agreement Regarding Reimbursement Under Disposition and
Development Agreement and Acknowledging Discharge of City Obligations
Item 6E and 6F
6.G.Adoption of Resolution 2019-093 Authorizing City Manager to Execute Settlement Agreement
and Release between Aura Wise, Ross Long, and the City of Rohnert Park
Item 6G
7. REGULAR ITEMS
7.A.Consideration of a Street Name for the Bristol Property Area of the University District Specific
Plan
A. Staff Report
B. Public Comment
C. Adoption of Resolution 2019-094 Rescinding Resolution 2015-046 Approving Street
Names For The Vast Oak Area of the University District Specific Plan and Approving New
Street Names for the Bristol Property Area of the University District Specific Plan
D. Council motion/discussion/vote
Item 7A
7.B.Discussion and Direction on Lacrosse Striping at the Sunrise Park All Weather Field
A. Staff Report
B. Public Comment
C. Council discussion/direction
3
ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL Rohnert Park
Financing Authority (RPFA) Successor Agency to the
Community Development Commission
July 23, 2019
Page 4 of 6
Item 7B
7.C.PUBLIC HEARING - Calling and Giving Notice of the Holding of a Special Election on
November 5, 2019 Asking Voter to adopt an Ordinance that Would (1) Extend the During of
the City of Rohnert Park Urban Growth Boundary(UGB) to December 31, 2040; (2) Revised
the UGB to Exclude Approximately 98 acres of Land Located at 7900 Petaluma Hill Road
(APN 047-111-050); and (3) Amend Certain General Plan Policies Regarding Implementation
of the UGB; Requesting that the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Consent to the
Consolidation by the Sonoma County Registrar of Voters of the Special Election to be Held
November 5, 2019 and Authorizing the Sonoma County Registrar of Voters to Canvass the
Election Results for Such Election; and Directing the City Attorney to Prepare and File an
Impartial Analysis of the Proposed Ballot Measure
A. Staff Report
B. Conduct Public Hearing
C. Adoption of Resolution 2019-095 Calling for an Election to Renew and Revise the City of
Rohnert Park’s Urban Growth Boundary (File No. PLGP19-0002)
D. Council motion/discussion/vote
Item 7C
7.D.Consideration of Supporting “Letters of Interest” for Appointments to Vacancies by the
Sonoma County Mayors’ & Councilmembers’ Association on August 8, 2019
A. Staff Report
B. Public Comment
C. Council discussion/action
Item 7D
8. COMMITTEE / LIAISON / OTHER REPORTS
This time is set aside to allow Council members serving on Council committees or on regional
boards, commissions or committees to present a verbal report on the activities of the respective
boards, commissions or committees on which they serve. No action may be taken.
8.A.Standing Committee Reports:
1. Education Committee (7/11)
8.B.Liaison Reports:
1. Golf Course Oversight Committee (7/16)
2. Senior Citizens Advisory Commission (7/18)
8.C.Outside Agency Reports:
1. Sonoma County Transportation Authority/Regional Climate Protection Authority
(SCTA/RCPA) (7/8)
2. Sonoma Clean Power Authority (SCP) (7/11)
8.D.Other Reports:4
ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL Rohnert Park
Financing Authority (RPFA) Successor Agency to the
Community Development Commission
July 23, 2019
Page 5 of 6
1. Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) Executive Board (7/18)
9. COMMUNICATIONS
Copies of communications have been provided to Council for review prior to this meeting.
Council Members desiring to read or discuss any communication may do so at this time. No
action may be taken except to place a particular item on a future agenda for Council
consideration.
10. MATTERS FROM/FOR COUNCIL
Prior to agenda publication, any Councilmember may place an item on this portion of the
agenda. Upon the concurrence of two Councilmembers, the item may be added to a subsequent
agenda for deliberation and action. In accordance with the Brown Act, at the City Council
meeting, Councilmembers may not add items hereunder, except for brief reports on his or her
own activities or brief announcements regarding an event of community interest.
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Persons wishing to address the Council on City business not listed on the Agenda may do so at
this time. Each speaker will be allotted three minutes. Those wishing to address the Council on
any report item listed on the Agenda should submit a “Speaker Card” to the City Clerk before
announcement of that agenda item.
12. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION IN CONFERENCE ROOM 2A TO CONSIDER:
12.A.Conference with Legal Counsel - Significant Exposure to Litigation (Government Code
§54956.9(d)(2) (Two Cases)
12.B.Reconvene Joint Regular Meeting Open Session in Council Chamber and Report On Closed
Session (Government Code § 54957.1)
13. ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: Time shown for any particular matter on the agenda is an estimate only. Matters may be
considered earlier or later than the time indicated depending on the pace at which the meeting proceeds. If
you wish to speak on an item under discussion by the Council which appears on this agenda, after
receiving recognition from the Mayor, please walk to the rostrum and state your name and address for the
record.Any item raised by a member of the public which is not on the agenda and may require Council
action shall be automatically referred to staff for investigation and disposition which may include placing
on a future agenda. If the item is deemed to be an emergency or the need to take action arose after
posting of the agenda within the meaning of Government Code Section 54954.2(b), Council is entitled to
discuss the matter to determine if it is an emergency item under said Government Code and may take
action thereon.
5
ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL Rohnert Park
Financing Authority (RPFA) Successor Agency to the
Community Development Commission
July 23, 2019
Page 6 of 6
AGENDA REPORTS & DOCUMENTS: Copies of all staff reports and documents subject to disclosure
that relate to each item of business referred to on the agenda are available for public inspection at City
Hall located at 130 Avram Avenue, during regular business hours, Monday through Friday from 8:00 am to
5:00 pm. Any writings or documents subject to disclosure that are provided to all, or a majority of all, of
the members of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda after the agenda has been distributed
will also be made available for inspection at City Hall during regular business hours.
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA
I, ______________________, __________________________ for the City of Rohnert Park, declare that
the foregoing agenda for the April 9, 2019 Joint Regular Meeting of the Rohnert Park City Council/RPFA was
posted and available for review on _____________, at Rohnert Park City Hall, 130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert
Park, California 94928. The agenda is also available on the City web site at www.rpcity.org,
Executed this _____ day of ____________, _______ at Rohnert Park, California.
___________________________________________
Office of the City Clerk
6
The City of Rohnert Park
Emergency Management
Where we were…
Where we are now...
Where we are going…
Where We Were
•Limited Staff
•Occasional EOC Training
•Training was painted with a broad brush
•Earthquake Preparedness (USGS states 30 year probability)
Where We Are Now
•2017 Fires
•EOC Activation
•Recognized strengths and deficiencies
•Formed EOC Task Force –(Very Large to Manageable)
•Task Force identified initial improvements (personnel, equipment, resources)
•100% DSW Compliance
•Employee training
•EOC and Emergency Management Resources on SharePoint (Available to all City Employees)
•EOC Org Chart / Three Deep Staffing
•EOC IT Infrastructure in better condition
•Improved Social Media capacity
Where We Are Going
•Specific Training for EOC Assignments/Disciplines
•In-House
•Emergency Management Consultant
•Sonoma County Office of Emergency Services
•UASI, CSTI, FEMA etc
•Understanding of Roles and Responsibilities
•Frequent Updates on EOC Org Chart (HR and Emergency Manager)
•Train and Exercise each Section
•Exercise EOC and Re-evaluate
•Alert and Warning Systems
•So Co Alert
•Investigating Fire Detection System that will detect fire in the adjacent wildland area
Date:1 -z
Name:LTeR
Address:
Phone:
CITY COUNCIL SPEAKER CARD
3-/o/ Agends Itcm #:
PIC:il**rrrt flu,
6d
a
A,
Cat*r^fatFa< tt-.
5
^//
t
&@ /,
,AULE
'.r''r)eR(A
CITY COUNCIL SPEAKER CARD
Date:
Name:
Address:
Phone:
a Item #z
-
TOPIC:
Brief S ummary of Com
6
See Reverse +
(
CITY COUNCIL SPEAKER CARD
123 Agenda Item #:
-
Date:
Name:/r{
Address:
Phone:
TOPIC:F,reZ sael,.a5,
Brief Summary of Comments:_
F, ,< z [1/?r'1.,j /t4 E^i .;' j'
See Ret'erse -)
CITY COUNCIL SPEAKER CARD
Agenda ltem #: /Date:
Name:
Address:
Phone:
PIC:,
9rmarym
L+,tYl
See Reyerse -+
CITY COUNCIL SPBAKER CARD
a3Date:
Address:
Phone:
,{genda Item #:
(,
CITY COUNCIL SPEAKER CARD
Date:1-x-11 --Agenda ltem #:_
Name:t fTl (\
Address:
(
lle^ 6
ROHNERT PARK FOOD BANKS
5900 Stoteform Drive,
Koiser Porking Lot
lVlondoy 9:AM -
l2:PM
7421 Burton Ave
For Diobetics/Enrollment Required
4t Wednesdoy of
the month
9:AIV -
lO:AVI
707 -523-7900
707 -523-7900
Coll to Register
2no Wednesdoy of
the month
I l:AIVI -
I l:45AIV
540.l Snyder Lone
For Diobetics/Enrollment Required
Corner of
Hunter & Enterprise
tVI-W-Thurs-Fri 9:AN/ -
Noon
480 City Center Drive Thursdoy I :PIVI -
2:PM
2no Wednesdoy of
the month
B:AIV -
B:45AM
Mondoy - Fridoy voriedHome Delivery
Speciol Requirements
547 5 Snyder Lone
Porking Lot/Cross & Crown Church
Wednesdoy 4PtVl - 6:PVl
NAME LOCATION DAYS HOURS CONTACT
Redwood Empire
Food Bonk
Burton Ave
Recreotion Center
Rohnert Pork
Community Center
Rohnert Pork
Senior Center
Redwood Empire
Food Bonk
Rohnert Pork
Senior Center
IVleols on Wheels
Nooh Food Bonk
Bring l.D.
707 -523-7900
Coll to Register
Free Breod & Misc.
707-585-67 84
707 -523-7900
Breod, Vegetobles,
Fruit, Misc,
Council on Aging
707 -525-01 43
IViscelloneous
Bring Your Own Recycloble Bogs LARGE PRINT Posted 2018
Corner of
Hunter & Enterprise
Supplemental Item 5
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK $
BILLS FOR ACCEPTANCE
July 23, 2019
Check Number: 255202 -255803 / 255802 -255936
Dated: June 29, 2019 -July 12, 2019
TOTAL
$2,015,822.20
$2,015,822.20
Item 6A1
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Item 6A2
34
35
Item 6A3
36
37
38
39
40
Item 6A4
41
42
Item 6A5
43
44
Item 6A6
45
46
ITEM NO. 6B
1
Meeting Date: July 23, 2019
Department: Human Resources
Submitted By: Victoria Perrault, Human Resources Director
Prepared By: Tracy Rankin, Human Resources Analyst
Agenda Title: Adoption of Resolution Authorizing and Approving the City of Rohnert
Park Current Pay Rates and Ranges Revised July 10, 2019
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve the attached resolution authorizing and approving the City of Rohnert Park Current Pay
Rates and Ranges revised July 10 , 2019.
BACKGROUND:
Council approved the City of Rohnert Park Current Pay Rates and Ranges document dated
June 23, 2019 on June 25, 2019, pursuant to Resolution No. 2019-073. Since that date, the
following position and salary changes have been approved and/or require updating:
Description Action Approval
Associate Engineer
(CIVE)
(was Civil Engineer)
Position title change; update pay
rates and ranges
Assistant City Manager
06/20/19
Assistant Engineer
(ASEN)
New position; add to pay rates and
ranges
RPEA Unit
Existing Range 87
$6,472.08 - $7,866.05
Resolution No. 2019-080 dated
07/09/19
Finance Manager
(FMGR)
New position; add to pay rates and
ranges
Management Unit
Existing Range 94
$8,479.12 - $10,305.78
Resolution No. 2019-083 dated
07/09/19
Mission Statement
“We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a
Better Community for Today and Tomorrow.”
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
47
ITEM NO. 6B
2
ANALYSIS:
California Public Employees’ Retirement Law at Section 570.5 of the California Code of
Regulations Title 2 requires the City Pay Rates and Ranges document published on the City’s
internet site to be approved, in its entirety, by the City Council each time a modification is
made.
Attached as Exhibit A to this staff report is the updated City of Rohnert Park Current Pay
Rates and Ranges revised July 10, 2019 that incorporates the changes listed above. Staff
recommends that the Council adopt the updated Pay Rates and Ranges by resolution.
OPTIONS CONSIDERED:
This is not applicable.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE:
There is no fiscal impact.
Department Head Approval Date: N/A
City Manager Approval Date: 07/12/19
City Attorney Approval Date: N/A
Finance Director Approval Date: 07/12/19
Attachments (list in packet assembly order):
1. Resolution Authorizing and Approving the City of Rohnert Park Current Pay Rates
and Ranges revised July 10, 2019
2. Exhibit “A” City of Rohnert Park Current Pay Rates and Ranges revised July 10,
2019
48
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-088
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
APPROVING THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK CURRENT PAY RATES AND RANGES
REVISED JULY 10, 2019
WHEREAS, the California Public Employees’ Retirement Law, at Section 570.5 of the
California Code of Regulations Title 2, requires the City of Rohnert Park to publish the City’s
Current Pay Rates and Ranges on the City’s internet site and the City Council to approve the Pay
Rates and Ranges in its entirety each time a modification is made; and
WHEREAS, the City Council previously approved the City Pay Rates and Ranges
document dated June 23, 2019 on June 25, 2019 pursuant to Resolution No. 2019-073 and position
and salary changes have been subsequently approved and/or require updating; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the updated City Pay Rates
and Ranges document revised July 10 , 2019 attached hereto as Exhibit A.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rohnert
Park that it does hereb y approve the City of Rohnert Park Current Pay Rates and Ranges revised
July 10 , 2019 attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by this reference, subject to minor
modifications by the City Manager or City Attorney.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby directed to execute
documents pertaining to same for and on behalf of the City of Rohnert Park.
DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED this 23rd day of July, 2019.
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
____________________________________
Gina Belforte, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
JoAnne Buergler, City Clerk
Attachment: Exhibit A
ADAMS: _________ MACKENZIE: _________ STAFFORD: _________ CALLINAN: _________ BELFORTE: _________
AYES: ( ) NOES: ( ) ABSENT: ( ) ABSTAIN: ( )
49
Exhibit A
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
CURRENT PAY RATES & RANGES
Revised July 10, 2019
50
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK - PAY RATES AND RANGES
Management Unit (Unrepresented)
Page 1
N/R CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
City Council (COUN)N/A $223.41 $484.06
N/R CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
City Manager (CMGR)N/A $20,072.92 $240,875.00
(By Employment Contract)
RANGE 105 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Director of Public Safety (SDIR)N/A 1 $78.22 $6,257.63 $13,558.20 $162,698.41
(By Employment Contract)2 $82.13 $6,570.51 $14,236.11 $170,833.34
3 $86.24 $6,899.04 $14,947.92 $179,375.00
4 $90.55 $7,243.99 $15,695.31 $188,343.75
5 $95.08 $7,606.19 $16,480.08 $197,760.94
RANGE 103 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Assistant City Manager (ACM)M 1 $70.19 $5,615.39 $12,166.69 $146,000.26
(By Employment Contract)2 $73.70 $5,896.24 $12,775.19 $153,302.33
3 $77.39 $6,191.32 $13,414.52 $160,974.29
4 $81.26 $6,500.62 $14,084.68 $169,016.16
5 $85.32 $6,825.73 $14,789.09 $177,469.02
RANGE 100 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Director of Development Services (DODS)M 1 $61.58 $4,926.71 $10,674.54 $128,094.44
Director of Public Works and Community 2 $64.66 $5,172.78 $11,207.69 $134,492.31
Services (PWCS)3 $67.89 $5,431.50 $11,768.25 $141,218.98
4 $71.29 $5,702.86 $12,356.20 $148,274.45
5 $74.85 $5,987.93 $12,973.84 $155,686.12
RANGE 98 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
City Engineer (CENG)M 1 $59.32 $4,745.98 $10,282.95 $123,395.36
Finance Director/City Treasurer (FDIR)2 $62.29 $4,983.09 $10,796.69 $129,560.33
Human Resources Director (HRDIR)3 $65.40 $5,232.32 $11,336.70 $136,040.40
4 $68.68 $5,494.20 $11,904.11 $142,849.27
5 $72.11 $5,768.73 $12,498.91 $149,986.94
RANGE 94 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
City Clerk (CCLERK)M 1 $48.92 $3,913.44 $8,479.12 $101,749.45
Civilian Fire Marshal (CFM)2 $51.36 $4,108.93 $8,902.68 $106,832.13
Deputy City Engineer (DCENG)3 $53.93 $4,314.43 $9,347.93 $112,175.11
Deputy Director of Community Services (DDCS)4 $56.62 $4,529.94 $9,814.87 $117,778.38
Development Engineering Manager/ 5 $59.46 $4,756.51 $10,305.78 $123,669.36
Building Official (DEMG)
Finance Manager (FMGR)
Planning Manager (PLMG)
PW Operations Manager - General Services
(PWOMG)
PW Operations Manager - Utilities (PWOMU)
Support Services Manager (SSMG)
RANGE 96 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Public Safety Deputy Chief (DCPS)P 1 $67.03 $5,362.73 $11,619.26 $139,431.10
2 $70.39 $5,630.87 $12,200.22 $146,402.66
3 $73.91 $5,912.42 $12,810.23 $153,722.79
4 $77.60 $6,208.04 $13,450.74 $161,408.93
5 $81.48 $6,518.44 $14,123.28 $169,479.37
Rohnert Park Public Safety Managers' Association (RPPSMA)
51
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK - PAY RATES AND RANGES
Management Unit (Unrepresented)
Page 2
RANGE 95 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Public Safety Lieutenant (LIEU)P 1 $56.57 $4,525.67 $9,805.61 $117,667.34
2 $59.40 $4,751.62 $10,295.19 $123,542.24
3 $62.36 $4,988.74 $10,808.94 $129,707.27
4 $65.47 $5,237.95 $11,348.88 $136,186.58
5 $68.75 $5,500.17 $11,917.03 $143,004.37
6 $71.85 $5,747.68 $12,453.30 $149,439.57
52
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK - PAY RATES AND RANGES
Confidential Unit (Unrepresented)
Page 3
RANGE 70-CF CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Human Resources Technician Trainee (HRTT)X 1 $19.81 $1,584.45 $3,432.98 $41,195.72
2 $20.79 $1,663.49 $3,604.23 $43,250.71
3 $21.83 $1,746.74 $3,784.61 $45,415.30
4 $22.93 $1,834.21 $3,974.12 $47,689.49
5 $24.07 $1,925.90 $4,172.77 $50,073.28
RANGE 72-CF CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Human Resources Technician (HRT)X 1 $25.90 $2,071.85 $4,489.01 $53,868.16
2 $27.20 $2,175.66 $4,713.92 $56,567.05
3 $28.55 $2,284.20 $4,949.10 $59,389.24
4 $29.98 $2,398.54 $5,196.84 $62,362.13
5 $31.48 $2,518.68 $5,457.14 $65,485.71
RANGE 74-CF CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Administrative Assistant - Confidential (AACU)X 1 $27.10 $2,168.28 $4,697.94 $56,375.25
2 $28.46 $2,276.82 $4,933.12 $59,197.44
3 $29.88 $2,390.64 $5,179.72 $62,156.63
4 $31.38 $2,510.25 $5,438.88 $65,266.51
5 $32.95 $2,635.66 $5,710.59 $68,527.10
RANGE 76-CF CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Payroll/Fiscal Specialist (PFS)X 1 $28.56 $2,284.73 $4,950.24 $59,402.94
2 $29.99 $2,399.07 $5,197.99 $62,375.83
3 $31.49 $2,519.21 $5,458.28 $65,499.41
4 $33.06 $2,645.14 $5,731.14 $68,773.70
5 $34.72 $2,777.40 $6,017.70 $72,212.38
RANGE 78-CF CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Senior Payroll/Fiscal Specialist (SPFS)X 1 $29.98 $2,398.54 $5,196.84 $62,362.13
2 $31.48 $2,518.68 $5,457.14 $65,485.71
3 $33.06 $2,644.62 $5,730.00 $68,760.00
4 $34.71 $2,776.87 $6,016.56 $72,198.68
5 $36.45 $2,915.98 $6,317.96 $75,815.47
RANGE 84-CF CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Assistant City Clerk (ACCL)X 1 $35.57 $2,845.90 $6,166.11 $73,993.38
Human Resources Analyst (HRA)2 $37.35 $2,988.17 $6,474.36 $77,692.36
3 $39.22 $3,137.81 $6,798.60 $81,583.14
4 $41.19 $3,294.84 $7,138.81 $85,665.72
5 $43.25 $3,459.76 $7,496.15 $89,953.81
RANGE 88-CF CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Accounting Services Supervisor (ASSP)X 1 $39.20 $3,136.23 $6,795.17 $81,542.04
2 $41.17 $3,293.25 $7,135.39 $85,624.62
3 $43.22 $3,457.65 $7,491.58 $89,899.01
4 $45.38 $3,630.48 $7,866.05 $94,392.59
5 $47.65 $3,811.74 $8,258.78 $99,105.37
RANGE 92-CF CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Supervising Accountant (SUPAC)X 1 $41.14 $3,291.15 $7,130.82 $85,569.82
2 $43.19 $3,455.55 $7,487.02 $89,844.21
3 $45.35 $3,628.38 $7,861.48 $94,337.79
4 $47.62 $3,809.64 $8,254.21 $99,050.57
5 $50.00 $4,000.38 $8,667.50 $104,009.94
53
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK - PAY RATES AND RANGES
Confidential Unit (Unrepresented)
Page 4
RANGE 94-CF CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Senior Analyst (SRAN)X 1 $43.85 $3,507.71 $7,600.04 $91,200.50
2 $46.04 $3,683.18 $7,980.21 $95,762.58
3 $48.34 $3,867.60 $8,379.80 $100,557.56
4 $50.76 $4,060.98 $8,798.79 $105,585.44
5 $53.30 $4,264.37 $9,239.47 $110,873.61
54
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK - PAY RATES AND RANGES
Rohnert Park Employees' Association (RPEA)
Page 5
RANGE 61 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Office Assistant I (OA1)X 1 $19.81 $1,584.45 $3,432.98 $41,195.72
2 $20.79 $1,663.49 $3,604.23 $43,250.71
3 $21.83 $1,746.74 $3,784.61 $45,415.30
4 $22.93 $1,834.21 $3,974.12 $47,689.49
5 $24.07 $1,925.90 $4,172.77 $50,073.28
RANGE 63 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Animal Health Technician (AHT)X 1 $20.79 $1,663.49 $3,604.23 $43,250.71
2 $21.83 $1,746.74 $3,784.61 $45,415.30
3 $22.93 $1,834.21 $3,974.12 $47,689.49
4 $24.07 $1,925.90 $4,172.77 $50,073.28
5 $25.28 $2,022.32 $4,381.70 $52,580.37
RANGE 64 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Community Services Program Coordinator I/II - Level I (CSPC)X 1 $21.23 $1,698.79 $3,680.72 $44,168.61
Public Safety Records Clerk (PSRC)2 $22.30 $1,783.63 $3,864.52 $46,374.30
3 $23.41 $1,872.68 $4,057.47 $48,689.59
4 $24.58 $1,966.47 $4,260.68 $51,128.18
5 $25.81 $2,065.00 $4,474.17 $53,690.06
RANGE 66 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Accounting Specialist I/II – Level I (ASP1)X 1 $22.30 $1,783.63 $3,864.52 $46,374.30
2 $23.41 $1,872.68 $4,057.47 $48,689.59
3 $24.58 $1,966.47 $4,260.68 $51,128.18
4 $25.81 $2,065.00 $4,474.17 $53,690.06
5 $27.10 $2,168.28 $4,697.94 $56,375.25
RANGE 68 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Secretary I (SEC1)X 1 $23.41 $1,872.68 $4,057.47 $48,689.59
2 $24.58 $1,966.47 $4,260.68 $51,128.18
3 $25.81 $2,065.00 $4,474.17 $53,690.06
4 $27.10 $2,168.28 $4,697.94 $56,375.25
5 $28.46 $2,276.82 $4,933.12 $59,197.44
RANGE 70 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Accounting Specialist I/II – Level II (ASP2)X 1 $24.58 $1,966.47 $4,260.68 $51,128.18
Technical Director (TECH)2 $25.81 $2,065.00 $4,474.17 $53,690.06
3 $27.10 $2,168.28 $4,697.94 $56,375.25
4 $28.46 $2,276.82 $4,933.12 $59,197.44
5 $29.88 $2,390.64 $5,179.72 $62,156.63
RANGE 74 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Administrative Assistant (AABS) X 1 $27.10 $2,168.28 $4,697.94 $56,375.25
Community Development Assistant (SEC5)2 $28.46 $2,276.82 $4,933.12 $59,197.44
Community Services Program Coordinator I/II - Level II (CSPC2)3 $29.88 $2,390.64 $5,179.72 $62,156.63
Engineering Technician I/II - Level I (ENGT)4 $31.38 $2,510.25 $5,438.88 $65,266.51
GIS Technician (GIST)5 $32.95 $2,635.66 $5,710.59 $68,527.10
Information Systems Technician I (IST1)
RANGE 76 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Property Technician (PRPT)X 1 $28.56 $2,284.73 $4,950.24 $59,402.94
2 $29.99 $2,399.07 $5,197.99 $62,375.83
3 $31.49 $2,519.21 $5,458.28 $65,499.41
4 $33.06 $2,645.14 $5,731.14 $68,773.70
5 $34.72 $2,777.40 $6,017.70 $72,212.3855
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK - PAY RATES AND RANGES
Rohnert Park Employees' Association (RPEA)
Page 6
RANGE 78 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Engineering Technician I/II - Level II (EGT2)X 1 $29.88 $2,390.64 $5,179.72 $62,156.63
Information Systems Technician II (IST2)2 $31.38 $2,510.43 $5,439.26 $65,271.08
3 $32.95 $2,635.83 $5,710.97 $68,531.67
4 $34.60 $2,767.83 $5,996.96 $71,963.50
5 $36.32 $2,905.97 $6,296.26 $75,555.17
RANGE 81 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Animal Shelter Supervisor (ALSS)X 1 $32.25 $2,580.33 $5,590.72 $67,088.61
Code Compliance Officer I/II - Level I (CCO)2 $33.87 $2,709.43 $5,870.42 $70,445.09
Community Services Supervisor (CSSV)3 $35.56 $2,844.85 $6,163.83 $73,965.98
Crime Analyst (CRA)4 $37.34 $2,987.11 $6,472.08 $77,664.96
PT Fire Inspector (FINS)5 $39.20 $3,136.23 $6,795.17 $81,542.04
Performing Arts Center Supervisor (PACS)
Planner I/II - Level I (PLNR1)
Purchasing Agent (PAGT)
RANGE 83 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Public Works Inspector (PWIN)X 1 $33.86 $2,708.90 $5,869.28 $70,431.39
2 $35.55 $2,844.32 $6,162.69 $73,952.28
3 $37.33 $2,986.59 $6,470.94 $77,651.26
4 $39.20 $3,135.71 $6,794.03 $81,528.34
5 $41.16 $3,292.73 $7,134.24 $85,610.92
RANGE 85 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Building Inspector (BINS)X 1 $35.56 $2,844.85 $6,163.83 $73,965.98
Environmental Coordinator (EVC)2 $37.34 $2,987.11 $6,472.08 $77,664.96
Property and Records Supervisor (PARS)3 $39.20 $3,136.23 $6,795.17 $81,542.04
4 $41.17 $3,293.25 $7,135.39 $85,624.62
5 $43.22 $3,457.65 $7,491.58 $89,899.01
RANGE 87 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Accountant (ACCT)X 1 $37.34 $2,987.11 $6,472.08 $77,664.96
Assistant Engineer (ASEN)2 $39.20 $3,136.23 $6,795.17 $81,542.04
Code Compliance Officer I/II - Level II (CCO2)3 $41.17 $3,293.25 $7,135.39 $85,624.62
Management Analyst (MANA)4 $43.22 $3,457.65 $7,491.58 $89,899.01
Planner I/II - Level II (PLNR2)5 $45.38 $3,630.48 $7,866.05 $94,392.59
RANGE 89 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Information Systems Analyst (ISAN)X 1 $39.20 $3,136.23 $6,795.17 $81,542.04
Senior Code Compliance Officer (SCCO)2 $41.17 $3,293.25 $7,135.39 $85,624.62
3 $43.22 $3,457.65 $7,491.58 $89,899.01
4 $45.38 $3,630.48 $7,866.05 $94,392.59
5 $47.65 $3,811.74 $8,258.78 $99,105.37
RANGE 90 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Project Manager (PMCD)X 1 $40.03 $3,202.63 $6,939.02 $83,268.25
2 $42.04 $3,362.81 $7,286.08 $87,433.01
3 $44.14 $3,530.90 $7,650.27 $91,803.28
4 $46.34 $3,707.41 $8,032.73 $96,392.78
5 $48.66 $3,892.89 $8,434.60 $101,215.15
56
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK - PAY RATES AND RANGES
Rohnert Park Employees' Association (RPEA)
Page 7
RANGE 92 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Civil Associate Engineer (CIVE)X 1 $41.14 $3,291.15 $7,130.82 $85,569.82
Community Services Manager (CSMG)2 $43.19 $3,455.55 $7,487.02 $89,844.21
Information Systems Operations Manager (ISOM)3 $45.35 $3,628.38 $7,861.48 $94,337.79
Planner III - Housing Specialist (PLNR3H)4 $47.62 $3,809.64 $8,254.21 $99,050.57
5 $50.00 $4,000.38 $8,667.50 $104,009.94
57
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK - PAY RATES AND RANGES
Service Employees' International Union (SEIU) Local 1021 - Maintenance Workers
Page 8
RANGE 52W STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Maintenance Worker Trainee (MWT)1 $16.66 $1,333.11 $2,888.40 $34,660.85
2 $17.50 $1,400.03 $3,033.40 $36,400.74
3 $18.38 $1,470.11 $3,185.24 $38,222.83
4 $19.30 $1,543.88 $3,345.07 $40,140.82
5 $20.27 $1,621.34 $3,512.89 $42,154.71
RANGE 60W STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Landscape Maintenance Worker (LMW)1 $19.81 $1,584.45 $3,432.98 $41,195.72
2 $20.79 $1,663.49 $3,604.23 $43,250.71
3 $21.83 $1,746.74 $3,784.61 $45,415.30
4 $22.93 $1,834.21 $3,974.12 $47,689.49
5 $24.07 $1,925.90 $4,172.77 $50,073.28
RANGE 64W STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Meter Technician (PWMT)1 $21.70 $1,735.68 $3,760.63 $45,127.60
2 $22.78 $1,822.62 $3,949.01 $47,388.09
3 $23.92 $1,913.78 $4,146.52 $49,758.18
4 $25.12 $2,009.68 $4,354.30 $52,251.57
5 $26.38 $2,110.32 $4,572.35 $54,868.26
RANGE 70W STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Maintenance Worker I (MW1)1 $26.54 $2,123.49 $4,600.90 $55,210.76
2 $27.87 $2,229.93 $4,831.51 $57,978.15
3 $29.27 $2,341.64 $5,073.54 $60,882.53
4 $30.73 $2,458.61 $5,326.99 $63,923.92
5 $32.27 $2,581.38 $5,593.00 $67,116.01
RANGE 74W STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Fleet Mechanic (FMEC)1 $29.30 $2,343.74 $5,078.11 $60,937.33
Maintenance Worker II (MW2)2 $30.76 $2,460.72 $5,331.56 $63,978.72
3 $32.29 $2,583.49 $5,597.57 $67,170.81
4 $33.91 $2,712.59 $5,877.27 $70,527.29
5 $35.60 $2,848.01 $6,170.68 $74,048.18
RANGE 78W STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Electrician (ELEC)1 $32.20 $2,576.12 $5,581.58 $66,979.01
2 $33.81 $2,704.68 $5,860.15 $70,321.79
3 $35.50 $2,840.10 $6,153.56 $73,842.68
4 $37.27 $2,981.84 $6,460.66 $77,527.96
5 $39.14 $3,130.96 $6,783.75 $81,405.04
RANGE 79W STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Arborist (ARB)1 $33.02 $2,641.45 $5,723.15 $68,677.80
Fleet Services Supervisor (FSS)2 $34.67 $2,773.71 $6,009.71 $72,116.48
Instrumentation Technician (INST)3 $36.40 $2,912.29 $6,309.96 $75,719.57
Supervising Maintenance Worker (SMW)4 $38.22 $3,057.72 $6,625.06 $79,500.75
5 $40.13 $3,210.53 $6,956.14 $83,473.73
58
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK - PAY RATES AND RANGES
Rohnert Park Public Safety Officers' Association (RPPSOA)
Page 9
RANGE 68 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Public Safety Dispatcher (PSD)XD 1 $28.63 $2,290.70 $4,963.17 $59,558.08
2 $30.07 $2,405.27 $5,211.42 $62,537.08
3 $31.57 $2,525.79 $5,472.55 $65,670.56
4 $33.15 $2,652.25 $5,746.54 $68,958.50
5 $34.81 $2,784.65 $6,033.41 $72,400.91
PT Public Safety Dispatcher (PTD) - Hourly 1 $28.63
2 $30.07
3 $31.57
4 $33.15
5 $34.81
RANGE 69 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Community Services Officer (CSO)S-CSO 1 $25.09 $2,007.22 $4,348.98 $52,187.79
2 $26.34 $2,107.37 $4,565.97 $54,791.67
3 $27.66 $2,212.61 $4,793.99 $57,527.94
4 $29.04 $2,322.95 $5,033.05 $60,396.61
5 $30.49 $2,439.22 $5,284.98 $63,419.75
RANGE 81 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Public Safety Officer Trainee (PSOT)S 1 $27.01 $2,160.57 $4,681.24 $56,174.91
RANGE 83 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Public Safety Communications Supervisor XD 1 $36.08 $2,886.50 $6,254.08 $75,048.91
(PSCS)2 $37.88 $3,030.78 $6,566.69 $78,800.26
3 $39.78 $3,182.70 $6,895.85 $82,750.20
4 $41.77 $3,341.41 $7,239.72 $86,876.68
5 $43.86 $3,508.61 $7,601.99 $91,223.82
RANGE 84A CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Public Safety Officer I (PSO1)S 1 $35.44 $2,835.57 $6,143.74 $73,724.91
2 $37.22 $2,977.31 $6,450.84 $77,410.05
3 $39.08 $3,126.68 $6,774.48 $81,293.80
4 $41.04 $3,282.85 $7,112.84 $85,354.07
5 $43.08 $3,446.65 $7,467.75 $89,612.95
6 $45.02 $3,601.97 $7,804.26 $93,651.16
RANGE 84B CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Public Safety Officer II (PSO2)S 1 $36.34 $2,906.87 $6,298.21 $75,578.52
2 $38.15 $3,052.00 $6,612.66 $79,351.93
3 $40.06 $3,204.77 $6,943.66 $83,323.93
4 $42.06 $3,365.17 $7,291.21 $87,494.54
5 $44.17 $3,533.22 $7,655.31 $91,863.76
6 $46.15 $3,691.93 $7,999.19 $95,990.23
RANGE 84C CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Public Safety Officer III (PSO3)S 1 $37.61 $3,008.71 $6,518.88 $78,226.52
2 $39.49 $3,158.94 $6,844.36 $82,132.33
3 $41.46 $3,316.80 $7,186.40 $86,236.74
4 $43.53 $3,482.30 $7,544.98 $90,539.75
5 $45.70 $3,656.29 $7,921.95 $95,063.43
6 $47.76 $3,820.94 $8,278.70 $99,344.37
59
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK - PAY RATES AND RANGES
Rohnert Park Public Safety Officers' Association (RPPSOA)
Page 10
RANGE 84D CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Public Safety Officer IV (PSO4)S 1 $39.49 $3,158.94 $6,844.36 $82,132.33
2 $41.46 $3,316.80 $7,186.40 $86,236.74
3 $43.53 $3,482.30 $7,544.98 $90,539.75
4 $45.70 $3,656.29 $7,921.95 $95,063.43
5 $48.00 $3,839.61 $8,319.15 $99,829.84
6 $50.15 $4,011.90 $8,692.45 $104,309.39
RANGE 86A CLASS STEP **Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Fire Public Safety Officer I (FPSO1)S 1 $24.56 $2,758.12 $5,975.93 $71,711.11
2 $25.79 $2,895.98 $6,274.63 $75,295.58
3 $27.08 $3,041.28 $6,589.44 $79,073.25
4 $28.43 $3,193.18 $6,918.55 $83,022.62
5 $29.85 $3,352.51 $7,263.76 $87,165.16
6 $31.20 $3,503.58 $7,591.09 $91,093.06
RANGE 86B CLASS STEP **Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Fire Public Safety Officer II (FPSO2)S 1 $25.18 $2,827.46 $6,126.17 $73,514.08
2 $26.43 $2,968.63 $6,432.04 $77,184.42
3 $27.76 $3,117.23 $6,753.99 $81,047.93
4 $29.15 $3,273.25 $7,092.05 $85,104.62
5 $30.60 $3,436.71 $7,446.21 $89,354.48
6 $31.98 $3,591.09 $7,780.69 $93,368.25
RANGE 86C CLASS STEP **Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Fire Public Safety Officer III (FPSO3)S 1 $26.06 $2,926.53 $6,340.81 $76,089.75
2 $27.36 $3,072.65 $6,657.41 $79,888.88
3 $28.73 $3,226.20 $6,990.10 $83,881.17
4 $30.16 $3,387.18 $7,338.89 $88,066.65
5 $31.67 $3,556.41 $7,705.56 $92,466.76
6 $33.09 $3,716.57 $8,052.56 $96,630.77
RANGE 86D CLASS STEP **Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Fire Public Safety Officer IV (FPSO4)S 1 $27.36 $3,072.65 $6,657.41 $79,888.88
2 $28.73 $3,226.20 $6,990.10 $83,881.17
3 $30.16 $3,387.18 $7,338.89 $88,066.65
4 $31.67 $3,556.41 $7,705.56 $92,466.76
5 $33.25 $3,734.73 $8,091.91 $97,102.98
6 $34.75 $3,902.31 $8,455.01 $101,460.16
RANGE 89 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Public Safety Sergeant (PSGT)S 1 $47.58 $3,806.51 $8,247.44 $98,969.24
2 $49.96 $3,996.62 $8,659.35 $103,912.18
3 $52.45 $4,196.07 $9,091.49 $109,097.86
4 $55.08 $4,406.55 $9,547.53 $114,570.41
5 $57.83 $4,626.37 $10,023.81 $120,285.69
6 $60.44 $4,835.16 $10,476.18 $125,714.10
RANGE 91 CLASS STEP **Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually
Fire Assignment Sergeant (FSGT)S 1 $32.97 $3,702.53 $8,022.16 $96,265.89
2 $34.61 $3,887.45 $8,422.82 $101,073.81
3 $36.34 $4,081.46 $8,843.15 $106,117.84
4 $38.16 $4,286.19 $9,286.74 $111,440.90
5 $40.07 $4,500.00 $9,750.01 $117,000.07
6 $41.88 $4,703.08 $10,190.02 $122,280.20
**Hourly rate based on 2,920 hours annually
60
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK - PAY RATES AND RANGES
Miscellaneous Part-Time Hourly Positions
Page 11
RANGE 38 STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3
PT Pool Cashier (PTPC)2 $12.00 $12.50 $13.00
RANGE 43 STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3
PT Box Office Assistant (PTBA)1 $12.50 $13.00 $13.50
PT Community Services Leader (PTCSL)2
PT Facility Attendant (PTFA)1
PT Swim Instructor (PTIL)2
RANGE 45 STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3
PT Animal Shelter Assistant (ASA)1 $13.75 $14.35 $14.75
PT Arts Center House Manager (PTHM)1
PT Lifeguard (PTLC)2
PT Senior Community Services Leader (PTSCSL)2
PT Senior Facility Attendant (PTSFA)1
PT Senior Swim Instructor (PTSIL)2
PT Theatre Technician I (PTT1)1
RANGE 53 STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3
PT Custodian (PTC)1 $15.13 $15.63 $16.13
PT Lead Animal Shelter Assistant (LASA)1
PT Office Assistant (PT01)1
PT Seasonal Maintenance Assistant (SMA)2
PT Senior Lifeguard (PTSRL)2
PT Theatre Technician II (PTT2)1
RANGE 59 STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3
PT Administrative Intern (PTAI)1 $16.00 $16.50 $17.00
PT Community Services Coordinator (PTCSC)1
PT Lead Custodian (PTCL)1
PT Pool Manager (PTPMGR)2
PT Senior Office Assistant (PT02)1
RANGE 63 STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3
PT Public Safety Records Clerk (PTPSRC)1 $19.50 $20.00 $20.50
RANGE 68 STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3
PT Information Systems Assistant (PTIS)1 $24.00 $24.50 $25.00
MISCELLANEOUS
PT Building Inspector (PTBI)
PT Capital Improvement Project Manager (PTCIP)
PT Project Coordinator (PTPJC)$39.58 - $48.11
PT Public Works Inspector (PTPWI)$29.66 - $36.05
PT Residential Building Plans Examiner (PTRBP)
PT Technical Advisor (PTTA)
Temporary Management Analyst (TMAN)
HOURLY RANGE
$46.56 - $56.59
$33.85 - $41.14
$31.15 - $37.86
$14.25 - $47.50
$25.00 - $40.00
61
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK - PAY RATES AND RANGES
Miscellaneous Part-Time Hourly Positions
Page 12
Public Safety
Euthanasia Certification 7%
Stipends by Unit
[1] A worker is eligible for a one-step increase after every 1,000 cumulative hours worked in same class, upon
approval of Department Head.
[2] A returning seasonal worker hired to the same class is eligible for a one-step increase (relative to the worker’s step
at last service break) on May 1 after the previous season ended, upon approval of Department Head.
Amount/Percentage
62
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK - PAY RATES AND RANGES
Pensionable Stipends by Unit
Page 13
All Units Amount/Percentage
Acting Pay 5% - 10%
*Longevity 2% - 10%
By Employment Contract Amount/Percentage
POST Certification Pay (Director of Public Safety) - Executive 10%
***Uniform Allowance (Director of Public Safety)$1,080/year
Confidential Amount/Percentage
Bilingual $100/month
Educational Incentive - BA/BS, MA/MS $50/month
Rohnert Park Employees' Association (RPEA)Amount/Percentage
Bilingual $100/month
Educational Incentive - MA/MS $50/month
Rohnert Park Public Safety Managers' Association (RPPSMA)Amount/Percentage
*In-District (non-pensionable)$150/month
POST Certification Pay (Commanders) - Supervisory 7.0%
POST Certification Pay (Commanders) - Management 8.5%
***Uniform Allowance $1,080/year
Rohnert Park Public Safety Officers' Association (RPPSOA)Amount/Percentage
Acting Supervisor/Watch Commander 5% - 10%
Acting Commander 10% - 15%
Bilingual $175/month
Canine Handler 3.0%
Detective 5.0%
Field Training Officer 5.0%
Non-Sworn Training Officer 5.0%
Motorcycle Duty 5.0%
**Intermediate POST Certification 4.5%
**Advanced POST Certification 7.0%
**POST Supervisory Certification (Sergeant)9.0%
POST Field Evidence Tech Certification (CSO)2.5%
Shift Differential 5.0%
Special/Extra Assignments 5.0%
***Uniform Allowance $1,080/year (sworn); $540/year (CSO)
Service Employees' International Union (SEIU)Amount/Percentage
Certification and License Program - Level I 2.6%
Certification and License Program - Level II 4.5%
Certification and License Program - Level III 6.0%
Educational Incentive Pay - Level I $75/month
Educational Incentive Pay - Level II $100/month
Educational Incentive Pay - Level III $135/month
*Inactive stipend; closed to new hires
**Only one POST stipend paid per employee
***Only pensionable for classic PERS members
63
ITEM NO. 6C
1
Meeting Date: July 23, 2019
Department: Development Services
Submitted By: Mary Grace Pawson, Development Services Director
Prepared By: Vanessa Garrett, Deputy City Engineer
Agenda Title: Downtown Infrastructure Improvements Project (Projects 2018-40 &
2018-43), Finding the Project Consistent with the Priority Development
Area Environmental Impact Report, Approving the Plans and
Specifications, Awarding the Construction Contract to Ghilotti
Construction Company, Inc., Approving Task Order 2019-06 for
Construction Services for GHD, Inc., and Related Actions
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution for the Downtown Infrastructure
Improvements Project (Project Numbers 2018-40 & 2018-43), Finding the Project Consistent
with the Priority Development Area Environmental Impact Report, Approving the Plans and
Specifications, Awarding the Construction Contract to Ghilotti Construction Company, Inc.,
Approving Task Order 2019-06 for Construction Services for GHD, Inc., and Related Actions.
BACKGROUND: Development within the City’s Priority Development Area (PDA) is an
important part of the City’s long-term strategy for continuing to grow as a vibrant, healthy
community. Planned growth within the PDA will provide needed housing and business
opportunities, together with new tax and development impact fee revenue that that was not
included in the City’s General Plan and Public Facilities Plan projections. However, the City’s
adopted PDA Plan identified several infrastructure deficiencies in the area, including an
undersized sewer main on Enterprise Drive and aging water system infrastructure. The City’s
Sewer Master Plan confirmed that the sewer pipeline in Enterprise Drive is undersized for
current flows and needs to be upgraded in order to perform reliably under current conditions.
Incrementally upsizing the pipeline to support planned growth is cost effective for the City,
because the majority of construction cost relates to trench construction not purchase of pipeline
material. In addition, the water line on State Farm Drive, between Enterprise Drive and Rohnert
Park Expressway, is an aging piece of infrastructure, which was installed in the 1970’s. In recent
years, multiple breaks in this line have created the need for costly emergency repairs and created
inconvenience for the neighboring residential and businesses users.
The City has long history of upgrading offsite infrastructure in order to support planned growth.
Investments such as the Interceptor Outfall Project, the Eastside Trunk Sewer and the Rohnert
Park Expressway Transmission Main, paved the way for planned development and provided an
important incentive for private investments in the Stadium Lands Planned Development Area
and the University District and Southeast Specific Plan Area. Continuing in this tradition, the
City Council’s 2019-20 adopted the Capital Improvement Program included the Downtown
Mission Statement
“We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a
Better Community for Today and Tomorrow.”
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
64
ITEM NO. 6C
2
Sewer Improvement Project (Project 2018-40) and the Downtown Water Improvement Project
(Project 2018-43).
Staff combined the Downtown Sewer Improvements Project and the Downtown Water
Improvements Project into the Downtown Infrastructure Improvements Project (Project). Which
includes replacing the water line on State Farm Drive from Enterprise Drive to Rohnert Park
Expressway and the sewer line on Enterprise Drive. The Project includes improvements to
appurtenant features including new fire hydrants, water lateral sub-outs and lining existing sewer
laterals. The project was bid in June and staff is seeking to award the project so that construction
can commence this summer and fall.
GHD Inc. has assisted the City in planning and designing the Project based on the existing and
future needs of the City. On January 8, 2019, City Council approved a Task Order for GHD Inc.
to complete the design for the sewer and water line improvements.
ANALYSIS: The City operates under California Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting
Act (CUPCCAA). In accordance with the formal bidding requirements, staff published an
Invitation to Bidders on June 7, 2019 and June 14, 2019. The project documents are available
with the City Clerk’s office. The City received four sealed bids listed below at the public bid
opening on July 9, 2019:
Contractor Bid Amount
Ghilotti Construction Company, Inc. $3,447,140.00
Argonaut Constructors $3,791,855.00
Terracon Constructors $3,987,166.00
Team Ghilotti $4,077,141.00
The bid cost is below the construction estimate used to budget the project and there is sufficient
budget in the approved CIP projects to fund construction. Staff reviewed the bids for
responsiveness and contractor responsibility. Ghilotti Construction Company Inc., the low
bidder, is a responsible bidder with the license and bonding capacity to complete the work, and
staff is recommending award to this contractor. To account for any unforeseen conditions during
the construction, staff is requesting that the City Council also authorize the City Manager to
execute change orders in an amount up to 15% of the project costs ($517,071) for contingencies.
Staff recommends retaining GHD Inc. in order to assist with the construction management
portion of the project. Supplementing inspection staff for this project is necessary due to the
large volume of public and private projects occurring throughout the City limits.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: The Project utility improvements were incorporated in the
Priority Development Plan Area Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) to support the
area. The nature of the work is replacing existing infrastructure to support new development in
the area, which is consistent with the Program EIR. Under CEQA Guidelines section 15168(c),
the City is not required to prepare additional environmental documents when no new
environmental effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required, and the
activity is within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This action is consistent with Strategic Plan Goal D
(continue to develop a vibrant community). The infrastructure improvements in the downtown 65
ITEM NO. 6C
3
will provide better service for existing users while also ensuring the City has capacity for
planned development.
OPTIONS CONSIDERED:
1. Adopt a Resolution Finding the Downtown Infrastructure Improvements Project (Project
Number 2018-40 & 2018-43), Finding the Project consistent with the Priority
Development Plan Environmental Impact Report, Approving the Plans and
Specifications, Awarding the Construction Contract to Ghilotti Construction Company,
Inc., Approving Task Order 2019-06 for Construction Services for GHD, Inc.
(Recommended Action). This allows staff to construct several projects approved under
the CIP project list, and gives staff construction management support for the project
duration.
2. Do not adopt said Resolution. This option is not recommended as it will prevent needed
replacements to the existing sewer and water utilities to support the priority development
plan area.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE: The fiscal impact of the recommended action is
$4,262,938 with the construction contract, 15% construction contingency, and GHD’s Task
Order. This scope of work combines two projects with several funding sources, the following are
the approved budgets and unencumbered funds for each (Table 1):
Table 1
Project Name-Funding Sources Approved Budget Unencumbered Funds
Downtown Sewer Improvements- Sewer Utility
Fund & 2007R Bond Load Repayment
$3,500,000 $2,879,500
Downtown Water Improvements- Water Utility
Fund, Water Capital Preservation Charge
$1,700,000 $1,694,900
Total $5,200,000 $4,574,400
The construction contract with Ghilotti Construction Company, Inc. and the Task Order 2019-06
with GHD, Inc. will encumber each project as shown in Table 2:
Table 2
Project Name Downtown Sewer Improvements Downtown Water Improvements
Funding Sources Sewer Utility Fund & 2007R
Bond Load Repayment
Water Utility Fund, Water
Capital Preservation Charge
Construction Contract
Encumbrance
$2,354,741 $1,092,399
15% Construction Contingency $282,569 $234,502
Task Order Encumbrance $215,084 $83,643
Total Budget Encumbrance $2,852,394 $1,410,544
Remaining Budget Available $27,106 $284,356
66
ITEM NO. 6C
4
The remaining funds are sufficient for the expected staff time expenditures to complete the
project.
Department Head Approval Date: 07/11/2019
City Attorney Approval Date: 07/09/2019
Finance Director Approval Date: 07/10/2019
City Manager Approval Date: 07/11/2019
Attachments (list in packet assembly order):
1. Resolution Approving The Plans and Specifications for the Downtown Infrastructure
Improvements Project (Project Numbers 2018-40 & 2018-43), Finding the Project
Consistent with the Priority Development Area Environmental Impact Report,
Awarding the Construction Contract to Ghilotti Construction Company, Inc.,
Approving Task Order No. 2019-06 For Construction Management Services by Ghd
Inc., And Related Actions
2. Resolution Attachment A – Construction Contract Agreement with Ghilotti
Construction Inc.
3. Resolution Attachment B- Task Order 2019-06 for Construction Services with GHD,
Inc.
67
Resolution 2019-089
1
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-089
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR
THE DOWNTOWN INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
(PROJECT NUMBERS 2018-40 & 2018-43), FINDING THE PROJECT
CONSISTENT WITH THE PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREA
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AWARDING THE CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT TO GHILOTTI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.,
APPROVING TASK ORDER NO. 2019-06 FOR CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT SERVICES BY GHD INC., AND RELATED ACTIONS
WHEREAS, on June 11th 2019, the City Council adopted the Capital Improvement Program
Budget, which included the Downtown Sewer Improvements Project (2018-40) and the Downtown
Water Improvements Project (2018-43); and
WHEREAS, staff combined Projects 2018-40 and 2018-43 into a scope of work referenced
as the Downtown Infrastructure Improvements Project (Project) and a single set of plans and
specifications titled “Downtown Infrastructure Improvements”; and
WHEREAS, the Project scope involves:
• Water line and hydrant replacement
• Water line laterals in preparation for new development
• Sewer line replacement and lining existing sewer laterals; and
WHEREAS, the Project was included in the Priority Development Plan Area
Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR), SCN No. 2015102081, approved by the City on
March 22, 2016; and
WHEREAS, City staff has evaluated the Project scope with respect to the Program EIR
and determined it to be consistent with the Program EIR, and that no new environmental effects
will occur that were not considered in the Program EIR and that no new mitigation measures will
be required; and
WHEREAS, the City will require construction to be performed in compliance with any
applicable mitigation measures set forth in the Program EIR; and
WHEREAS GHD Inc., a City Consultant, has assisted the City in planning and preparing the
plans and specifications for the Project based on the existing and future needs of the City; and
WHEREAS, consistent with the Public Contract Code, an invitation for bids was
posted/published on June 7th and June 14th, 2019 for the Project; and
WHEREAS, four bids were received on the bid opening date of July 9th, 2019; and
WHEREAS, Development Services staff determined that Ghilotti Construction Inc.
submitted the lowest cost bid and is the lowest responsive and responsible bidder with an amount
of $3,447,140; and
WHEREAS, staff does not have the capacity to provide construction management
services for the Downtown Infrastructure Project, and GHD., Inc. is qualified and familiar with
the Downtown Infrastructure Project as both the planning and design consultant; and
68
Resolution 2019-089
2
WHEREAS, the City’s approved 2019-20 Capital Improvement Program includes
enough funding to cover the construction scope of work; and
WHEREAS, staff obtained a proposal and prepared Task Order Number 2019-06 for
construction management services by GHD, Inc. for the Project and determined their scope and
fee of $298,727 to be appropriate given the project scope; and
NOW, THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park does hereby resolve,
determine, find and order as follows:
1. The above recitals are true and correct and material to this Resolution.
2. The Downtown Infrastructure Project (2018-40 and 2018-43) has been analyzed in the
Program EIR, and the City Council determines that the project is consistent with the
Program EIR and will not have any project-specific significant effects. Pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and 15168(c), no new environmental effects will occur
that were not considered in the Program EIR and no new mitigation measures will be
required, the project is within the scope of the Program EIR, and no further
environmental document is required.
3. The plans and specifications for the Downtown Infrastructure Project, on file with the
City Clerk, are hereby approved and adopted.
4. In making its findings the City Council relied upon and hereby incorporates by reference
all of the bid materials, correspondence, staff reports and all other related materials.
5. In accordance with California Public Contract Code Section and any other applicable
laws, the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park hereby finds the bid of Ghilotti
Construction Inc. for the Project to be the lowest, responsive bid and waives any
irregularities in such bid in accordance with applicable law.
6. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute the contract with Ghilotti
Construction in substantially similar form to Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and
incorporated by this reference, for the sum of three million four hundred and forty-seven
thousand one hundred and forty dollars and zero cents ($3,447,140.00) for construction
of the Project in accordance with the bid documents and applicable law upon submission
of Ghilotti Construction Company, Inc. of all documents required pursuant to the Project
bid documents.
7. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute change orders in an amount not to
exceed 15% of the contract, or five hundred and seventeen thousand seventy-one dollars
and zero cents ($517,071.00).
8. City staff is hereby directed to issue a Notice of Award to Ghilotti Construction
Company, Inc. for this project.
9. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute Task order 2019-06 with
GHD, Inc. insubstantially similar form to Exhibit B, which is attached hereto and
incorporated by this reference, for the sum of two hundred ninety-eight thousand seven
hundred twenty-seven dollars and zero cents ($298,727)
10. This Resolution shall become effective immediately.
11. All portions of this resolution are severable. Should any individual component of this
Resolution be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable by a body of competent
jurisdiction, then the remaining resolution portions shall continue in full force and effect,
except as to those resolution portions that have been adjudged invalid. The City Council
of the City of Rohnert Park hereby declares that it would have adopted this Resolution
69
Resolution 2019-089
3
and each section, subsection, clause, sentence, phrase and other portion thereof,
irrespective of the fact that one or more section, subsection, clause, sentence, phrase or
other portion may be held invalid or unconstitutional.
DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED this 27th day of July, 2019.
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
__________________________________
ATTEST: Gina Belforte, Mayor
_____________________________
JoAnne Buergler, City Clerk
Attachments: Exhibit A and Exhibit B
ADAMS: _________MACKENZIE: _________ STAFFORD: _________ CALLINAN: _________ BELFORTE: _________
AYES: ( ) NOES: ( ) ABSENT: ( ) ABSTAIN: ( )
70
1 of 7
C O N T R A C T
DOWNTOWN INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT NO. 2018-40 + 2018-43
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this _________ day of _____________, 2019, by and
between Ghilotti Construction Company, Inc., hereinafter called "Contractor", and the City of Rohnert Park,
hereinafter called "City".
W I T N E S S E T H :
WHEREAS, the City Council of said City has awarded a contract to Contractor for performing the
work hereinafter mentioned in accordance with the sealed proposal of said Contractor.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED, as follows:
1.Scope of Work: The Contractor must perform all the work and furnish all the labor, materials,
equipment and all utility and transportation services required to complete all of the work of construction and
installation of the improvements more particularly described in the Resolution adopted by the City Council
of said City on ________________, 2019, the items and quantities of which are more particularly set forth in
the Contractor's bid therefor on file in the office of the City Clerk, except work to be performed by
subcontractors as set forth in the Contractor’s bid and for which the Contractor retains responsibility.
2.Time of Performance and Liquidated Damages: The Contractor must begin work within
fifteen (15) calendar days after official notice by the City Engineer to proceed with the work and must
diligently prosecute the same to completion within 110 working days of that Notice. The Contractor
acknowledges and agrees that time is of the essence with respect to Contractor’s work and that Contractor
shall diligently pursue performance of the work.
In the event the Contractor does not complete the work within the time limit so specified or within
such further time as said City Council must have authorized, the Contractor must pay to the City liquidated
damages in the amount of SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS ($750) per day for each and every day's
delay in finishing the work beyond the completion date so specified. Additional provisions with regard to
said time of completion and liquidated damages are set forth in the specifications, which provisions are hereby
referred to and incorporated herein by reference.
3.Payments: Payments will be made by City to the Contractor for said work performed at the
times and in the manner provided in the specifications and at the unit prices stated in Contractor's bid.
The award of the contract is for a total amount of $3,477,140.00.
4.Component Parts and Interpretation: This contract must consist of the following documents,
each of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk and all of which are incorporated herein and made a
part hereof by reference thereto:
a)This Agreement
b)Notice Inviting Sealed Proposals
c)Instruction and Information to Bidders
d)Accepted Proposal, with all attachments and certifications
e)Faithful Performance Bond
f)Labor and Material Bond
g)Special Provisions
h)Standard Specifications
i)Technical specifications
Exhibit A
71
2 of 7
j)Design Standards
k)Plans, Profiles and Detailed Drawings
In the event of conflict between these documents, the following order of precedence will govern:
this contract; change orders; supplemental agreements and approved revisions to plans and specifications;
special provisions; standard specifications; detail plans; general plans; standard plans; reference
specifications. In the absence of a controlling or contrary provision in the foregoing, the Standard
Specifications (2010 edition) of the California Department of Transportation shall apply to this project.
5.Independent Contractor. Contractor is and will at all times remain as to City a
wholly independent contractor. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, or agents will have control
over the conduct of Contractor or any of Contractor’s officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, except
as expressly set forth in the Contract Documents. Contractor may not at any time or in any manner
represent that it or any of its officers, employees, agents, or subcontractors are in any manner officers,
employees, agents or subcontractors of City.
6.Prevailing Wages: Copies of the determination of the Director of the Department
of Industrial Relations of the prevailing rate of per diem wages for each craft, classification or type of
worker needed to execute this Contract will be on file in, and available at, the office of the Director at 601
Carmen Drive, Camarillo, California 93010.
Contractor must post at the work site, or if there is no regular work site then at its principal office,
for the duration of the Contract, a copy of the determination by the Director of the Department of Industrial
Relations of the specified prevailing rate of per diem wages. (Labor Code § 1773.2.)
Contractor, and any subcontractor engaged by Contractor, may pay not less than the specified
prevailing rate of per diem wages to all workers employed in the execution of the contract. (Labor Code
§ 1774.) Contractor is responsible for compliance with Labor Code section 1776 relative to the retention
and inspection of payroll records.
Contractor must comply with all provisions of Labor Code section 1775. Under Section 1775,
Contractor may forfeit as a penalty to City up to $200.00 for each worker employed in the execution of
the Contract by Contractor or any subcontractor for each calendar day, or portion thereof, in which the
worker is paid less than the prevailing rates. Contractor may also be liable to pay the difference between
the prevailing wage rates and the amount paid to each worker for each calendar day, or portion thereof,
for which each worker was paid less than the prevailing wage rate.
Nothing in this Contract prevents Contractor or any subcontractor from employing properly
registered apprentices in the execution of the Contract. Contractor is responsible for compliance with
Labor Code section 1777.5 for all apprenticeable occupations. This statute requires that contractors and
subcontractors must submit contract award information to the applicable joint apprenticeship committee,
must employ apprentices in apprenticeable occupations in a ratio of not less than one hour of apprentice’s
work for every five hours of labor performed by a journeyman (unless an exception is granted under §
1777.5), must contribute to the fund or funds in each craft or trade or a like amount to the California
Apprenticeship Council, and that contractors and subcontractors must not discriminate among otherwise
qualified employees as apprentices solely on the ground of sex, race, religion, creed, national origin,
ancestry or color. Only apprentices defined in Labor Code section 3077, who are in training under
apprenticeship standards and who have written apprentice contracts, may be employed on public works in
apprenticeable occupations.
If federal funds are used to pay for the Work, Contractor and any subcontractor agree to comply,
as applicable, with the labor and reporting requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act (40 USC § 276a-7), the
Copeland Act (40 USC § 276c and 18 USC § 874), and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards
Act (40 USC § 327 and following).
72
3 of 7
7.Hours of Labor: Contractor acknowledges that under California Labor Code sections 1810
and following, eight hours of labor constitutes a legal day’s work. Contractor will forfeit as a penalty to
City the sum of $25.00 for each worker employed in the execution of this Contract by Contractor or any
subcontractor for each calendar day during which such worker is required or permitted to work more than
eight hours in any one calendar day and 40 hours in any one calendar week in violation of the provisions
of Labor Code section 1810.
8.Apprentices: Attention is directed to the provisions in Sections 1777.5 (Chapter 1411,
Statutes of 1968) and 1777.6 of the Labor Code concerning the employment of apprentices by the Contractor
or any Subcontractor under him.
Section 1777.5, as amended, requires the Contractor or Subcontractor employing tradesmen in any
apprenticeable occupation to apply to the joint apprenticeship committee nearest the site of the public works
project and which administers the apprenticeship program in that trade for a certificate of approval. The
certificate will also fix the ratio of apprentices to journeymen that will be used in the performance of the
Contract. The ratio of apprentices to journeymen in such cases must not be less than one to five except:
A.When unemployment in the area of coverage by the joint apprenticeship committee has
exceeded an average of 15 percent in the 90 days prior to the request for certificate, or
B.When the number of apprentices in training in that area exceeds a ratio of one to five, or
C.When the trade can show that it is replacing at least 1/30 of its membership through
apprenticeship training on an annual basis statewide or locally, or
D.When the assignment of an apprentice to any work performed under a public works Contract
would create a condition which would jeopardize his life or the life, safety, or property of
fellow employees or the public at large, or if the specified task to which the apprentice is to
be assigned is of such a nature that training cannot be provided by a journeyman, or
E.When the Contractor provides evidence that he employs registered apprentices on all of his
Contracts on an annual average of not less than one apprentice to eight journeymen.
The Contractor is required to make contributions to funds established for the administration of
apprenticeship program if he employs registered apprentices or journeymen in any apprenticeable trade on
such Contracts and if other Contractors on the public works site are making such contributions.
The Contractor and any Subcontractor under him must comply with the requirements of Section
1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices.
Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules, and other requirements may be obtained
from the Director of Industrial Relations, ex officio the Administrator of Apprenticeship, San Francisco,
California, or from the Division of Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices. .
9.Labor Discrimination: Attention is directed to Section 1735 of the Labor Code, which reads
as follows:
"A contractor must not discriminate in the employment of persons upon public
works on any basis listed in subdivision (a) of Section 12940 of the Government Code, as those
bases are defined in Sections 12926 and 12926.1 of the Government Code, except as otherwise
provided in Section 12940 of the Government Code. Every contractor for public works who
violates this section is subject to all the penalties imposed for a violation of this chapter. "
10.Workmen's Compensation Insurance: In accordance with the provisions of Article 5, Chapter 1,
Part 7, Division 2 (commencing with Section 1860) and Chapter 4, Part 1, Division 4 (commencing with
Section 3700) of the Labor Code of the State of California, the Contractor is required to secure the payment
of compensation to his employees and must for that purpose obtain and keep in effect adequate Workmen's
Compensation Insurance.
73
4 of 7
The undersigned Contractor is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which
requires every employer to be insured against liability for workmen's compensation or to undertake self-
insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and will comply with such provisions before
commencing the performance of the work of this contract.
11.Indemnity and Insurance: To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor must indemnify,
hold harmless, release and defend City, its officers, elected officials, employees, agents, volunteers, and
consultants from and against any and all actions, claims, demands, damages, disability, losses, expenses
including, but not limited to, attorney's fees and other defense costs and liabilities of any nature that may be
asserted by any person or entity including Contractor, in whole or in part, arising out of Contractor’s activities
hereunder, including the activities of other persons employed or utilized by Contractor including
subcontractors hired by the Contractor in the performance of this Agreement excepting liabilities due to the
active negligence of the City. This indemnification obligation is not limited in any way by any limitation on
the amount or type of damages or compensation payable by or for Contractor under Worker's Compensation,
disability or other employee benefit acts or the terms, applicability or limitations of any insurance held or
provided by Contractor and must continue to bind the parties after termination/completion of this Agreement.
Contractor shall procure and maintain throughout the time for performance of the work under this
Contract the insurance required by the Special Provisions. The requirement that Contractor procure and
maintain insurance shall in no way be construed to limit the Contractor’s duty to indemnify City as provided
in the paragraph above.
Failure of City to monitor compliance with these requirements imposes no additional obligations
on City and will in no way act as a waiver of any rights hereunder.
12.City Right of Termination and Right to Complete the Work. The City may terminate the
Contract when conditions encountered during the work make it impossible or impracticable to proceed,
or when the City is prevented from proceeding with the Contract by act of God, by law, or by official
action of a public authority. In addition, the occurrence of any of the following is a default by Contractor
under this Contract:
A.Contractor refuses or fails to prosecute the Work or any part thereof with such
diligence as will insure its completion within the time specified or any permitted
extension.
B.Contractor fails to complete the Work on time.
C.Contractor is adjudged bankrupt, or makes a general assignment for the benefit of
creditors, or a receiver is appointed on account of Contractor’s insolvency.
D.Contractor fails to supply enough properly skilled workers or proper materials to
complete the Work in the time specified.
E.Contractor fails to make prompt payment to any subcontractor or for material or
labor.
F.Contractor fails to abide by any applicable laws, ordinances or instructions of City
in performing the Work.
G.Contractor breaches or fails to perform any obligation or duty under the Contract.
Upon the occurrence of a default by Contractor, the Director will serve a written notice of default
on Contractor specifying the nature of the default and the steps needed to correct the default. Unless
Contractor cures the default within 10 days after the service of such notice, or satisfactory arrangements
acceptable to City for the correction or elimination of such default are made, as determined by City, City
may thereafter terminate this Contract by serving written notice on Contractor. In such case, Contractor
will not be entitled to receive any further payment, except for Work actually completed prior to such
termination in accordance with the provisions of the Contract Documents.
74
5 of 7
In event of any such termination, City will also immediately serve written notice of the termination
upon Contractor’s surety. The surety will have the right to take over and perform pursuant to this Contract;
provided, however, that if the surety does not give City written notice of its intention to take over and
perform this Contract within five days after service of the notice of termination or does not commence
performance within 10 days from the date of such notice, City may take over the Work and prosecute the
same to completion by contract or by any other method it may deem advisable for the account and at the
expense of Contractor. Contractor and the surety will be liable to City for any and all excess costs or other
damages incurred by City in completing the Work.
If City takes over the Work as provided in this Section, City may, without liability for so doing,
take possession of, and utilize in completing the Work, such materials, appliances, plant, and other
property belonging to Contractor as may be on the site of the Work and necessary for the completion of
the Work.
13.Substitution of Securities for Withheld Amounts: Pursuant to California Public Contracts
Code Section 22300, securities may be substituted for any moneys withheld by a public agency to ensure
performance under a contract. At the request and sole expense of the Contractor, securities equivalent to the
amount withheld must be deposited with the public agency, or with a state or federally chartered bank as the
escrow agent, who must pay such moneys to the Contractor upon satisfactory completion of the contract.
Securities eligible for substitution under this section must include those listed in the California Public
Contracts Code Section 22300 or bank or savings and loan certificates of deposit. The Contractor must be
the beneficial owner of any securities substituted for moneys withheld and must receive any interest thereon.
Alternatively, the Contractor may request and the City shall make payment of retentions earned
directly to the escrow agent at the expense of the Contractor. At the expense of the Contractor, the
Contractor may direct the investment of the payments into securities and the Contractor shall receive the
interest earned on the investments upon the same terms provided for in Section 22300 for securities
deposited by the Contractor. Upon satisfactory completion of the Contract, the Contractor shall receive
from the escrow agent all securities, interest, and payments received by the escrow agent from the City,
pursuant to the terms of this section.
Any escrow agreement entered into pursuant to this section must contain as a minimum the following
provisions:
a.The amount of securities to be deposited;
b.The terms and conditions of conversion to cash in case of the default of the Contractor; and
c.The termination of the escrow upon completion of the contract.
14.General Provisions
A. Authority to Execute. Each Party represents and warrants that all necessary action
has been taken by such Party to authorize the undersigned to execute this Contract and to bind it to the
performance of its obligations.
B.Assignment. Contractor may not assign this Contract without the prior written
consent of City, which consent may be withheld in City’s sole discretion since the experience and
qualifications of Contractor were material considerations for this Contract.
C.Binding Effect. This Agreement is binding upon the heirs, executors,
administrators, successors and permitted assigns of the Parties.
D.Integrated Contract. This Contract, including the Contract Documents, is the entire,
complete, final and exclusive expression of the Parties with respect to the Work to be performed under
this Contract and supersedes all other agreements or understandings, whether oral or written, between
Contractor and City prior to the execution of this Contract.
75
6 of 7
E.Modification of Contract. No amendment to or modification of this Contract will
be valid unless made in writing and approved by Contractor and by the City Council or City Manager, as
applicable. The Parties agree that this requirement for written modifications cannot be waived and that
any attempted waiver will be void.
F.Counterparts, Facsimile or other Electronic Signatures. This Contract may be
executed in several counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, and all of which, when taken
together, constitute one and the same instrument. Amendments to this Contract will be considered
executed when the signature of a party is delivered by facsimile or other electronic transmission. Such
facsimile or other electronic signature will have the same effect as an original signature.
G.Waiver. Waiver by any Party of any term, condition, or covenant of this Contract
will not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant. Waiver by any Party of any breach
of the provisions of this Contract will not constitute a waiver of any other provision, or a waiver of any
subsequent breach or violation of any provision of this Contract. Acceptance by City of any Work
performed by Contractor will not constitute a waiver of any of the provisions of this Contract.
H.Interpretation. This Contract will be interpreted, construed and governed according
to the laws of the State of California. Each party has had the opportunity to review this Contract with
legal counsel. The Contract will be construed simply, as a whole, and in accordance with its fair meaning.
It will not be interpreted strictly for or against either party.
I.Severability. If any term, condition or covenant of this Contract is declared or
determined by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining
provisions of this Contract will not be affected and the Contract will be read and construed without the
invalid, void or unenforceable provision.
J.Venue. In the event of litigation between the parties, venue in state trial courts will
be in the County of Sonoma. In the event of litigation in a U.S. District Court, venue will be in the
Northern District of California.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Rohnert Park has caused these presents to be executed by its
officers, thereunto duly authorized, and Contractor has subscribed same, all on the day and year first above
written.
76
7 of 7
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK GHILOTTI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
INC.
____________________________________
City Manager Date Name/Title Date
Per Resolution No. RESO #__________adopted by the Rohnert Park
City Council at its meeting of ______________.
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________
City Clerk City Attorney
77
Exhibit B
GHD, INC. TASK ORDER NO. 2019-06
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
AND
GHD, INC.
AUTHORIZATION TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR
DOWNTOWN INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT NO. 2018-40 AND 2018-43
SECTION 1 – PURPOSE
The purpose of this Task Order is to authorize and direct GHD, Inc. to proceed with the work specified in
Section 2 below in accordance with the provisions of the MASTER AGREEMENT between the City of
Rohnert Park ("City") and GHD, Inc. ("Consultant") hereto dated July 12, 2016.
SECTION 2 – SCOPE OF WORK
The items authorized by this Task Order are presented in Exhibit “A” - Scope of Services.
SECTION 3 – COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT
Compensation shall be as provided in the MASTER AGREEMENT between the parties hereto referenced
in SECTION 1 above. The total cost for services as set forth in SECTION 2 shall be actual costs (time
and materials) based on Consultants' standard labor charges in accordance with the provisions of the
MASTER AGREEMENT and as shown in Exhibit “B” in an amount not-to-exceed two hundred ninety-
eight thousand, seven hundred twenty seven dollars ($298,727.00).
SECTION 4 – TIME OF PERFORMANCE
The work described in SECTION 2 shall be completed by December 31, 2020, or as extended by the City
Manager or the Director of Development Services or his/her designee.
SECTION 5 – ITEMS AND CONDITIONS
All items and conditions contained in the MASTER AGREEMENT for consultant services between City
and Consultant are incorporated by reference.
Approved this _____ day of July, 2019.
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK GHD, INC.
____________________________
Darrin Jenkins, City Manager (Date) Name: (Date)
Per Resolution No. 2019-____ adopted by the Title:
Rohnert Park City Council at its meeting
of July 23, 2019.
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
City Clerk City Attorney
78
GHD
2235 Mercury Way Suite 150 Santa Rosa California 95407 USA
T 707 523 1010 F 707 527 8679 W www.ghd.com
July 1, 2019
City of Rohnert Park
Public Works Department
Attn: Vanessa Marin Garrett, PE
130 Avram Avenue
Rohnert Park, CA 94928
RE: Construction Management Services for Downtown Infrastructure Improvements Project
Dear Vanessa,
Thank you for providing GHD the opportunity to submit our proposal for construction management
services for the Downtown Infrastructure Improvements project. We are excited for the opportunity to
work with you on this project as we really enjoy partnering with you and your team. Additionally, we are
very enthusiastic about the potential efficiencies to working on this contract simultaneously with Keiser 2A.
As you know, we are familiar with the project site, the key personnel, and the processes and procedures
of the City of Rohnert Park. Our GHD CM team also has an intimate knowledge of the proposed
improvements of this contract as we have been involved during the design process for constructability
reviews.
Our proposal is based on our understanding of the project and Rohnert Park’s need to supplement City
staff. We recognize that the City is looking for a highly qualified consultant to provide efficient construction
management services, maintain effective coordination with City staff, and communicate with members of
the public regarding the project as needed.
Background
With a bid date of July 9, 2019, the Downtown Infrastructure Improvements project has an Engineer’s
Estimate of about $3,000,000 (w/ contingency).
The project’s scope for construction includes the following:
•Dewatering System
•Removal of existing sewer and some misc water facilities,
•New Sanitary Sewer Main improvements, and connection to existing structures,
•New Water system improvements,
•Trench restoration paving and pavement markings.
Scope of Work
The City requested a scope of work and fee schedule for part time construction management and full time
inspection services for this project.
The critical issues of the project that we currently see are:
•Traffic Control: Maintaining pedestrian and vehicular traffic to the various business and
residences near the project limits.
79
GHD | Proposal RP Downtown Infrustructure CM Services | Page 2
•Project Coordination: The replacement of live sewer and water systems require constant
communication with the Contractor, City Utility personnel, and any residents that may potentially
be impacted by shutdowns.
•Deep Utilities/High ground water: The existing conditions that we expect to encounter on this
project can cause trench failures (cave-ins) resulting in slow production, unsafe conditions, and
increased costs. GHD will work closely with the Contractor to confirm that the proposed
dewatering system is adequate, and that all safety precautions are being taken.
We have budgeted for full time Construction Inspection and part time Construction Management to
supplement City Staff. The contract duration has not yet been determined. Allowing time for mobilization
and long lead-time materials, we anticipate 110 working days. GHD will perform the following tasks.
Task 1 Project Management
1.1 Management of GHD Services. GHD project management will include preparation and maintenance
of budgets and schedules for GHD services, instructions to the GHD Team, preparation of field safety
instructions, and routine progress reporting.
Task 2 Contract Administration
2.1 Project Coordination. Meet with City staff to discuss and coordinate issues with the project. This will
be accomplished by site visits, project meetings, phone conversations, and email updates of the
activities that occurred. Public outreach will include; talking to the impacted residents, businesses,
and working with the City’s outreach consultant.
2.2 Prepare and Conduct Pre-Construction Meeting. The pre-construction meeting will include the
City, the Designer, contractor, and major subcontractors. The CM will prepare the agenda, meeting
minutes, and a list of contact information for key personnel from each agency to be contacted in the
event of an emergency.
2.3 Project Meetings. Prepare and run meetings with City staff, Contractor, and other stakeholders.
2.4 Schedule Management. Review the Contractor’s as-planned schedule for conformance with the
specifications and for reasonableness of activity durations and sequence. Review the schedule with
the City and monitor the Contractor’s progress against the schedule.
2.5 Maintain Project Records. Maintain GHD project records, including daily logs, and photos. Prepare
progress pay estimates, PCO’s and change orders, issues, RFIs and other correspondence. Project
records will be maintained in an organized manner for quick reference and are accessible to City staff
as requested.
2.6 Review Monthly Progress Payments. Evaluate the monthly progress payment requests from the
Contractor and recommend payment.
2.7 Prepare Monthly Progress Report. A brief report of monthly activities will be prepared and
transmitted to the City.
2.8 Requests for Information (RFI’s) and Requests for Clarifications (RFC’s). Facilitate the review
and response to RFI and RFC requests by the Contractor.
2.9 Potential Change Orders (PCO’s) and Change Orders. Facilitate the review of PCO’s and Change
Orders, assist with determination of changed conditions and scope definition as needed.
80
GHD | Proposal RP Downtown Infrustructure CM Services | Page 3
2.10 Coordinate Submittal and Shop Drawing Review Process. Coordinate the submittal and shop
drawing review process, including logging submittals from the Contractor, transmitting to Design
Engineer for response, coordinating with Design Engineer on field status, tracking progress,
reviewing responses, and transmitting responses to the Contractor.
2.11 Permits Compliance. Monitor contractors operation with respect to the permit requirements.
2.12 Monitor Construction Record Drawings. Coordinate with the Contractor and maintain our own as-
built drawings. Provide redlines to the City when complete.
2.13 Claims Management (optional service). GHD will assist with Claims Management at the request of
the City on a time and materials basis.
Task 3 Site Work
3.1 Field Inspection/Observation. Provide full-time, on-site construction inspector/observer to monitor
the Contractor’s work for compliance with the contract documents, submittals, RFI’s, change orders,
and coordination with businesses and residences along the route.
3.2 Photograph or Video Documentation. Provide photographs or videos of the pre-construction
conditions, as well as during construction to document the work.
3.3 Field Changes. Coordinate with City and Contractor and write field directives for change conditions.
3.4 Daily Reports. Prepare Daily Observation Reports. The daily reports will include photographs and
material tags.
3.5 Materials Testing Coordination. Coordinate with the County Materials Laboratory.
3.6 Project Completion and Punch List. Schedule a site review to be attended by the City, GHD, and
other required stakeholders to conduct final completion inspections prior to issuing a punch list.
3.7 Compile Project Documents. Will be provided through ongoing correspondence with the City; daily
inspection/observation notes can be provided daily to the City. Documentation will be in electronic
format.
3.8 Final Pay Estimate. Prepare the final pay estimate, Notice of Completion, and coordinate retention
release at the conclusion of construction.
Assumptions
1. GHD does not supervise or direct Contractor’s Work. Contractor will be solely responsible for and
have control over construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, and procedures and for
coordinating all portions of the Work under the Contract, unless Contract Documents give other
specific instructions concerning these matters.
2. Contractor is responsible for job site safety.
3. Contractor will not be relieved of obligations to perform Work in accordance with the Contract
Documents either by activities or duties of Construction Management staff, or by tests,
inspections, or approvals required or performed by persons other than Contractor.
4. County Materials Laboratory is supplying the testing.
5. Contractor is responsible for obtaining a City Encroachment Permit.
Compensation
GHD proposes to perform the scope of services on an hourly rate, time and materials basis in accordance
with our Standard Fees and Conditions. The proposed fee estimate for the scope of services is $298,727.
81
GHD | Proposal RP Downtown Infrustructure CM Services | Page 4
The total "not-to-exceed" fee will not be exceeded without written authorization by the City. The individual
task fees may be adjusted without written authorization provided the adjustments stay within the total "not-
to-exceed" limit.
Schedule
GHD proposes to perform the scope of services immediately upon receipt of written Notice-to-Proceed.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or need additional information.
Kind regards,
GHD Inc.
Tim Dillenburg,
Construction Manager
M: 707-480-1531 E: Tim.Dillenburg@ghd.com
Attachment: Fee Estimate, 90% project schedule
82
EX
H
I
B
I
T
B
-
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
F
E
E
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
I
N
G
S
H
E
E
T
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
A
M
E
:
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
I
n
f
r
u
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
PR
O
J
E
C
T
#
2
0
1
8
-
4
0
+
2
0
1
8
-
4
3
On
-
S
i
t
e
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
o
r
Tim Dillenburg/
DA
T
E
Ju
l
y
1
,
2
0
1
9
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Tim Dillenburg
PR
E
P
A
R
E
D
B
Y
:
T
i
m
D
i
l
l
e
n
b
u
r
g
CL
I
E
N
T
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
R
o
h
n
e
r
t
P
a
r
k
Pr
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
I
n
C
h
a
r
g
e
Bill Silva
F
E
E
C
O
M
P
U
T
A
T
I
O
N
Final Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
L
A
B
O
R
C
A
T
E
G
O
R
Y
P r i nc
i pa
l I n
Ch
a
r
g
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ma
n
a
g
e
r
P ro
j ec
t
Co
o
r
d
L
e
a
d
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
o
r
TO
T
A
L
S
u
b
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
O
t
h
e
r
D
i
r
e
c
t
C
o
s
t
s
T
O
T
A
L
1
1
0
W
o
r
k
i
n
g
D
a
y
s
3,000,000 $
RA
T
E
$2
1
0
$
1
8
5
$
1
2
0
$
1
6
5
H
O
U
R
S
/
S er
v
i ce
s
$6
/
h
r
o
f
f
i
c
e
F
E
E
6
m
o
n
t
h
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
p
e
r
i
o
d
TA
S
K
/H
R
/
H
R
/
H
R
/
H
R
G
H
D
f
e
e
$1
1
/
h
r
f
i
e
l
d
22
.
0
w
e
e
k
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
p
e
r
i
o
d
Ta
s
k
1
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
$6 $6
Ta
s
k
1.
1
8
12
20
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
1,
6
8
0
$
2
,
2
2
0
$
-
$
-
$
3
,
9
0
0
$
12
0
$
4,
0
2
0
$
2
h
r
s
/
m
o
P
M
Ta
s
k
S
u
b
t
o
t
a
l
8
12
20
1,
6
8
0
$
2,
2
2
0
$
-
$
-
$
3,
9
0
0
$
-
$
12
0
$
4,
0
2
0
$
Ta
s
k
2
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
$6 $6
Ta
s
k
2.
1
88
4
4
13
2
22
we
e
k
s
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
-
$
1
6
,
2
8
0
$
5,
2
8
0
$
-
$
2
1
,
5
6
0
$
79
2
$
22
,
3
5
2
$
4
h
r
s
C
M
&
2
A
s
s
t
Ta
s
k
2
.
2
16
8
4
28
Pr
e
p
,
r
u
n
a
n
d
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
.
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
a
n
d
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
P
r
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
$
2
,
9
6
0
$
96
0
$
66
0
$
4,
5
8
0
$
18
8
$
4,
7
6
8
$
Ta
s
k
2
.
3
44
4
4
88
22
w
e
e
k
l
y
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
&
o
t
h
e
r
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
s
Co
n
d
u
c
t
a
n
d
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
s
-
$
8
,
1
4
0
$
5,
2
8
0
$
-
$
1
3
,
4
2
0
$
52
8
$
13
,
9
4
8
$
2
h
r
s
e
a
c
h
Ta
s
k
2
.
4
12
12
6
m
o
n
t
h
l
y
u
p
d
a
t
e
Re
v
i
e
w
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
-
$
2
,
2
2
0
$
-
$
-
$
2
,
2
2
0
$
72
$
2,
2
9
2
$
2
h
r
s
e
a
c
h
Ta
s
k
2
.
5
22
2
2
44
22
w
e
e
k
l
y
Ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
R
e
c
o
r
d
s
-
$
4
,
0
7
0
$
2,
6
4
0
$
-
$
6
,
7
1
0
$
26
4
$
6,
9
7
4
$
1
h
r
s
e
a
c
h
Ta
s
k
2
.
6
14
7
21
7
p
a
y
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
s
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
f
i
n
a
l
Re
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
M
o
n
t
h
l
y
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
P
a
y
m
e
n
t
s
-
$
2
,
5
9
0
$
84
0
$
-
$
3
,
4
3
0
$
12
6
$
3,
5
5
6
$
2
h
r
s
e
a
c
h
Ta
s
k
2.
7
6
6
12
6
M
o
n
t
h
s
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
M
o
n
t
h
l
y
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
-
$
1
,
1
1
0
$
72
0
$
-
$
1
,
8
3
0
$
72
$
1,
9
0
2
$
Ta
s
k
2
.
8
12
6
18
6
A
s
s
u
m
e
d
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
R
F
I
'
s
/
R
F
C
'
s
Re
s
p
o
n
d
t
o
R
F
I
'
s
a
n
d
I
s
s
u
e
R
F
C
'
s
-
$
2
,
2
2
0
$
72
0
$
-
$
2
,
9
4
0
$
10
8
$
3,
0
4
8
$
2
h
r
s
e
a
c
h
Ta
s
k
2
.
9
18
6
24
6
A
s
s
u
m
e
d
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
P
C
O
'
s
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
P
C
O
'
s
a
n
d
C
h
a
n
g
e
O
r
d
e
r
s
-
$
3
,
3
3
0
$
72
0
$
-
$
4
,
0
5
0
$
14
4
$
4,
1
9
4
$
3
h
r
s
e
a
c
h
Ta
s
k
2
.
1
0
20
1
0
30
20
A
s
s
u
m
e
d
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
s
h
o
p
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
/
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
a
l
s
Co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
S
u
b
m
i
t
t
a
l
a
n
d
S
h
o
p
D
r
a
w
i
n
g
R
e
v
i
e
w
-
$
3
,
7
0
0
$
1,
2
0
0
$
-
$
4
,
9
0
0
$
18
0
$
5,
0
8
0
$
1
h
r
s
e
a
c
h
Ta
s
k
2
.
1
1
4
4
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
P
e
r
m
i
t
C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
-
$
74
0
$
-
$
-
$
74
0
$
24
$
76
4
$
Ta
s
k
2
.
1
2
8
8
Co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
&
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
a
s
-
b
u
i
l
t
s
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
R
e
c
o
r
d
D
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
-
$
1
,
4
8
0
$
-
$
-
$
1
,
4
8
0
$
48
$
1,
5
2
8
$
Ta
s
k
2
.
1
3
8
2
10
Pe
r
f
o
r
m
C
l
a
i
m
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
-
$
1
,
4
8
0
$
24
0
$
-
$
1
,
7
2
0
$
60
$
1,
7
8
0
$
Ta
s
k
S
u
b
t
o
t
a
l
27
2
1
5
5
4
43
1
-
$
5
0
,
3
2
0
$
18
,
6
0
0
$
66
0
$
69
,
5
8
0
$
-
$
2,
6
0
6
$
72
,
1
8
6
$
Ta
s
k
3
S
i
t
e
W
o
r
k
Ta
s
k
3.
1
1,
0
2
0
1
,
0
2
0
10
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
F
i
e
l
d
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
/
O
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
-
$
-
$
-
$
1
6
8
,
3
0
0
1
6
8
,
3
0
0
$
11
,
2
2
0
$
17
9
,
5
2
0
$
11
0
w
o
r
k
i
n
g
d
a
y
s
Ta
s
k
3
.
2
4
8
12
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
P
h
o
t
o
g
r
a
p
h
a
n
d
V
i
d
e
o
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
$
74
0
$
-
$
1
,
3
2
0
$
2,
0
6
0
$
11
2
$
2,
1
7
2
$
Ta
s
k
3
.
3
88
88
22
w
e
e
k
l
y
Fi
e
l
d
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
-
$
1
6
,
2
8
0
$
-
$
16
,
2
8
0
$
52
8
$
16
,
8
0
8
$
4
h
r
s
e
a
c
h
Ta
s
k
3
.
4
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
D
a
i
l
y
O
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
Ta
s
k
3
.
5
Ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
T
e
s
t
i
n
g
N
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
Ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
T
e
s
t
i
n
g
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
Co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
t
i
m
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
T
a
s
k
2
.
1
4
Ta
s
k
3
.
6
8
2
8
18
Fi
n
a
l
p
u
n
c
h
l
i
s
t
w
a
l
k
w
i
t
h
C
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
P
u
n
c
h
l
i
s
t
s
-
$
1
,
4
8
0
$
24
0
$
1,
3
2
0
$
3,
0
4
0
$
14
8
$
3,
1
8
8
$
Ta
s
k
3
.
7
16
8
24
Re
c
o
r
d
D
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
Co
m
p
i
l
e
F
i
n
a
l
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
-
$
2
,
9
6
0
$
96
0
$
3,
9
2
0
$
14
4
$
4,
0
6
4
$
in
d
e
x
e
s
,
l
o
g
s
a
n
d
b
i
n
d
e
r
s
Ta
s
k
3
.
8
12
2
14
Fi
n
a
l
p
a
y
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
,
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
r
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
r
e
l
e
a
s
e
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
F
i
n
a
l
P
a
y
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
-
$
2
,
2
2
0
$
24
0
$
2,
4
6
0
$
84
$
2,
5
4
4
$
No
t
i
c
e
o
f
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
Ta
s
k
S
u
b
t
o
t
a
l
12
8
1
2
1
0
3
6
1
1
7
6
-
$
23
,
6
8
0
$
1,
4
4
0
$
17
0
,
9
4
0
$
19
6
,
0
6
0
$
-
$
12
,
2
3
6
$
20
8
,
2
9
6
$
Fe
e
S
u
b
t
o
t
a
l
76
,
2
2
0
$
20
,
0
4
0
$
17
1
,
6
0
0
$
26
9
,
5
4
0
$
14
,
9
6
2
$
28
4
,
5
0
2
$
Co
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
c
y
%
14
,
2
2
5
$
5
%
C
o
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
c
y
P ro
j ec
t
T ot
a
l s
8
4
1
2
1
6
7
1
,
0
4
0
1
,
6
2
7
1,
6
8
0
$
76
,
2
2
0
$
20
,
0
4
0
$
17
1
,
6
0
0
$
26
9
,
5
4
0
$
-
$
14
,
9
6
2
$
26
9
,
5
4
0
$
As
s
u
m
e
s
no formal claims . Time is for meetings &
co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
r
e
s
o
l
v
e
f
i
e
l
d
i
s
s
u
e
s
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
a
t
8
hr
s
*
O
T
H
E
R
D
I
R
E
C
T
C
O
S
T
S
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
:
T
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
,
M
i
l
e
a
g
e
,
P
r
i
n
t
i
n
g
,
P
h
o
t
o
c
o
p
i
e
s
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
m
i
s
c
.
d
i
r
e
c
t
ex
p
e
n
s
e
s
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
P
r
e
-
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ho
u
r
s
a
r
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
T
a
s
k
2
.
1
4
hr
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
f
o
r
1
4
w
e
e
k
s
,
8
h
r
s
f
o
r
8
w
e
e
k
s
29
8
,
7
2
7
$
83
ID
T
a
s
k
N
a
m
e
D
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
a
r
t
1
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Du
r
a
t
i
o
n
11
0
da
y
s
Mo
n
8/
5
/
1
9
2
No
t
i
c
e
to
Pr
o
c
e
e
d
0 da
y
s
Mo
n
8/
5
/
1
9
3
Su
b
m
i
t
t
a
l
s
10
da
y
s
Mo
n
8/
5
/
1
9
4
Pr
e
c
a
s
t
SS
M
H
Le
a
d
Ti
m
e
40
da
y
s
Mo
n
8/
1
2
/
1
9
5
Mo
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
2 da
y
s
Mo
n
8/
1
9
/
1
9
6
Po
t
h
o
l
e
5 da
y
s
We
d
8/
2
1
/
1
9
7
De
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
g
Sy
s
t
e
m
10
da
y
s
Mo
n
8/
2
6
/
1
9
8
Cl
e
a
r
& Gr
u
b
b
i
n
g
2 da
y
s
We
d
8/
2
8
/
1
9
9
In
s
t
a
l
l
Wa
t
e
r
Ma
i
n
15
da
y
s
Mo
n
9/
9
/
1
9
10
Di
s
i
n
f
e
c
t
i
o
n
& Te
s
t
i
n
g
5 da
y
s
Mo
n
9/
3
0
/
1
9
11
Wa
t
e
r
Ma
i
n
Ti
e
‐in
s
4 da
y
s
Mo
n
10
/
7
/
1
9
12
Wa
t
e
r
Se
r
v
i
c
e
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
2 da
y
s
Fr
i
10
/
1
1
/
1
9
13
Sa
n
i
t
a
r
y
Se
w
e
r
Ma
i
n
40
da
y
s
Tu
e
10
/
1
5
/
1
9
14
CC
T
V
& Te
s
t
i
n
g
3 da
y
s
Tu
e
12
/
1
0
/
1
9
15
Co
n
c
r
e
t
e
Re
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
4 da
y
s
Fr
i
12
/
1
3
/
1
9
16
Tr
e
n
c
h
Pa
v
i
n
g
3 da
y
s
Th
u
12
/
1
9
/
1
9
17
Si
g
n
a
g
e
& St
r
i
p
i
n
g
3 da
y
s
Tu
e
12
/
2
4
/
1
9
18
Pu
n
c
h
Li
s
t
6 da
y
s
Fr
i
12
/
2
7
/
1
9
19
Su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
Co
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
0 da
y
s
Fr
i
1/
3
/
2
0
11
0
d
a
y
s
No
t
i
c
e
t
o
P
r
o
c
e
e
d
8/
5
S
u
b
m
i
t
t
a
l
s
8/
1
2
P
r
e
c
a
s
t
S
S
M
H
L
e
a
d
T
i
m
e
8/
1
9
M
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
8/
2
1
P
o
t
h
o
l
e
8/
2
6
D
e
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
g
S
y
s
t
e
m
8/
2
8
C
l
e
a
r
&
G
r
u
b
b
i
n
g
9/
9
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
W
a
t
e
r
M
a
i
n
9/
3
0
D
i
s
i
n
f
e
c
t
i
o
n
&
T
e
s
t
i
n
g
10
/
7
W
a
t
e
r
M
a
i
n
T
i
e
-
i
n
s
10
/
1
1
W
a
t
e
r
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
10
/
1
5
S
a
n
i
t
a
r
y
S
e
w
e
r
M
a
i
n
12/10
C
C
T
V
&
T
e
s
t
i
n
g
12/13
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
R
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
12/19
T
r
e
n
c
h
P
a
v
i
n
g
12/24
S
i
g
n
a
g
e
&
S
t
r
i
p
i
n
g
12/27
P
u
n
c
h
L
i
s
t
1/3
7/
2
1
7/
2
8
8/
4
8/
1
1
8/
1
8
8/
2
5
9/
1
9/
8
9/
1
5
9/
2
2
9/
2
9
10
/
6
10
/
1
3
10
/
2
0
10/27 11/3 11/10 11/17 11/24 12/1 12/8 12/15 12/22 12/29 1/5 1/12
Au
g
u
s
t
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
November December January
Ta
s
k
Sp
l
i
t
Mi
l
e
s
t
o
n
e
Su
m
m
a
r
y
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
In
a
c
t
i
v
e
T
a
s
k
In
a
c
t
i
v
e
M
i
l
e
s
t
o
n
e
In
a
c
t
i
v
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Ma
n
u
a
l
T
a
s
k
Du
r
a
t
i
o
n
-
o
n
l
y
Ma
n
u
a
l
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
R
o
l
l
u
p
Ma
n
u
a
l
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
St
a
r
t
-
o
n
l
y
Fi
n
i
s
h
-
o
n
l
y
Ex
t
e
r
n
a
l
T
a
s
k
s
Ex
t
e
r
n
a
l
M
i
l
e
s
t
o
n
e
Deadline Progress Manual Progress
Pa
g
e
1
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
:
R
P
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
S
S
-
9
0
%
Da
t
e
:
F
r
i
4
/
5
/
1
9
84
ITEM NO. 6D
1
Meeting Date: July 23, 2019
Department: Development Services
Submitted By: Mary Grace Pawson, Development Services Director
Prepared By: Mary Grace Pawson, Development Services Director
Agenda Title: Adopting a Resolution Establishing “No Overnight Parking Areas” at the
Roberts Lake Road Park & Ride, Rohnert Park Community Center, Rohnert
Park Senior Center, Goldridge Recreation Center and Spreckels Performing Art
Center
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Consider adopting a resolution establishing “No Overnight Parking
Areas” at the Roberts Lake Road Park & Ride, Rohnert Park Community Center, Rohnert Park Senior
Center, Goldridge Recreation Center and Spreckels Performing Art Center.
BACKGROUND: Vehicle Code section 22519 gives the City Council the authority to establish
parking restrictions on municipal parking facilities by resolution. Staff is proposing that the City
Council restrict overnight parking in certain city-owned parking lots by specifically restricting parking
between 1 a.m. and 4 a.m. daily.
ANALYSIS: The City owns and maintains a number of parking lots to support its various parks and
community facilities. In order for these lots to serve their intended purpose, it is important that the lots
remain clean and safe. Overnight use of the parking lots detracts from their intended purpose and can
support a wide range of potentially dangerous and unsanitary activity.
The City Council has established hours of use, namely from sunrise to sunset, for the City’s various
parks. These hours of use include the parking lots that support that park and the hours of use are clearly
posted, allowing them to be enforced. However, there are no established hours for parking lot use at
the Roberts Lake Road Park & Ride, Rohnert Park Community Center, Rohnert Park Senior Center,
Goldridge Recreation Center and Spreckels Performing Art Center. Staff acknowledges that these
facilities are different from the parks and that longer hours of use are appropriate. As such, staff is
proposing that the City Council restrict parking only between 1 a.m. and 4 a.m. daily. Staff is
proposing these hours because they allow for late evening use at facilities like the Community Center
and Performing Arts Center while also accommodating transit schedules in Rohnert Park (the earliest
commuter buses currently arrive in Rohnert Park after 4 a.m.). Establishing and posting use hours will
allow City staff to ticket and remove vehicles that are parked during restricted hours and help ensure
that the parking lots serve their intended purpose.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: The proposed action is consistent with Strategic Plan Goal C –
Ensure Effective Delivery of Public Services. By establishing and posting allowable parking hours at
these parking lots, the City can more efficiently manage these public properties. The public will have
clear expectations about the nature and use of the properties and patrols can be predictably deployed to
ensure the parking lots remain clean and safe.
Mission Statement
“We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a
Better Community for Today and Tomorrow.”
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
85
ITEM NO. 6D
2
OPTIONS CONSIDERED:
1. Recommended Option: Adopt a resolution establishing “No Overnight Parking Areas” at the
Roberts Lake Road Park & Ride, Rohnert Park Community Center, Rohnert Park Senior
Center, Goldridge Recreation Center and Spreckels Performing Art Center. The proposed
resolution will provide the City with the ability to protect public health and safety by
controlling overnight parking at five larger parking lots owned by the City.
2. Alternative: Council may elect to not adopt the resolution or to modify the proposed parking
restrictions for one or all of the parking lots covered by this resolution.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE: The immediate fiscal impact of the proposed action is
estimated to be $2,500 based on the installation of 25 signs along with the staff time necessary to
install the signs. Funding will come from the Public Works Operational budget. Long term, the City
will incur the costs of staff time associated with enforcing the no parking restrictions, which is
generally offset by the fines associated with the parking citations.
Department Head Approval Date: 07/09/2019
Finance Director Approval Date: NA
City Attorney Approval Date: 07/11/2019
City Manager Approval Date: 07/12/2019
Attachments:
1. Resolution Establishing “No Overnight Parking Areas” at the Roberts Lake Road Park
& Ride, Rohnert Park Community Center, Rohnert Park Senior Center, Goldridge
Recreation Center and Spreckels Performing Art Center
86
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-090
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
ESTABLISHING “NO OVERNIGHT PARKING AREAS” AT ROBERTS LAKE ROAD
PARK & RIDE, ROHNERT PARK COMMUNITY CENTER, ROHNERT PARK
SENIOR CENTER, GOLDRIDGE RECREATION CENTER AND SPRECKELS
PERFORMING ART CENTER
WHEREAS; Vehicle Code section 22519 provides the City Council may regulate or
restrict parking at municipally owned parking facilities by resolution, with regulations effective
following the posting of signs giving notice such regulations or restrictions; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of public parking lots is to support public use at the City’s
various facilities; and
WHEREAS, the intended public use requires that parking lots be predictably clean and
safe; and
WHEREAS, overnight use of parking lots detracts public safety and the intended use of
the City’s parking lots; and
WHEREAS, restricting parking between 1 a.m. and 4 a.m. at the Roberts Lake Road
Park & Ride, Rohnert Park Community Center, Rohnert Park Senior Center, Goldridge
Recreation Center and Spreckels Performing Art Center will still allow for the late evening and
early morning use patterns that are important for the function of these facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rohnert
Park that parking shall be prohibited between the hours of 1 a.m. and 4 a.m. at all off-street
parking facilities located at:
(1) Roberts Lake Road Park & Ride, Roberts Lake Road at Golf Course Drive;
(2) Rohnert Park Community Center, 5401 Snyder Lane;
(3) Rohnert Park Senior Center, 6800 Hunter Drive;
(4) Goldridge Recreation Center, 1455 Golf Course Drive; and
(5) Spreckels Performing Art Center, 5409 Snyder Lane.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the above parking restrictions shall be effective
upon the posting of signs given notice of the parking restrictions.
DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED this 23 day of July, 2019.
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
____________________________________
Gina Belforte, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
JoAnne M. Buergler, City Clerk
ADAMS: _________MACKENZIE: _________ STAFFORD: _________ CALLINAN: _________ BELFORTE: _________
AYES: ( ) NOES: ( ) ABSENT: ( ) ABSTAIN: ( )
87
bD
CI.TY COUNCIL SPEAKER CARD
Item #:
Name:
Address:
TOPIC:
Brief Summary of Comments:_
a
See Reverse +
oatez 7./ j
LO
Name:
Agenda ltem #:
L s-b
Cans"r,i-- eo
Address:
,
l'
TOPIC:.V,
Brief Summary olComments:
e
r,A
(^)
L
a rc--
A
k,
oa-r L z*, tA.-
o
*he,tryt z
Cr i-.t'.iI
See Reverse -+
CITY COTINCIL SPEAKER CARD
,"r"t7'B-11
CITY COUNCIL SPEAKER CARD
Date:1-a3-/a Agenda Item #:,
Name:?.rb,^
6D
(,L/c
Address:
Phone:
TO
Brief Summary of Comments:,
(L C\q.
See Reverse +
**)
B*a /.)
e0 0t/?eo,rroLTOPIC:I
Brief S mary of Comments:_
A,rto /arzZ ,9rZP<
77a/aa rt PAtt torv+felzz c
See Reyerse -+
Date: ) - >1. egenr)a ltem #: 6-O
N^*", ' /itz ,4to/,y'c. l/e.u.c R
Addrssz
CITY COUNCIL SPEAKER CARD
C ODDING
Physical Address Mailing Address Main Office P: 707.978.5800
3510 UNOCAL PLACE, SUITE 300 P.O. BOX 5800 Main Office F: 707.623.9169
SANTA ROSA, CA 95403 SANTA ROSA, CA 95406 Construction F: 707.623.9469
WWW.CODDING.COM
July 23, 2019
Mayor Belforte
Vice Mayor Callinan
Councilmember Adams
Councilmember Mackenzie
Councilmember Stafford
City of Rohnert Park
130 Avram Avenue
Rohnert Park, CA 94928
Re: City Council Meeting July 23rd, 2019 Agenda Item 6D “No Overnight Parking Areas”
Dear Madam Mayor and Councilmembers,
I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the above agenda item and the
homeless issue in Rohnert Park. We have always had issues with the homeless panhandling
on the corners of our shopping centers and business parks and leaving trash and drug
paraphernalia on our properties. Towards the end of last year, the problem started to
escalate and has now reached a catastrophic level. We now find dilapidated RV’s parked
and often abandoned in our parking lots. Codding Maintenance personnel along with
Codding Landscape personnel are spending at least 50% of their time cleaning up the mess
which includes vast amounts of human waste, this is sometimes dumped in plastic bags that
fall apart when picked up, buckets or more often than not our sidewalks are just used as a
toilet, it is vile for our workers, our tenants and the visitors to our shopping centers and
businesses.
We are unable to tow RV’s with people in them, if they are vacant at any given time we will
tow, this is extremely costly to us and can run into thousands of dollars per vehicle. In the
past we have had an RV just dumped, semi stripped and then set on fire, almost catching
our building on fire. After the fire was very quickly extinguished by RPFD we were then left
with another toxic and expensive mess to clean up. I personally often spend hours at a time
out at Walmart North (Driven Raceway and Outback) working with my own people, our
towing company and RPPD to clear our parking lots from RV’s. I would like to be very clear
that the RV owners that have been swarming our properties are more than often aggressive
to us, disrespectful of our properties, our tenants and visitors. Rohnert Park’s Code
Enforcement Department, specifically Michelle Tassef has spent endless hours dealing with
this issue and the very same people. Michelle has been a great partner to us and has kept us
informed of the City’s intentions along the way. She has worked with COTS and I’m told the
people in question refuse help from them along with assistance offered from other
organizations. My staff have witnessed drug deals and the like on many occasions. I have
Supplemental Item 6D
July 23, 2019
Page 2 of 2
Letter to Rohnert Park City Council
driven over to the park and ride that is mentioned in the staff report and the people along
with the RV’s are the same people and vehicles we have been having issues with for
months.
If they are not in RV’s that they have acquired then they start to set up tents and camps
alongside our buildings, leaving shopping carts, empty bottles, paraphernalia and all sorts of
trash strewn all over our parking lots.
We have “no trespass” orders on file with the City for all of the properties that we manage
(Walmart North, Walmart South, Sonoma Valley Plaza, Raleys Towne Centre, Northbay
Center and 6400 Redwood properties which include Animal Care, Carl’s Jnr and Taqueria El
Favorito). Public Safety has been excellent to work with and very responsive but
unfortunately their hands are tied and unless someone has an active warrant, which many
of them do, they come right back.
I could write pages and pages on the subject and fully understand that this goes ways
beyond a trespassing and property destruction issue. Lack of funding for local governments
to provide the needed mental health and social services are likely the root of the problem.
My concern with this particular agenda item is where do they go when they are moved on
at 1am? I think it’s pretty clear in this instance, they will be back to your local businesses in
time for us to open our doors to the general public the next morning. So, I ask that if this
resolution passes that Public Safety be instructed to also move them along from our
properties should they go to re-settle there?
I am willing and available to discuss this matter further with Councilmembers or Staff and
hope we can all be part of a solution moving forward.
Yours sincerely,
CODDING
Kirstie Franceschi
Property & Development Manager
CC: Darrin Jenkins, Rohnert Park City Manager
File
ITEM NO. 6E and 6F
1
Meeting Date: July 23, 2019
Department: Development Services
Submitted By: Mary Grace Pawson, Director of Development Services
Prepared By: Eydie Tacata, Management Analyst
Agenda Title: Adopting a Resolution authorizing and approving a Notice of Completion
for Storm Drain, Traffic Signal and Related Intersection Improvements
and Accepting Storm Drain, Traffic Signal and Related Intersection
Improvements and a Resolution authorizing and approving a
Reimbursement Payment in the Amount of $286,180 and an Agreement
Regarding Reimbursement Under Disposition and Development
Agreement and Acknowledging Discharge of City Obligations
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Consider approving the following resolutions:
• Resolution 2019-091 authorizing and approving a Notice of Completion for Storm Drain,
Traffic Signal and Related Intersection Improvements and Accepting Storm Drain,
Traffic Signal and Related Intersection Improvements
• Resolution 2019-092 authorizing and approving a Reimbursement Payment in the
Amount of $286,180 and an Agreement Regarding Reimbursement Under Disposition
and Development Agreement and Acknowledging Discharge of City Obligations
BACKGROUND: On November 27, 2001, the City of Rohnert Park (“City”) and Costco
Wholesale Corporation (“Costco”) entered into Disposition and Development Agreement
(“DA”) for Costco to acquire then City-owned property and develop the Costco Warehouse
facility. The DA also provided that Costco construct various off-site improvements to serve their
development, immediately-adjacent parcels and those in the Stadium Area Master Plan. The off-
site improvements included the installation of a storm drain from the southeast corner of the
Costco parcel to Hinebaugh Creek, and a new traffic signal and related work at the intersection
of Redwood Drive and Martin Avenue. Because the DA required Costco to oversize this
infrastructure, it included provisions for Costco to be reimbursed as future development
occurred. At this point in time, the adjacent future development has proceeded and staff is
requesting that Council take several actions that will close out obligations under the DA and
allow Costco to be reimbursed.
ANALYSIS: Costco completed the off-site improvements in 2002. Section 4.9 of the DA
requires the City to provide a Certificate of Completion, in a form that could be recorded, to
demonstrate that Costco’s obligation had been satisfactorily met. The City’s project files do not
show that a Certificate of Completion was produced or recorded. In order to close out this
obligation under the DA, staff is requesting that the City Council formally accept the traffic
Mission Statement
“We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a
Better Community for Today and Tomorrow.”
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
88
ITEM NO. 6E and 6F
2
signal and storm drain improvements and authorize the filing of the Notice of Completion. The
acceptance and notice of completion are in a form similar to those approved by the City Council
for developer constructed facilities in the University District and Southeast Specific Plan Area.
Section 4.11 of the DA provides that Costco is entitled to reimbursement of their off-site
improvement costs from the developers of the other benefitting properties and also obliges the
City to impose fair-share reimbursement of Costco’s off-site improvement costs as a condition of
approval for projects on these properties. Benefitting properties include land within the City’s
Stadium Land Master Plan Area, which was historically owned by the City, and the site of the
proposed Fairfield Inn. In October 2004, Costco submitted information to the City substantiating
$453,644 in total costs of the improvements. City staff reviewed the documents and
improvement plans, verified these costs to be reasonable, and determined that of the $453,644 in
total costs, $286,180 should be reimbursed by the benefitting properties to Costco.
Based on staff’s analysis, $244,547 should be reimbursed from the City Facilities Fund which
holds the City’s proceeds from the sale of the Stadium Lands property. Staff is proposing this
funding mechanism because under its various purchase and sale agreements for the Stadium
Lands property, the City agreed as part of the overall consideration to cover the reimbursement
to Costco. The remaining fair-share reimbursement of $41,633 has been collected from the
developer of the last benefitting property (APN 143-040-120) with the building permit issuance
of the Fairfield Inn and Suites. Staff is requesting that City Council authorize these payments and
approve an Agreement Regarding Reimbursement Under Disposition and Development
Agreement and Acknowledging Discharge of City Obligations, which will be executed by the
City and Costco. The proposed resolution authorizing the reimbursement, also authorizes the
Finance Director to make budget amendments and appropriations necessary to support the
reimbursement.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: These actions are consistent with Strategic Plan Goal D-
Continue to Develop a Vibrant Community.
OPTIONS CONSIDERED: No other options were considered. The requested actions are
necessary for the City to comply with the DA, accept the improvements and book the assets.
FISCL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE: The immediate fiscal impact of the proposed action is
$286,180. The funding source will be $244,547 from the City Facilities Fund in which the sale
proceeds from the Stadium Lands is held, and $41,633 originally received in Other Income with
the building permit issuance of Fairfield Inn and Suites. As a result of accepting the
improvements, the City will incur ongoing maintenance costs for the traffic light and intersection
improvements at Redwood Drive and Martin Avenue, and the storm drain installation from the
Costco parcel to Hinebaugh Creek.
Upon acceptance, the City will receive storm drain system assets valued at $177,815. The City
will be responsible for future maintenance of these assets. Funding for the maintenance of the
storm drain system assets will be from the General Fund.
The City will also receive traffic light system assets valued at $275,829. The City will be
responsible for future maintenance of these assets. Funding for maintenance will come from
transportation-related restricted funds sourced from special revenues such as Gas Tax, Road
89
ITEM NO. 6E and 6F
3
Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (also known as “SB1” funding), or Measure M
transportation sales tax allocations, or the General Fund.
Department Head Approval Date: 07/03/2019
Finance Director Approval Date: 07/17/2019
City Attorney Approval Date: 07/15/2019
City Manager Approval Date: 07/16/2019
Attachments (list in packet assembly order):
1. Resolution 2019-091 Authorizing and Approving Notice of Completion for Storm
Drain, Traffic Signal and Related Intersection Improvements and Acceptance of
Storm Drain, Traffic Signal and Related Intersection Improvements
a. Exhibit A to Resolution – Notice of Completion for Storm Drain, Traffic
Signal and Related Intersection Improvements
b. Exhibit B to Resolution - Certificate of Acceptance for Storm Drain, Traffic
Signal and Related Intersection Improvements
2. Resolution 2019-092 Authorizing and Approving a Reimbursement Payment in the
Amount of $286,180 and an Agreement Regarding Reimbursement Under
Disposition and Development Agreement and Acknowledging Discharge of City
Obligations
a. Exhibit A to Resolution – Agreement Regarding Reimbursement Under
Disposition and Development Agreement and Acknowledging Discharge of
City Obligations
90
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-091
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING A NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF STORM
DRAIN, TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND RELATED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AND
ACCEPTING STORM DRAIN, TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND RELATED INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of Rohnert Park, a California municipal corporation (“City”), and
Costco Wholesale Corporation, a Washington Corporation (“Developer”) entered into that
certain Disposition and Development Agreement (“Development Agreement”), dated November
27, 2001; and
WHEREAS, Developer has completed construction of Improvements in accordance with
provisions of Section 4.11 Certain Improvements to be Constructed by Costco of the
Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, Developer has submitted cost documentation for the Improvements, and the
City has reviewed and audited Developer’s final cost accounting which substantiates an asset
value of $453,644.00; and
WHEREAS, accepting the completed improvements and filing the Notice of Completion
is required by the Development Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rohnert
Park as follows:
1. The City Engineer is authorized and directed to execute and file the Notice of
Completion and related documents for the Storm Drain, Traffic Signal and Related Intersection
Improvements, on behalf of the City of Rohnert Park, in substantially similar form to Exhibit A
which is attached to this Resolution and incorporated by this reference.
2. Upon the expiration of the statutory lien period associated with the recording of the
Notice of Completion, the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute the
Acceptance for the Storm Drain, Traffic Signal and Related Intersection Improvements in
substantially similar form to Exhibit B, attached to this Resolution and incorporated by this
reference.
3. Upon certification of the City Manager, the Finance Director is authorized and
directed to take the actions necessary to accept the Storm Drain, Traffic Signal and Related
Intersection Improvements, defined in the Development Agreement, as capital assets of the City
with a current book value of $453,644.00.
DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED this 23rd day of July, 2019.
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
____________________________________
Gina Belforte, Mayor
91
Resolution No. 2019-091
2
ATTEST:
______________________________
JoAnne M. Buergler, City Clerk
Attachments: Exhibit A and Exhibit B
ADAMS: _________MACKENZIE: _________ STAFFORD: _________ CALLINAN: _________ BELFORTE: _________
AYES: ( ) NOES: ( ) ABSENT: ( ) ABSTAIN: ( )
92
EXHIBIT A TO RESOUTION NO. 2019-091
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION
STORM DRAIN, TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND RELATED INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS
I, Mary Grace Pawson, City Engineer of the City of Rohnert Park, California, do hereby
certify that the work and improvements hereinafter described, the agreement for doing which was
entered into by the City of Rohnert Park (“City”) and Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Developer”),
dated November 27, 2001, was completed to my satisfaction on June 30, 2019.
That said work and improvements generally consisted of the construction of installation of
a storm drain system from the southwesterly corner of the Costco property to and including an
outfall in Hinebaugh Creek, and a traffic signal and other improvements installed at the intersection
of Redwood Drive and Martin Avenue as more particularly described in the plans and specifications
approved by the City Engineer of Rohnert Park on July 18, 2002.
DATED: _____________, 2019
____________________________________
City Engineer
93
EXHIBIT A TO RESOUTION NO. 2019-091
Return to:
City Engineer
City of Rohnert Park
130 Avram Avenue
Rohnert Park, CA 94928
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
STORM DRAIN, TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND RELATED INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN by the City of Rohnert Park, owner, a municipal
corporation located in Sonoma County, State of California, with its principal offices at City Hall,
130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park, California 94928 of the following:
That I, Mary Grace Pawson, City Engineer of the City of Rohnert Park, California on the
23rd day of July, 2019, did file with the City Clerk of the City of Rohnert Park, my Certificate of
Completion of the following described work, which was completed under a Disposition and
Development Agreement between the City of Rohnert Park (“City”) and Costco Wholesale
Corporation (“Developer”), dated November 27, 2001 as more particularly described in the plans
and specifications approved by the City Engineer of Rohnert Park on July 18, 2002
That said work and improvements were completed on July 23, 2019
That said work and improvements generally consisted of installation of a storm drain system
from the southwesterly corner of the Costco property to and including an outfall in Hinebaugh
Creek, and a traffic signal and other improvements installed at the intersection of Redwood Drive
and Martin Avenue, as more particularly described in the plans and specifications approved by the
City Engineer of Rohnert Park on July 18, 2002.
Dated: July 23, 2019 CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
_________________________________
Mary Grace Pawson, P.E.
City Engineer
The undersigned certifies that she is authorized to and does make this verification on behalf
of the City of Rohnert Park; that she has read the foregoing notice and knows the contents thereof;
and that the undersigned declares under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to
the best of her knowledge.
Executed on this 23rd of July, 2019 at Rohnert Park, California.
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
_________________________________
Mary Grace Pawson, P.E.
City Engineer
94
EXHIBIT B RESOUTION NO. 2019-091
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City of Rohnert Park
130 Avram Avenue
Rohnert Park, California 94928
(Space Above This Line for Recorder's Use Only)
Exempt from recording fee per Gov. Code § 27383.
CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
FOR STORM DRAIN, TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND RELATED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
This is to certify that the interest in certain infrastructure described as:
Installation of a storm drain system from the southwesterly corner of the Costco property (APN 143-040-107)
to and including an outfall in Hinebaugh Creek, and a traffic signal and other improvements installed at the
intersection of Redwood Drive and Martin Avenue is hereby accepted by the City Manager on behalf of the
grantee pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution No. 2019-__of the City Council of the City of Rohnert
Park adopted on , 2019.
Dated: __________________ CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
_________________________________
Darrin Jenkins
City Manager
Authorized by Rohnert Park City Council Resolution No.
_______ adopted , 2019.
ATTEST:
By:
JoAnne Buergler, City Clerk
95
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California
County of _____________________________)
On _________________________ before me, __________________________________
(insert name and title of the officer) personally appeared __________________________
_______________________________________________________________________,
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the
within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized
capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of
which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is
true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature ______________________________ (Seal)
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual
who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and no the truthfulness, accuracy, or
validity of that document.
96
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-092
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING A REIMBURSEMENT PAYMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $286,180 AND AN AGREEMENT REGARDING REIMBURSEMENT
UNDER DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND
ACKNOWLEDGING DISCHARGE OF CITY OBLIGATIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Rohnert Park, a California municipal corporation (“City”), and
Costco Wholesale Corporation, a Washington Corporation (“Developer”) entered into that
certain Disposition and Development Agreement (“Development Agreement”), dated November
27, 2001; and
WHEREAS, Developer has completed the construction of a storm drain system from the
southwesterly corner of the Costco property to and including an outfall in Hinebaugh Creek, and
a traffic signal and other improvements installed at the intersection of Redwood Drive and
Martin Avenue in accordance with the plans and specifications for the work and have requested
the City to accept the work; and
WHEREAS, Section 4.11.A. Intersection Improvements and Section 4.11.C. Drainage
Facilities of the Development Agreement sets forth that Developer is entitled to reimbursement
of the costs from developers of other properties and that the City agrees to impose such
reimbursement obligation as a condition of approval of such property, and to be reimbursed to
Developer (the “Reimbursement Payment”); and
WHEREAS, City has reviewed and audited Developer’s final cost accounting and agrees
that the actual costs incurred by developer are $453,644.00, and that $286,180.00 are costs that
should be reimbursed to Costco as the amount of the Reimbursement Payment.
WHEREAS, City wishes to remit the Reimbursement Payment to the Developer and for
the Developer to acknowledge receipt of the Reimbursement Payment and fully discharge the
City of reimbursement obligations under the Development Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rohnert
Park as follows:
1. The City Council hereby approves a reimbursement payment to Developer in the
amount of $286,180.00 to meet City’s obligations under Sections 4.11 (A) and (C) of the
Development Agreement, consisting of $244,547.00 from the Stadium Lands development, and
$41,633.00 from Fairfield Inn and Suites.
2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to enter into an Agreement Regarding
Reimbursement Under Disposition and Development Agreement and Acknowledging Discharge
of City Obligations, in substantially similar form to Exhibit A, subject to minor modifications by
the City Manager and approved by the City Attorney, and which is attached to this Resolution
and incorporated by this reference.
3. The Finance Director is authorized and directed to take the actions necessary to amend
budgets and appropriate funds to reimburse Developer for construction of improvements as
pursuant to Development Agreement.
97
Resolution 2019-092
2
DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED this 23rd day of July, 2019.
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
____________________________________
Gina Belforte, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
JoAnne M. Buergler, City Clerk
Attachments: Exhibit A
ADAMS: _________MACKENZIE: _________ STAFFORD: _________ CALLINAN: _________ BELFORTE: _________
AYES: ( ) NOES: ( ) ABSENT: ( ) ABSTAIN: ( )
98
EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. 2019-092
-1-
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City of Rohnert Park
130 Avram Avenue
Rohnert Park, CA 94928-2486
Attn: City Clerk
THE AREA ABOVE IS RESERVED FOR RECORDER'S USE
Exempt from Recording Fee per Gov’t Code section 27383
AGREEMENT REGARDING REIMBURSEMENT
UNDER DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND
ACKNOWLEDGING DISCHARGE OF CITY OBLIGATIONS
This Agreement Regarding Reimbursement Under Disposition and Development Agreement
and Acknowledging Discharge of City Obligations (the “Agreement”) is entered into as of
_____________, 20__, by the City of Rohnert Park, a California municipal corporation (“City”), and
Costco Wholesale Corporation, a Washington corporation (“Developer”).
RECITALS
A. City and Developer entered into that certain Disposition and Development Agreement
(“Development Agreement”), dated November 27, 2001.
B. City certified in that certain Notice of Completion, dated ___________ and recorded
on ___________ as Instrument No. _________ in the Official Records of Sonoma County, California,
that Developer completed construction of all things required of Developer in accordance with
provisions of the Section 4.11 Certain Improvements to be Constructed by Costco in the Development
Agreement.
C. Section 4.11.A. Intersection Improvements and Section 4.11.C. Drainage Facilities of
the Development Agreement sets forth that Developer is entitled to reimbursement of the costs from
developers of other properties and that the City agrees to impose such reimbursement obligation as a
condition of approval of such property, and to be reimbursed to Developer (the “Reimbursement
Payment”).
D. City has reviewed and audited Developer’s final cost accounting and agrees that the
actual costs incurred by developer are $453,644.00, and that $286,180.00 is the amount that should
be reimbursed to Costco as the amount of the Reimbursement Payment.
E. City desires to remit the Reimbursement Payment to the Developer and for the
Developer to acknowledge that upon City’s payment of the Reimbursement Payment, the City is fully
discharged its reimbursement obligations under the Development Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, City and Developer hereby agree as follows:
1. Reimbursement. City agrees to pay Developer the total Reimbursement Payment in the
amount of Two Hundred Eighty Six Thousand, One Hundred Eighty Dollars ($286,180) in accordance
with the terms of the Development Agreement.
2. Reimbursement Obligation Discharged; Waiver and Release. Developer agrees and
acknowledges that upon City’s payment of the Reimbursement Payment, the City’s obligations under
Section 4.11(A) and (C) of the Development Agreement are fully discharged and the City has no 99
EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. 2019-092
-2-
remaining reimbursement obligation to the Developer. As of the date of City’s payment hereunder,
Developer does hereby fully, unconditionally and completely waive, release and discharge the City
and its officials, officers, employees and agents, from any and all claims, actions, causes of action,
demands, damages, costs, liabilities, expenses (including attorneys’ fees) and compensation, of any
kind or nature, arising from the reimbursement obligations set forth in Sections 4.11(A) and (C) of the
Development Agreement.
3. Authority. The undersigned represent and warrant that they have the full capacity, right,
power and authority to execute, and deliver this Acknowledgement and all required actions, consents
and approvals therefor have been duly taken and obtained.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned duly executed this Agreement as of the date set
forth above.
CITY:
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, a California
municipal corporation
By:
Darrin Jenkins, City Manager
ATTEST:
By:
JoAnne Buergler, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
City Attorney
DEVELOPER:
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,
a Washington corporation
By:
Name:
Its:
100
EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. 2019-092
Acknowledgment
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed
the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF )
On ____________ __, 20__ before me, , Notary Public,
personally appeared , who proved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the
within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their
authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s),
or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature: (seal)
******************************
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed
the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF )
On ____________ __, 20__ before me, , Notary Public,
personally appeared , who proved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the
within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their
authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s),
or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature: (seal)
101
ITEM NO. 6E and 6F
1
Meeting Date: July 23, 2019
Department: Development Services
Submitted By: Mary Grace Pawson, Director of Development Services
Prepared By: Eydie Tacata, Management Analyst
Agenda Title: Adopting a Resolution authorizing and approving a Notice of Completion
for Storm Drain, Traffic Signal and Related Intersection Improvements
and Accepting Storm Drain, Traffic Signal and Related Intersection
Improvements and a Resolution authorizing and approving a
Reimbursement Payment in the Amount of $286,180 and an Agreement
Regarding Reimbursement Under Disposition and Development
Agreement and Acknowledging Discharge of City Obligations
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Consider approving the following resolutions:
• Resolution 2019-091 authorizing and approving a Notice of Completion for Storm Drain,
Traffic Signal and Related Intersection Improvements and Accepting Storm Drain,
Traffic Signal and Related Intersection Improvements
• Resolution 2019-092 authorizing and approving a Reimbursement Payment in the
Amount of $286,180 and an Agreement Regarding Reimbursement Under Disposition
and Development Agreement and Acknowledging Discharge of City Obligations
BACKGROUND: On November 27, 2001, the City of Rohnert Park (“City”) and Costco
Wholesale Corporation (“Costco”) entered into Disposition and Development Agreement
(“DA”) for Costco to acquire then City-owned property and develop the Costco Warehouse
facility. The DA also provided that Costco construct various off-site improvements to serve their
development, immediately-adjacent parcels and those in the Stadium Area Master Plan. The off-
site improvements included the installation of a storm drain from the southeast corner of the
Costco parcel to Hinebaugh Creek, and a new traffic signal and related work at the intersection
of Redwood Drive and Martin Avenue. Because the DA required Costco to oversize this
infrastructure, it included provisions for Costco to be reimbursed as future development
occurred. At this point in time, the adjacent future development has proceeded and staff is
requesting that Council take several actions that will close out obligations under the DA and
allow Costco to be reimbursed.
ANALYSIS: Costco completed the off-site improvements in 2002. Section 4.9 of the DA
requires the City to provide a Certificate of Completion, in a form that could be recorded, to
demonstrate that Costco’s obligation had been satisfactorily met. The City’s project files do not
show that a Certificate of Completion was produced or recorded. In order to close out this
obligation under the DA, staff is requesting that the City Council formally accept the traffic
Mission Statement
“We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a
Better Community for Today and Tomorrow.”
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
102
ITEM NO. 6E and 6F
2
signal and storm drain improvements and authorize the filing of the Notice of Completion. The
acceptance and notice of completion are in a form similar to those approved by the City Council
for developer constructed facilities in the University District and Southeast Specific Plan Area.
Section 4.11 of the DA provides that Costco is entitled to reimbursement of their off-site
improvement costs from the developers of the other benefitting properties and also obliges the
City to impose fair-share reimbursement of Costco’s off-site improvement costs as a condition of
approval for projects on these properties. Benefitting properties include land within the City’s
Stadium Land Master Plan Area, which was historically owned by the City, and the site of the
proposed Fairfield Inn. In October 2004, Costco submitted information to the City substantiating
$453,644 in total costs of the improvements. City staff reviewed the documents and
improvement plans, verified these costs to be reasonable, and determined that of the $453,644 in
total costs, $286,180 should be reimbursed by the benefitting properties to Costco.
Based on staff’s analysis, $244,547 should be reimbursed from the City Facilities Fund which
holds the City’s proceeds from the sale of the Stadium Lands property. Staff is proposing this
funding mechanism because under its various purchase and sale agreements for the Stadium
Lands property, the City agreed as part of the overall consideration to cover the reimbursement
to Costco. The remaining fair-share reimbursement of $41,633 has been collected from the
developer of the last benefitting property (APN 143-040-120) with the building permit issuance
of the Fairfield Inn and Suites. Staff is requesting that City Council authorize these payments and
approve an Agreement Regarding Reimbursement Under Disposition and Development
Agreement and Acknowledging Discharge of City Obligations, which will be executed by the
City and Costco. The proposed resolution authorizing the reimbursement, also authorizes the
Finance Director to make budget amendments and appropriations necessary to support the
reimbursement.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: These actions are consistent with Strategic Plan Goal D-
Continue to Develop a Vibrant Community.
OPTIONS CONSIDERED: No other options were considered. The requested actions are
necessary for the City to comply with the DA, accept the improvements and book the assets.
FISCL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE: The immediate fiscal impact of the proposed action is
$286,180. The funding source will be $244,547 from the City Facilities Fund in which the sale
proceeds from the Stadium Lands is held, and $41,633 originally received in Other Income with
the building permit issuance of Fairfield Inn and Suites. As a result of accepting the
improvements, the City will incur ongoing maintenance costs for the traffic light and intersection
improvements at Redwood Drive and Martin Avenue, and the storm drain installation from the
Costco parcel to Hinebaugh Creek.
Upon acceptance, the City will receive storm drain system assets valued at $177,815. The City
will be responsible for future maintenance of these assets. Funding for the maintenance of the
storm drain system assets will be from the General Fund.
The City will also receive traffic light system assets valued at $275,829. The City will be
responsible for future maintenance of these assets. Funding for maintenance will come from
transportation-related restricted funds sourced from special revenues such as Gas Tax, Road
103
ITEM NO. 6E and 6F
3
Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (also known as “SB1” funding), or Measure M
transportation sales tax allocations, or the General Fund.
Department Head Approval Date: 07/03/2019
Finance Director Approval Date: 07/17/2019
City Attorney Approval Date: 07/15/2019
City Manager Approval Date: 07/16/2019
Attachments (list in packet assembly order):
1. Resolution 2019-091 Authorizing and Approving Notice of Completion for Storm
Drain, Traffic Signal and Related Intersection Improvements and Acceptance of
Storm Drain, Traffic Signal and Related Intersection Improvements
a. Exhibit A to Resolution – Notice of Completion for Storm Drain, Traffic
Signal and Related Intersection Improvements
b. Exhibit B to Resolution - Certificate of Acceptance for Storm Drain, Traffic
Signal and Related Intersection Improvements
2. Resolution 2019-092 Authorizing and Approving a Reimbursement Payment in the
Amount of $286,180 and an Agreement Regarding Reimbursement Under
Disposition and Development Agreement and Acknowledging Discharge of City
Obligations
a. Exhibit A to Resolution – Agreement Regarding Reimbursement Under
Disposition and Development Agreement and Acknowledging Discharge of
City Obligations
104
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-091
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING A NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF STORM
DRAIN, TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND RELATED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AND
ACCEPTING STORM DRAIN, TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND RELATED INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of Rohnert Park, a California municipal corporation (“City”), and
Costco Wholesale Corporation, a Washington Corporation (“Developer”) entered into that
certain Disposition and Development Agreement (“Development Agreement”), dated November
27, 2001; and
WHEREAS, Developer has completed construction of Improvements in accordance with
provisions of Section 4.11 Certain Improvements to be Constructed by Costco of the
Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, Developer has submitted cost documentation for the Improvements, and the
City has reviewed and audited Developer’s final cost accounting which substantiates an asset
value of $453,644.00; and
WHEREAS, accepting the completed improvements and filing the Notice of Completion
is required by the Development Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rohnert
Park as follows:
1. The City Engineer is authorized and directed to execute and file the Notice of
Completion and related documents for the Storm Drain, Traffic Signal and Related Intersection
Improvements, on behalf of the City of Rohnert Park, in substantially similar form to Exhibit A
which is attached to this Resolution and incorporated by this reference.
2. Upon the expiration of the statutory lien period associated with the recording of the
Notice of Completion, the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute the
Acceptance for the Storm Drain, Traffic Signal and Related Intersection Improvements in
substantially similar form to Exhibit B, attached to this Resolution and incorporated by this
reference.
3. Upon certification of the City Manager, the Finance Director is authorized and
directed to take the actions necessary to accept the Storm Drain, Traffic Signal and Related
Intersection Improvements, defined in the Development Agreement, as capital assets of the City
with a current book value of $453,644.00.
DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED this 23rd day of July, 2019.
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
____________________________________
Gina Belforte, Mayor
105
Resolution No. 2019-091
2
ATTEST:
______________________________
JoAnne M. Buergler, City Clerk
Attachments: Exhibit A and Exhibit B
ADAMS: _________MACKENZIE: _________ STAFFORD: _________ CALLINAN: _________ BELFORTE: _________
AYES: ( ) NOES: ( ) ABSENT: ( ) ABSTAIN: ( )
106
EXHIBIT A TO RESOUTION NO. 2019-091
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION
STORM DRAIN, TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND RELATED INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS
I, Mary Grace Pawson, City Engineer of the City of Rohnert Park, California, do hereby
certify that the work and improvements hereinafter described, the agreement for doing which was
entered into by the City of Rohnert Park (“City”) and Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Developer”),
dated November 27, 2001, was completed to my satisfaction on June 30, 2019.
That said work and improvements generally consisted of the construction of installation of
a storm drain system from the southwesterly corner of the Costco property to and including an
outfall in Hinebaugh Creek, and a traffic signal and other improvements installed at the intersection
of Redwood Drive and Martin Avenue as more particularly described in the plans and specifications
approved by the City Engineer of Rohnert Park on July 18, 2002.
DATED: _____________, 2019
____________________________________
City Engineer
107
EXHIBIT A TO RESOUTION NO. 2019-091
Return to:
City Engineer
City of Rohnert Park
130 Avram Avenue
Rohnert Park, CA 94928
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
STORM DRAIN, TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND RELATED INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN by the City of Rohnert Park, owner, a municipal
corporation located in Sonoma County, State of California, with its principal offices at City Hall,
130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park, California 94928 of the following:
That I, Mary Grace Pawson, City Engineer of the City of Rohnert Park, California on the
23rd day of July, 2019, did file with the City Clerk of the City of Rohnert Park, my Certificate of
Completion of the following described work, which was completed under a Disposition and
Development Agreement between the City of Rohnert Park (“City”) and Costco Wholesale
Corporation (“Developer”), dated November 27, 2001 as more particularly described in the plans
and specifications approved by the City Engineer of Rohnert Park on July 18, 2002
That said work and improvements were completed on July 23, 2019
That said work and improvements generally consisted of installation of a storm drain system
from the southwesterly corner of the Costco property to and including an outfall in Hinebaugh
Creek, and a traffic signal and other improvements installed at the intersection of Redwood Drive
and Martin Avenue, as more particularly described in the plans and specifications approved by the
City Engineer of Rohnert Park on July 18, 2002.
Dated: July 23, 2019 CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
_________________________________
Mary Grace Pawson, P.E.
City Engineer
The undersigned certifies that she is authorized to and does make this verification on behalf
of the City of Rohnert Park; that she has read the foregoing notice and knows the contents thereof;
and that the undersigned declares under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to
the best of her knowledge.
Executed on this 23rd of July, 2019 at Rohnert Park, California.
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
_________________________________
Mary Grace Pawson, P.E.
City Engineer
108
EXHIBIT B RESOUTION NO. 2019-091
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City of Rohnert Park
130 Avram Avenue
Rohnert Park, California 94928
(Space Above This Line for Recorder's Use Only)
Exempt from recording fee per Gov. Code § 27383.
CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
FOR STORM DRAIN, TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND RELATED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
This is to certify that the interest in certain infrastructure described as:
Installation of a storm drain system from the southwesterly corner of the Costco property (APN 143-040-107)
to and including an outfall in Hinebaugh Creek, and a traffic signal and other improvements installed at the
intersection of Redwood Drive and Martin Avenue is hereby accepted by the City Manager on behalf of the
grantee pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution No. 2019-__of the City Council of the City of Rohnert
Park adopted on , 2019.
Dated: __________________ CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
_________________________________
Darrin Jenkins
City Manager
Authorized by Rohnert Park City Council Resolution No.
_______ adopted , 2019.
ATTEST:
By:
JoAnne Buergler, City Clerk
109
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California
County of _____________________________)
On _________________________ before me, __________________________________
(insert name and title of the officer) personally appeared __________________________
_______________________________________________________________________,
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the
within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized
capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of
which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is
true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature ______________________________ (Seal)
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual
who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and no the truthfulness, accuracy, or
validity of that document.
110
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-092
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING A REIMBURSEMENT PAYMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $286,180 AND AN AGREEMENT REGARDING REIMBURSEMENT
UNDER DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND
ACKNOWLEDGING DISCHARGE OF CITY OBLIGATIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Rohnert Park, a California municipal corporation (“City”), and
Costco Wholesale Corporation, a Washington Corporation (“Developer”) entered into that
certain Disposition and Development Agreement (“Development Agreement”), dated November
27, 2001; and
WHEREAS, Developer has completed the construction of a storm drain system from the
southwesterly corner of the Costco property to and including an outfall in Hinebaugh Creek, and
a traffic signal and other improvements installed at the intersection of Redwood Drive and
Martin Avenue in accordance with the plans and specifications for the work and have requested
the City to accept the work; and
WHEREAS, Section 4.11.A. Intersection Improvements and Section 4.11.C. Drainage
Facilities of the Development Agreement sets forth that Developer is entitled to reimbursement
of the costs from developers of other properties and that the City agrees to impose such
reimbursement obligation as a condition of approval of such property, and to be reimbursed to
Developer (the “Reimbursement Payment”); and
WHEREAS, City has reviewed and audited Developer’s final cost accounting and agrees
that the actual costs incurred by developer are $453,644.00, and that $286,180.00 are costs that
should be reimbursed to Costco as the amount of the Reimbursement Payment.
WHEREAS, City wishes to remit the Reimbursement Payment to the Developer and for
the Developer to acknowledge receipt of the Reimbursement Payment and fully discharge the
City of reimbursement obligations under the Development Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rohnert
Park as follows:
1. The City Council hereby approves a reimbursement payment to Developer in the
amount of $286,180.00 to meet City’s obligations under Sections 4.11 (A) and (C) of the
Development Agreement, consisting of $244,547.00 from the Stadium Lands development, and
$41,633.00 from Fairfield Inn and Suites.
2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to enter into an Agreement Regarding
Reimbursement Under Disposition and Development Agreement and Acknowledging Discharge
of City Obligations, in substantially similar form to Exhibit A, subject to minor modifications by
the City Manager and approved by the City Attorney, and which is attached to this Resolution
and incorporated by this reference.
3. The Finance Director is authorized and directed to take the actions necessary to amend
budgets and appropriate funds to reimburse Developer for construction of improvements as
pursuant to Development Agreement.
111
Resolution 2019-092
2
DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED this 23rd day of July, 2019.
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
____________________________________
Gina Belforte, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
JoAnne M. Buergler, City Clerk
Attachments: Exhibit A
ADAMS: _________MACKENZIE: _________ STAFFORD: _________ CALLINAN: _________ BELFORTE: _________
AYES: ( ) NOES: ( ) ABSENT: ( ) ABSTAIN: ( )
112
EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. 2019-092
-1-
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City of Rohnert Park
130 Avram Avenue
Rohnert Park, CA 94928-2486
Attn: City Clerk
THE AREA ABOVE IS RESERVED FOR RECORDER'S USE
Exempt from Recording Fee per Gov’t Code section 27383
AGREEMENT REGARDING REIMBURSEMENT
UNDER DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND
ACKNOWLEDGING DISCHARGE OF CITY OBLIGATIONS
This Agreement Regarding Reimbursement Under Disposition and Development Agreement
and Acknowledging Discharge of City Obligations (the “Agreement”) is entered into as of
_____________, 20__, by the City of Rohnert Park, a California municipal corporation (“City”), and
Costco Wholesale Corporation, a Washington corporation (“Developer”).
RECITALS
A. City and Developer entered into that certain Disposition and Development Agreement
(“Development Agreement”), dated November 27, 2001.
B. City certified in that certain Notice of Completion, dated ___________ and recorded
on ___________ as Instrument No. _________ in the Official Records of Sonoma County, California,
that Developer completed construction of all things required of Developer in accordance with
provisions of the Section 4.11 Certain Improvements to be Constructed by Costco in the Development
Agreement.
C. Section 4.11.A. Intersection Improvements and Section 4.11.C. Drainage Facilities of
the Development Agreement sets forth that Developer is entitled to reimbursement of the costs from
developers of other properties and that the City agrees to impose such reimbursement obligation as a
condition of approval of such property, and to be reimbursed to Developer (the “Reimbursement
Payment”).
D. City has reviewed and audited Developer’s final cost accounting and agrees that the
actual costs incurred by developer are $453,644.00, and that $286,180.00 is the amount that should
be reimbursed to Costco as the amount of the Reimbursement Payment.
E. City desires to remit the Reimbursement Payment to the Developer and for the
Developer to acknowledge that upon City’s payment of the Reimbursement Payment, the City is fully
discharged its reimbursement obligations under the Development Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, City and Developer hereby agree as follows:
1. Reimbursement. City agrees to pay Developer the total Reimbursement Payment in the
amount of Two Hundred Eighty Six Thousand, One Hundred Eighty Dollars ($286,180) in accordance
with the terms of the Development Agreement.
2. Reimbursement Obligation Discharged; Waiver and Release. Developer agrees and
acknowledges that upon City’s payment of the Reimbursement Payment, the City’s obligations under
Section 4.11(A) and (C) of the Development Agreement are fully discharged and the City has no 113
EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. 2019-092
-2-
remaining reimbursement obligation to the Developer. As of the date of City’s payment hereunder,
Developer does hereby fully, unconditionally and completely waive, release and discharge the City
and its officials, officers, employees and agents, from any and all claims, actions, causes of action,
demands, damages, costs, liabilities, expenses (including attorneys’ fees) and compensation, of any
kind or nature, arising from the reimbursement obligations set forth in Sections 4.11(A) and (C) of the
Development Agreement.
3. Authority. The undersigned represent and warrant that they have the full capacity, right,
power and authority to execute, and deliver this Acknowledgement and all required actions, consents
and approvals therefor have been duly taken and obtained.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned duly executed this Agreement as of the date set
forth above.
CITY:
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, a California
municipal corporation
By:
Darrin Jenkins, City Manager
ATTEST:
By:
JoAnne Buergler, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
City Attorney
DEVELOPER:
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,
a Washington corporation
By:
Name:
Its:
114
EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. 2019-092
Acknowledgment
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed
the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF )
On ____________ __, 20__ before me, , Notary Public,
personally appeared , who proved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the
within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their
authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s),
or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature: (seal)
******************************
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed
the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF )
On ____________ __, 20__ before me, , Notary Public,
personally appeared , who proved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the
within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their
authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s),
or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature: (seal)
115
ITEM NO. 6G
OAK #4826-1280-6557 v1
Meeting Date: July 23, 2019
Department: City Attorney
Submitted By: Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney
Agenda Title: Approve Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park
Authorizing City Manager to Execute Settlement Agreement and
Release between Aura Wise, Ross Long, and the City of Rohnert Park
RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion, approve resolution of the City Council of the City of
Rohnert Park authorizing the City Manager to execute the Settlement Agreement and Release
between Aura Wise, Ross Long, and the City of Rohnert Park.
BACKGROUND: On July 30, 2018, Plaintiff Ed Muegge filed a Complaint for Injunctive Relief,
Declaratory Relief, and Monetary Damages against Defendants City of Rohnert Park (“City”)
and the Good Nite Inn Rohnert Park (the “Inn”). Mr. Muegge subsequently passed away and his
daughter, Aura Wise, was permitted to substitute into the case on his behalf. On January 5, 2019,
a second plaintiff, Ross Long, who is represented by Mr. Muegge’s and Ms. Wise’s attorney,
also filed a Complaint containing the same allegations and seeking the same relief against the
City, the Inn, and the Burger King and Taco Bell that are adjacent to the Inn, along Redwood
Drive in Rohnert Park (collectively, the “Private Defendants”).
Both Complaints state causes of action against the City for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Section 504 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act (“Rehabilitation
Act”), and against the Private Defendants for violations of the ADA and related state disability
access statutes, among other claims.
Following discussions and negotiations, including a mediation, between litigation counsel for the
City and counsel for Plaintiffs and the Private Defendants, both Plaintiffs have agreed to release
all claims, including damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs and dismiss the City from both lawsuits
for a total payment of Nineteen Thousand One Hundred Dollars ($19,100.00) and the City’s
agreement to modify the driveway apron to bring it into compliance with current ADA standards
and the California Building Code within six months of approval of this settlement.
OPTIONS CONSIDERED: The City Attorney’s office has evaluated the costs and benefits of
securing a settlement and a release on those terms and has determined that this is a reasonable
compromise that limits liability and future litigation costs for the City.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE: The costs to the City to resolve this litigation are those
costs that are needed to complete the modifications to the subject driveway apron, which are
estimated by the City Engineer to be no more than $25,000. If the driveway modification
settlement term is approved by the Council, the monetary payment to Plaintiffs of $19,100 would
be paid by the Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund.
Mission Statement
“We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a
Better Community for Today and Tomorrow.”
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
116
ITEM NO. 6G
OAK #4826-1280-6557 v1 2
Department Head Approval Date: N/A
City Manager Approval Date: 7/17/2019
City Attorney Approval Date: 7/17/2019
Attachments (list in packet assembly order):
1. Resolution 2019-093Authorizing City Manager to Execute the Settlement Agreement and
General Release Between Aura Wise, Ross Long, and the City of Rohnert Park
117
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-093
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
AND GENERAL RELEASE BETWEEN AURA WISE, ROSS LONG, AND THE CITY
OF ROHNERT PARK
WHEREAS, on July 30, 2018, Plaintiff, Ed Muegge, filed a Complaint for, Injunctive,
Declaratory, and Monetary Relief (“Complaint”) against Defendants City of Rohnert Park
(“City”) and the Good Nite Inn Rohnert Park.
WHEREAS, Mr. Muegge subsequently passed away and his daughter, Aura Wise, was
permitted to substitute into the case on his behalf.
WHEREAS, on January 5, 2019, a second plaintiff, Ross Long, (hereinafter Aura Wise
and Ross Long will be referred to collectively as “Plaintiffs”) also filed a Complaint containing
the same allegations and seeking the same relief against the City, the Inn, and the Burger King
and Taco Bell (collectively, the “Defendants”).
WHEREAS, the Complaints state causes of action against the City for violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Section 504 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act
(“Rehabilitation Act”).
WHEREAS, following a mediation between the parties, Plaintiffs have agreed to release
all claims, including damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs and dismiss the City from both lawsuits
for a total payment of Nineteen Thousand One Hundred Dollars ($19,100.00) and the City’s
agreement to modify the driveway apron to bring it into compliance with current ADA standards
and the California Building Code within six months of approval of this settlement; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to resolve all claims associated with this action and enter
into the Settlement Agreement and General Release attached to this resolution as Exhibit A and
incorporated herein by reference (“Settlement Agreement”).
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Rohnert
Park does hereby resolve, determine, find and order as follows:
SECTION 1. Approval of Agreement. The Settlement Agreement between Plaintiffs and
the City is hereby approved.
SECTION 2. Authorization. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the
Settlement Agreement in substantially similar form to the attached Exhibit A, subject to
minor modification by the City Manager or City Attorney.
118
Resolution 2019-093 2
DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED this 23rd day of July, 2019.
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
Gina Belforte, Mayor
ATTEST:
JoAnne M. Buergler, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney
Attachments: Exhibit A – Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release
ADAMS: _________MACKENZIE: _________ STAFFORD: _________ CALLINAN: _________ BELFORTE: _________
AYES: ( ) NOES: ( ) ABSENT: ( ) ABSTAIN: ( )
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
University District Specific Plan
Bristol Property Area
Street Name Change
City of Rohnert Park
City Council
July 23, 2019
Ohana Circle
Keiser Avenue
Ohana Circle
Recommended Action
Rescinding Resolution 2015-046
approving street names for the Vast Oak
Area of the University District Specific
Plan and approving the proposed street
name for the Bristol Property Area of the
University District Specific Plan while
retaining the already approved Vast Oak
Area street names.
ITEM NO.7A
1
Meeting Date: July 23, 2019
Department: Development Services
Submitted By: Mary Grace Pawson, Director of Development Services
Prepared By: Jeffrey S. Beiswenger, Planning Manager
Agenda Title: Consideration of a Street Name for the Bristol Property Area of the
University District Specific Plan
_____________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the proposed street name for the Bristol
Property Area of the University District Specific Plan. In order to take this action, the following
motion is required:
1. Adoption of Resolution 2019-094 Rescinding Resolution 2015-046 Approving Street
Names For The Vast Oak Area of the University District Specific Plan and Approving
New Street Names for the Bristol Property Area of the University District Specific Plan
BACKGROUND:
On March 10, 2015, the City Council reviewed and approved the current list of street names for
the Vast Oak Area of the University District Specific Plan. The list of street names in the
University District Specific Plan has not been amended since that time. One new street name is
proposed to be added for the Bristol Property Area:
•Ohana Circle (at the eastern entry to the project off of Keiser Avenue)
A copy of the final map is included as Attachment B to this staff report for reference. The new
street name has been added in bold on Exhibit A to the resolution (List of Street Names for the
University District Specific Plan).
OPTIONS:
1. Recommended: Add “Ohana Circle” to the list of approved street names by rescinding
the prior list and adopting a revised list of street names inclusive of the Bristol Property
Area. This is accomplished by adopting Resolution No. 2019-094. Note that existing
street names cannot be changed.
2.Alternative 1: Select an alternative street name acceptable to Public Safety for dispatch
purposes. Oak Circle has been vetted and would be acceptable.
3.Alternative 2: Select an alternative street name not vetted by Public Safety. Not
recommended since this could delay the address assignment process.
Mission Statement
“We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a
Better Community for Today and Tomorrow.”
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
126
ITEM NO. 7A
2
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The adoption of street names is not a Project under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), as general policy and procedure making and not subject to CEQA.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE:
None
Department Head Approval Date: 07/12/2019
Finance Director Approval Date: N/A
City Attorney Approval Date: N/A
City Manager Approval Date: 07/15/2019
Attachments (list in packet assembly order):
A.Resolution 2019-094 Rescinding Resolution 2015-046 Approving Street Names For The Vast
Oak Area of the University District Specific Plan and Approving New Street Names for the
Bristol Property Area of the University District Specific Plan
1.Exhibit A – List of Street Names for the University District Specific Plan.
B.Map
127
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-094
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
RESCINDING RESOLUTION 2015-046 APPROVING STREET NAMES FOR THE
VAST OAK AREA OF THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN AND
APPROVING NEW STREET NAMES FOR THE BRISTOL PROPERTY AREA OF
THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN
WHEREAS, the developer, Signature Homes, has submitted a list of street names for the
City Council’s consideration; and
WHEREAS, the street names have been reviewed by various interested City departments
for names that are similar to other street names in the city and names that could be confusing to
Public Safety dispatchers; and
WHEREAS, the street names between Rohnert Park Expressway and Hinebaugh Creek
begin with the letter “K” and the streets between Hinebaugh Creek and Keiser Avenue begin
with the letter “O” to conform with the policy regarding naming streets in residential
developments within the Specific Plan Areas; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of street names is not a Project under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as general policy and procedure making and not subject to
CEQA.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rohnert
Park, that the recitals hereto are true and correct and material to this Resolution;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby rescind previously
approved street names for the “K and “O” sections of the University District Specific Plan and
approves street names for the Bristol Property Area of the University District Specific Plan
attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference, subject to minor modifications
which may arise in the review process.
DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED this _____ day of ________________, 20__.
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
____________________________________
Gina Belforte, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
JoAnne M. Buergler, City Clerk
Attachment: Exhibit A
ADAMS: _________ MACKENZIE: _________ STAFFORD: _________CALLINAN: _________ BELFORTE: _________
AYES: ( ) NOES: ( ) ABSENT: ( ) ABSTAIN: ( )
128
Exhibit A to Resolution 2019-094
Proposed Street Names that Start with “K”
Names
1 Kaitlyn Place
2 Kameron Place
3 Karen Place
4 Karleigh Place
5 Karrington Road
6 Kassandra Place
7 Kasey Place
8 Kassidy Place
9 Keats Place
10 Keegan Place
11 Kelliann Place
12 Kelly Place
13 Kelsey Place
14 Kendal Place
15 Kendra Place
16 Kennedy Place
17 Kenneth Place
18 Kyle Place
19 Kensington Place
20 Kenton Place
21 Kenwood Place
22 Kerry Road
23 Kevin Place
24 Kite Place
25 Kingwood Road
26 Kincade Place
27 King Place
28 Kingfisher Place
29 Kirby Place
30 Kittyhawk Place
31 Knight Road
32 Kim Place
33 Kolton Place
34 Kristina Place
Proposed Street Names that Start with “O”
Names
1 Oasis Place
2 O’Ryan Road
3 Ocean Place
4 Ohana Circle
5 Olive Place
6 Olympic Place
7 Orchard Place
8 Otter Place
9 Oak Leaf Place
10 Overlook Place
11 Owen Place
12 Oxford Place
129
FND RAILROAD SPIKE __ ) ________ L _______ l_ _______ l_ _______ j_ _______ _l ________ I ___ SOUTH OF CL-41#5'�-\l..:: ---SEE DETAIL C SEE DETAIL B \0,74' R-5)
� i ""� THIS SHEET." -•• -•• -·• -·. -•• -• --··-··-"" -"" -• ·-· .N89'24'36"E.891.01.'.BNDY •• -·· -• "-·· -•• -··-"" -••-•• --·-· -----••-,-. --"" T-H-IS
""=
S-H-,
EE
..,.
T_,.__.-6:-c=c11,(!,I Y42(1.04'123,73',, • 758.09' • I 109.19' I I I � KEISER AVENUE � _.: __ _J. ,,..,,i� - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - ,_____ -- --- - - --- - - - - - - - - - - --t°:'�� i:! "' 6.00' Pfs���\FC N09'2 4 '36"E 6 1 4 ,1 1 N 6 9 '2 4 '36'E 6 1 4.26' C �;l ' \
/
I I I isl�.
. ,·� O> • "'1i! "'•"'
�I C\JI � z, I I•.I
i,:;":: �.;: ----s2.11·--s :z "'• 90.QO' 90.00' 90.00' 90.00' 90.00' 90.00' "'' I R=20.00' , "'J, 22, R=20.00 ' 0 600.00' !'-26, � 26, 1 A •so•oo·oo · _0_1
II t::r�:: 580 � : 4682� SF ; 4682� SF : 46J� SF 8 4682� SF : 46B�r SF ; 468�� Sf i; 21 �, 1, � L=:;�i{SF �: � � -4135± SF � " I"' � l-3'PUE. , "'• PARCEL A � �189'24'36•E HB9'24'36'E NB9'24'36'E N89'24'36'E NB9'24'36'E 1189"2�'36'E li89"24'36'E • , �69'24'31'E J � i 9839t SF :ll so.co• � : so.oo· � so.oo· : � _ so.co· � 90.00· ;,: : so.oo· � so.oo· : ; :] :l-'j---='"'"8-"1"".9-c0'-, ---"----', .. . L �g I .... I "'8 ..... �g I ;,.. 0"' I -0 _, ,.1 ; :468�� SF � ci 1 4662r SF ; : 4682: SF , ri � 468�� SF �: 468�� SF � si , 468�� SF �: 416�� SF : ;/; �I ! ;448!� SF 8•
�, li! � I 24 PAE, PUE WlE 1;>"' : :!Ii! I 24 ' PAE POE WLE i1 : 24 PAE, POE, WlE � ; f !::• � II ij :-tl89.24'36'E N90"24'38'E N89•24'39'E NB9'24'36'E N89'24'36'E N89'24'36"E N89'2�'36'E !189'2�'36'E "' �, e j - -N89'24 '31 "E !;'I i 3• PUE 92.07' 90.00' I 90.00' 90.00' I I 90.00' 90.00' I I 90.00" 80.00' 3, PUE-I_ �I 1-,----e..c=..,--=-c...:;,;...J--� �' � 49�SF f" iLJ I O � � 0 � � f � �I � ::����f :�.. 2!i�,· 22, f :::i���'.44 , � � 495iJ sf : � ... -
:
4952� SF 1� ; 4952� SF : :l I 4 952� SF ; 495�� SF : g : 495�! SF 1� � � 431�� SF 1 26, r-�----a���·,!!', 04.. �,·� , \ L•31.69' � I I "' I "'I I :81 "'� /�0 !::-L�0.94' 437��SF,�
I �---72.$$'.-------90.00'------•---90.00'--------90,00'------90,00'---------90.00'------90,00'------6.0.00'----"\li,n<:/,'�<:;:,"'>"'_, lr-i;l':-i-j I ·•• - '" "'· N89'24 '30'E NS9'24'36"E ·672.55' t-,"''bti �,-i , ?S.SS' ,w I • u, \,� I J / ',J/�r���1.9:\!I�);% �----=---------------------------------NB9'24'36"E 761.17' M-M ·-------------------------r"' ___ j � a=53'0B'05" :�
--s4.24•----s2.oo·----52,00·----52.00·--OHANA CIRCLE --52.00·--
_: ( 6.77') � 1 1 L�s1.01· :..lo CCI �'r,,j / � z
��so•20"30 , ;:: I 7,72' �-s2.oo·--NB9"24'36"E 734.49' N: tl" '24' I 17 ffi: --52.00•----52.00•--
-
-52.00·----52.00•----52.oo·-----52.oo"---1--52.oo•·----4e,52·--,c' R�55•00� ,-,PA 6262±SF I � C2 / L==46.3'2' ,,' CC o.. -I C3 , I-N __ .....__N _89_"_24_'_32_"_E ___ _, I���"' .... ,g:: 0 1 i � "' 4429± SF "' . "' -
0 <D 2 4240± SF 0
l, 7.72'
-z:CEL
-
��!'. 52.00'
621± SF
REFERENCE: (R-1) (R-2) (R-3) (R-4) (R-5) (R-6) (R-7) (R-8) (R-9)
(R-10) (R-11)
(R-12) (R-13) (R-14) (R-15) (R-16) (R-17)
RECORD OF SURVEY 525 M 37 THE FOOTHILLS SUBDIVISION 276 M 9 RECORD OF SURVEY 648 M 21 CONTROL & ROW 128 M 21 RECORD OF SURVEY 483 M 41 RECORD or SURVEY 283 M 38 DOC I 19940093626 RANCHO SONOMA UNIT No.3 257 M 21 SUBDIVISION ROHNERT PARK MEDICAL CENTER 285 M 8 ROHNERT PARK PM No.85 34 7 M I REDWOOD PARK ESTATES A.P.U.D. 297 M 34 PARCEL MAP No.172 647 M 18 RECORD OF SURVEY 115 M 19 RECORD OF SURVEY 129 M 18 ROHNERT PARK PM No.30 24 7 M 38 VAST OAK PHASE I -A 77 4 M 5 DOC I 201405 7994
I FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY]
;o �. "' <D -<D "' . "' -
0 <D � .... ;,: �-� f -"'' ...J· 100. 78'
� � � � � C') � �ac �r--3 4275± SF "'"' -"' "' ."'"'
0 <D 4 4311± SF N"' . "' "' ."'"' " <D 5 4346± SF � M V -
-0,6 �lO rJ :;j 4382± SF r! i, 1 � re 4417± SF � �
� � � {O � ¢ � (") V -� 0) fgf� ,. �.: 8 LO CJ? 9 Ill � 10 ;,., ': 11 LO � 12 � r:. 13 LO � ;.,:� � g• a.i 4453± SF ;' :fl 4469± SF � gi 4524± SF ;' S; 4560± SF ;' :i1 4595± SF rJ l8 4631± SF "'lll 14 f'l:ll m 15 ;_Js,, -
52.00' __ s2.;o.o_· _
0 O z z 0 z � c o O O O 4666± SF �l 0 a:, 4610± SF .:-1¢ � z z z 2 z :z,� �1 :'I co Z1u, CO r 0 z
16 6963± SF
52.00' 52.00' 52.00' 52.00' 0 NB9-'50'14'W890�97"':""'iiNDY-- ------------5�.:.!!2.'. --- E,;21!,
' -- - �
o� -52.00' ------99. B4' "II ----------I
LEGEND -• • -BOUNDARY LINE RIGHT OF WAY LINE
:crr.!\Tl-l<DHNU<T PA�K LJ;\)IJ,-l�D SCH:,o_ DISTh.'ICT D!JC 199 J -GS�rJ90 Curve Curve # Radius Table SEE DETAIL A J "" .Ji. THIS SHEET Delta Length
••••• •• ••,,!11€t.tl'�!MlibJ.llitit"J��tt!"t ----LOT LINE/PARCEL LINE EASEMENT LINE C1 30.00" 17'38 • so• 9.24' I I I ••
m I I
16 6963± SF
I LU > '" a i�: •o. •2R_____ _J NB9'50'14"YI , N0"10'54"E
99.84 1 BNDY l0.4B'
I I M--,-----1 428.04' R • I KEISER : AVENUE I
I I • -l._a:-46-:-� I II! ii •I .... --�-----J .l!i!IJMtM•�WINtl*Wlilf&UM!lilliD, DETAIL C SCALE: 1 "=20' DETAIL A SCALE: 1 "= 1' DETAIL B SCALE: 1 "=20'
BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE BEARING N00'01 '44'W AS SHOWN BETWEEN FOUND MONUMENTS ON THE RECORD OF SURVEY Fl LEO IN BOOK 525 OF MAPS AT PAGES 37 ·39, SONOMA COUNTY RECOR OS, PET #5 TO PET #1 IN THE C/L OF PETALUMA HILL ROAD.
®
@ • li>BNDY CL EX M PL PAE PUE WLE
(R) ( ) (R-1) SFNF
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY /PROPERTY LINE EXISTING EASEMENT LINE MONUMENT LINE FOUND STANDARD CITY STREET MONUMENT SET STANDARD CITY STREET MONUMENT STAMPED "LS 6617' FOUND 3/4" IRON PIPE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ANGLE POINT BOUNDARY CENTERLINE EXISTING MONUMENT PROPERTY LINE PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT WATERLINE EASEMENT RADIAL BEARING PULLBACK DISTANCE REFERENCE SEARCHED FOR NOT FOUND 0 20· 40 SCALE: 1 "=40' BO
C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
30.00' 6'39'20" 3.46' 30.00' 10"59'30' 5. 76' 20.00' ; 90'00'00" 31.42' 20.00' 45'34' 23" 15.91' 20.00' 44"25'37" 15.51'
BRISTOL PROPERTY
A SUBDIVISION OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED DOCUMENT NO. 2014057994 SONOMA COUNTY RECORDS
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK COUNTY OF SONOMA -STATE OF CALIFORNIA 42 LOTS 6.94 ACRES macKAY & som,s rnc1�EC'1S "IA�NER:S Sl,1N[YORS 51420 rR,,IJMLIIJ OR fU�A_",TCII, C� 94S88 (925)225-0G9:J
03-Ei-2019 11 5'.Jam l.:;n Ma::Donald �.\IS N\, 'l\•'-"'�•'C\l�VV-04.DWG MARCH 2019 SHEET 4 or 4 19907.010
O
H
A
N
A
C
I
R
C
L
E
OH
A
N
A
C
I
R
C
L
E
Exhibit B
130
ITEM NO. 7B
1
Meeting Date: July 23, 2019
Department: Development Services
Submitted By: Mary Grace Pawson, Development Services Director
Prepared By: Mary Grace Pawson, Development Services Director
Agenda Title: Discussion and Direction on Lacrosse Striping at the Sunrise Park All Weather
Field
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide staff with direction on Council’s preferred option for lacrosse
striping at the Sunrise Park all weather field.
BACKGROUND: In 2010, the City of Rohnert Park approved the Sonoma Mountain Village Planned
Development. The approval included a Development Agreement (DA) between the City and Sonoma
Mountain Village LLC and KDRP LLC, the developer parties at the time. The DA provides for orderly
development of the property in accordance with an approved development plan and outlines rights and
responsibilities of the developer and the City. Among other things, the DA provided that the developer
would construct an all-weather field as part of its project. Exhibit K to the DA included the
specifications for the all-weather field including the requirement that:
“The field shall be permanently striped for soccer but shall be designed to accommodate football,
lacrosse, rugby and ultimate Frisbee”.
The Sonoma Mountain Village Planned Development has not proceeded on the schedule. As a result of
these delays and some reorganization of the developer’s interests, the DA was formally amended three
times. The Third Amendment dealt specifically with all-weather field and:
1. allowed the developer to relocate the field from its site to the City’s Sunrise Park;
2. established a milestone schedule for completing the field, which included liquidated damages;
3. recognized that the developer had placed $2.3 million in escrow for its use to construct the field
and directed the administration of this funding; and
4. modified Exhibit K, which describes the field, to include requirements for a score board.
At this point in time, the developer is nearing completion on the field and the City Council has
requested that staff investigate options for striping the field for lacrosse play.
ANALYSIS: Staff has identified three options for adding lacrosse striping to the Sunrise Park all-
weather field these include semi-permanent paint, permanent paint and permanent sewn-in striping.
“Ecostripe” is a water based product which can be used to stripe lines that will last for approximately 4
months and which can be removed immediately with a companion remover and water. The lacrosse
season runs for approximately five months, during winter and spring and staff estimates striping would
need to be refreshed monthly. “Ecostripe” is available for a cost of approximately $30 per case, which
Mission Statement
“We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a
Better Community for Today and Tomorrow.”
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
131
ITEM NO. 7B
2
is enough paint to stripe a regulation field, once. Paint for the entire season would likely cost $200 to
$300.
“Durastripe” is a permanent paint product suitable for all weather fields. “Durastripe” is available for
approximately $35 per case.
FieldTurf, the supplier of the field surface provided staff with an estimate for permanently installing
lacrosse striping consistent with “unified boys’ and girls’ lacrosse field” standards. This is one set of
lacrosse stripes. The estimate is $55,160.16 and reflects the labor intensive nature of this work –
approximately $5,500 of the cost is associated with materials and the rest is for labor and equipment.
Staff has also reached out to the local lacrosse club. The club currently plays on painted lines at
Rancho Cotate High School but would prefer permanently sewn-in striping for both boys’ lines and
girls’ lines (not the unified field standard). While staff does not believe that this will double the price
of sewn-in lines, accommodating this preference is likely to exceed the $55,000 estimate provided by
FieldTurf.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Completing the Sunrise Park all-weather field is part of the
current strategic action plan. As noted above, the developer is nearing completion of its obligated
construction project.
OPTIONS CONSIDERED:
1. Recommended Option: Given that the all-weather field is a new addition to the City’s
recreational system, staff recommends using the “Ecostripe” paint option for the first season.
This option is low cost and low commitment and would provide the City and the sports leagues
with the opportunity evaluate the performance of the paint option before committing additional
resources. The City can always adjust its approach in the future based on how the field is used
and how the paint performs.
2. Alternative: Council could also direct staff to implement the permanent paint option or the
permanent stripe option.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE: There is no direct fiscal impact from this item. If Council
elects to proceed with painted striping of the field, the fiscal impact would be under $500 per year in
materials together with staff time necessary to complete the striping. This could be accommodated
within the Public Work’s operational budget.
If Council elects to proceed with permanent sewn-in striping, staff would need to consult further with
the field users to confirm the actual line pattern being sought and would need to secure a revised
estimate from FieldTurf. Staff would need to return to the City Council with a budget amendment to
fund this option.
Department Head Approval Date: 07/11/2019
Finance Director Approval Date: NA
City Attorney Approval Date: NA
City Manager Approval Date: 07/15/2019
132
Urban Growth Boundary
Renewal and Revision
Ballot Initiative
July 23, 2019
City Council Meeting
Background
“Measure N”
•Approved January 2000 with 70.7% of voters in
support
•Sunsets June 30, 2020
UGB Implementation
•Establishes boundary to accommodate 20 years of growth
•Aligns UGB with Sphere of Influence (SOI)
•Coordinates growth with provision of services & infrastructure
Casino
Lands Northeast
SSU
Canon
Manor
UDSP
SOMO
SESP
Ballot Question
“To continue the existing protections provided by the current
Urban Growth Boundary (“UGB”), such as preventing urban
sprawl, protecting community separators, and preserving
agricultural land and open space, shall the City of Rohnert
Park extend its UGB until December 31, 2040, exclude
approximately 80 acres located in the County and south of
Valley House Drive and west of Petaluma Hill Road, and
require that future changes to the UGB be approved by the
voters?”
Draft Changes
•Removes ~80 acres
(APN: Portion of 047-111-050
Election Calendar
Action November 2019 Election
Nominations Deadline, Measures August 9
Measure letter assignment August 10
Deadline to amend/withdraw measure August 14
Argument Deadline (Mayor, up to 5 signatures)August 19
Impartial Analysis Deadline (City Attorney)August 19
Rebuttal Deadline August 29
Voting by Mail Opens October 7
Election Day November 5
Deadline to Certify Election Results November 25
Recommended Action
Conduct public hearing and adopt a resolution:
1.Calling for special election asking voters:
a.Extend UGB to 12-31-2040
b.Revise boundary of UGB to exclude 80 acres (parcel 047-111-
050)
2.Request November 5, 2019 election
3.Direct City Attorney to prepare impartial analysis
Additional Information
Casino
Lands Northeast
SSU
Canon
Manor
UDSP
SOMO
SESP
ITEM NO. 7C
1
Meeting Date: July 23, 2019
Department: Development Services
Submitted By: Mary Grace Pawson, Development Services Director
Prepared By: Jeffrey Beiswenger, Planning Manager
Agenda Title: Public Hearing: Urban Growth Boundary Renewal Ballot Measure
(PLGP19-0002) - Consideration of a Resolution Calling a Special Election
to be Held on November 5, 2019, to Ask Voters to Extend the Urban
Growth Boundary to December 31, 2040, and Revise the Boundary to
Exclude Approximately 80 Acres of Land Located at 047-111-050
(CEQA Review: Exempt under CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3))
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing
and adopt a resolution 1) Calling and giving notice of the holding of a special election to ask
voters to (a) extend the duration of the City of Rohnert Park Urban Growth Boundary (“UGB”)
to December 31, 2040, and (b) revise the boundaries of the UGB to exclude approximately 80
acres of land located at Assessor’s Parcel Number 047-111-050; 2) Requesting that the Sonoma
County Board of Supervisors consent to the consolidation by the Sonoma County Elections
Official of the special election with the established election date on held November 5, 2019 and
direct the Sonoma County Registrar of Voters to conduct the election on the City’s behalf; and
3) Directing the City Attorney to prepare and file an impartial analysis of the proposed ballot
measure.
BACKGROUND: Rohnert Park voters approved ballot initiative “Measure N” (see Attachment
1) with support of 70.7% of the voters in January 2000. Measure N established a 20-year Urban
Growth Boundary (UGB) and related policies and sunsets June 30, 2020. The UGB and its
related policies supported the adoption of the City’s General Plan 2020 and served, among other
things, to provide the public with assurances about the geographic limits of the City’s planned
growth. In 2002, the City entered into a Settlement Agreement with respect to its General Plan
and General Plan EIR (see Attachment 2 Exhibit 1) where it agreed, among other things to
remove 4 parcels south of Valley House Drive, north of Railroad Avenue and west of Petaluma
Hill Road, from its Sphere of Influence. The City worked with the Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) to make this change. This change to the City’s Sphere of Influence left
approximately 80 acres of one of these parcels outside the City’s approved Sphere of Influence
but inside the voter-approved UGB.
At this point in time, the City is working to update its General Plan and, at the direction of the
City Council, staff initiated the process to prepare a City-sponsored ballot measure to renew the
UGB and reduce the UGB to align the southeastern corner of the UGB with the Sphere of
Influence (e.g. to remove the approximately 80 acre area south of Valley House Drive from the
UGB). Figure 1 on the following page illustrates the proposed UGB and Figure 2 highlights the
area proposed for removal from the UGB.
Mission Statement
“We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a
Better Community for Today and Tomorrow.”
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
133
ITEM NO. 7C
2
Figure 1 – Proposed UGB
Figure 2 – Area to be Removed
134
ITEM NO. 7C
3
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 27, 2019 to review the UGB renewal
and recommended that the City Council place a measure on the ballot to renew and reduce the
UGB, with a number of additional comments. The City Council conducted a study session on
July 9, 2019 and directed staff to bring back a resolution at the July 23, 2019 City Council
meeting to consider submitting the ballot measure to the County Registrar for placement on the
November 5, 2019 ballot. Council also directed staff to include removing the 80 acres from the
UGB as part of the ballot measure but to otherwise mirror the ordinance approved by the voters
in 2000.
ANALYSIS: The questions proposed to be presented to voters will be: (1) whether to extend the
Urban Growth Boundary (“UGB”) to December 31, 2040 and (2) whether to revise the
boundaries of the UGB to exclude approximately 80 acres of a parcel located on the southwest
corner of Valley House Road and Petaluma Hill Road (Assessor’s Parcel Number 047-111-050).
The ballot question, as proposed in the attached resolution is:
To continue the existing protections provided by the current Urban Growth Boundary (“UGB”),
such as preventing urban sprawl, protecting community separators, and preserving agricultural
land and open space, shall the City of Rohnert Park extend its UGB until December 31, 2040,
exclude approximately 80 acres located in the County and south of Valley House Drive and west
of Petaluma Hill Road, and require that future changes to the UGB be approved by the voters?
As with “Measure N,” the full text of the ordinance proposed to be adopted by the voters would
be included in the voter information pamphlet. The draft ordinance to support the renewal of the
UGB is included as Attachment 3 to this staff report and substantially mirrors the ordinance
approved by the voters in 2000. The draft Ordinance renews the UGB through December 31,
2040. It requires a popular vote to change the UGB unless a modification is made to protect
agricultural lands and open space, or to bring in lands for the purpose of natural resource
protection, parks and open space maintenance, affordable housing and/or wastewater treatment
and disposal. In these cases a majority of the City Council may approve an UGB modification.
The draft Ordinance would continue the City’s growth management program, which helps ensure
that the average annual rate of growth in the City is one percent per year.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: In conformance with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City prepared a CEQA analysis and reviewed potential
impacts of the proposed Urban Growth Boundary Renewal and Revision (See Attachment 3).
The “Project” reviewed for CEQA purposes is placement of the measure on the November 2019
ballot to renew the City of Rohnert Park’s UGB, extending it to December 31, 2040, and to
reduce the area within the UGB excluding approximately 80 acres located adjacent to the limit of
the existing UGB in the southeasterly corner of the City. The CEQA review concludes that the
proposed ballot measure has no environmental impacts and is exempt from CEQA pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility that the activity in question would have a significant effect on the environment since,
among other things:
1. It does not authorize any changes or increases in density or any physical construction; 135
ITEM NO. 7C
4
2. It aligns the City’s proposed UGB with the City’s Sphere of Influence, the County’s
General Plan and Penngrove Area Plan, and supports the implementation of the City’s
prior agreements regarding land use.
Any future projects within the UGB would undergo project-specific environmental review prior
to approval by the City.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Renewing the UGB aligns with Strategic Plan Goal D -
Continue to Develop a Vibrant Community. The UGB renewal is part of the Strategic Action
Plan for 2020.
OPTIONS CONSIDERED: None. Adopting the proposed Resolution is consistent with prior
direction received from the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE: The City is under contract with M-Group, a
planning consulting firm not to exceed the amount of $23,616 for staff services for the UGB
update project. The Sonoma County Registrar provided an estimate from $67,821 to $113,035, to
place the measure on the November, 2019 ballot. All expenses will be paid out of the General
Plan Update fund.
Department Head Approval Date: 07/15/2019
Finance Director Approval Date: N/A
City Attorney Approval Date: 07/12/2019
City Manager Approval Date: 07/17/2019
Attachments
1. 2000 Ballot Measure N
2. South County Resource Preservation Committee and John E. King v City of Rohnert
Park Stipulated Agreement
3. CEQA Exemption Analysis
4. Resolution 1) Calling and Giving Notice of the Holding of a Special Election to ask
Voters to (a) Extend the Duration of the City of Rohnert Park Urban Growth
Boundary (“UGB”) To December 31, 2040, and (b) Revise the Boundaries of the
UGB to Exclude Approximately 80 acres of land located at Assessor’s Parcel Number
047-111-050; 2) Requesting that the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Consent
to the Consolidation by the Sonoma County Elections Official of the Special Election
with the Established Election to be held November 5, 2019 and Direct the Sonoma
County Registrar of Voters to Conduct the Election the City’s Behalf; and 3)
Directing the City Attorney to Prepare and File and Impartial Analysis of the
Proposed Ballot Measure
5. Notice of Public Hearing
136
Attachment 1
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
Appendix A:
South County Resource Preservation Committee
and John E. King v. City of Rohnert Park
Stipulated Agreement
Attachment 2
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
Attachment 3
CEQA EXEMPTION ANALYSIS
City of Rohnert Park
Urban Growth Boundary Renewal
City of Rohnert Park
Development Services
130 Avram Avenue
Rohnert Park, CA 94928-2486
JUNE 2019
163
164
CEQA Exemption Analysis
City of Rohnert Park Urban Growth Boundary Renewal
City of Rohnert Park Urban Growth Boundary Renewal
iii June 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page No.
1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Overview and Location .............................................................................. 1
1.2 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance ............................................... 3
2 CHECKLIST ......................................................................................................................4
2.1 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................ 9
Mitigation Measures: ............................................................................................ 10
2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources...................................................................... 10
Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 12
2.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................ 12
Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 14
2.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................................ 14
Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 16
2.5 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 16
Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 17
2.6 Energy ................................................................................................................... 17
Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 18
2.7 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................. 18
Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 21
2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................... 21
Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 22
2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................ 22
Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 24
2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................... 25
Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 27
2.11 Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................... 27
Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 28
2.12 Mineral Resources ................................................................................................ 28
Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 29
2.13 Noise ..................................................................................................................... 29
Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 30
2.14 Population and Housing ........................................................................................ 31
Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 31
2.15 Public Services ...................................................................................................... 32
Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 33
165
CEQA Exemption Analysis
City of Rohnert Park Urban Growth Boundary Renewal
City of Rohnert Park Urban Growth Boundary Renewal
iv June 2019
2.16 Recreation ............................................................................................................. 33
Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 34
2.17 Transportation ....................................................................................................... 34
Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 35
2.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ..................................................................................... 36
Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 37
2.19 Utilities and Service Systems................................................................................ 37
Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 39
2.20 Wildfire ................................................................................................................. 40
Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 40
2.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ..................................................................... 41
3 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................43
3.1 References Cited ................................................................................................... 43
FIGURES
1 City of Rohnert Park – Proposed Urban Growth Boundary
2 City of Rohnert Park – Proposed Changes to the Urban Growth Boundary
166
CEQA Exemption Analysis
City of Rohnert Park Urban Growth Boundary Renewal
City of Rohnert Park Urban Growth Boundary Renewal
v June 2019
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
167
1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Overview and Location
The proposed project consists of renewing the City of Rohnert Park’s (City’s) urban growth
boundary (UGB) for an additional 20 years, through June 2040, with a modest reduction of land
included within the UGB. The reduction will remove approximately 98 acres located in the County
of Sonoma adjacent to the southeastern City limits. This 98-acre property is zoned Diverse
Agriculture with a 20 acre lot size minimum and is included in a Scenic Resource Combining
District and a Valley Oak Habitat Combining District. On the City’s zoning map, the property
carried the designation Open Space – Agricultural Preservation. The purpose of the reduction is to
ensure consistency with the City’s approved Sphere of Influence and Sonoma County planning
documents, specifically the Sonoma County General Plan and Penngrove Area Plan, and
agreements the City has entered into with respect to its existing General Plan (General Plan – Our
Place… Rohnert Park 2020). The City’s UGB was originally approved by the voters of Rohnert
Park in November 2000, through a ballot initiative known as Measure N. The City is also proposing
to place the proposed renewal before the voters of Rohnert Park and will be considered for
inclusion on the November 2019 ballot.
The purpose of the project is to renew the UGB for another 20 years and align the City’s UGB
with its approved Sphere of Influence and enhance consistency between the City and County
General Plans. No new areas are proposed for development, with a slight reduction of area within
the City’s UGB. Further, the City is not proposing any land use or zoning changes. The project
does not authorize any new development and no physical development is proposed at this time,
however, future development will be subject to subsequent environmental review when the
specifics of a project are known and can be analyzed.
The proposed UGB and area proposed for removal are illustrated in Figures 1 and 2.
168
2
169
3
1.2 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
This analysis has been prepared to determine whether, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (California
Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.) Section 15061(b)(3), “it can be seen with
certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on
the environment, [in which case], the activity is not subject to CEQA.”
170
4
2 CHECKLIST
Project title: City Rohnert Park Urban Growth Boundary Renewal
Lead agency name and address:
City of Rohnert Park
Development Services
130 Avram Avenue
Rohnert Park, CA 94928-2486
Contact person and phone number:
Mary Grace Pawson, Development Services Director
(707) 588-2234
Project location: City of Rohnert Park, Sonoma County, California. The property proposed to be
removed from the Urban Growth Boundary is located in the County of Sonoma directly
south and east of the City’s urban limits, south of Valley House Drive and west of Petaluma
Hill Road.
Project sponsor’s name and address:
City of Rohnert Park
130 Avram Ave
Rohnert Park, CA 94928-2486
General plan and zoning designations:
Project Parcel General Plan Designation Zoning
Designation
Various Various Various l
Description of project and environmental setting: The project involves renewing the City’s
adopted urban growth boundary (UGB) for an additional 20 years (from 2020 to 2040) and
removing approximately 98 acres south and east of the current City limits from the UGB. The
proposed reduction is consistent with City and County planning documents including the City’s
General Plan, Sonoma County’s General Plan and the City’s sphere of influence. The proposed
project would make no other changes to the City or County General Plan. It would not change
designated land uses or zoning nor would it authorize or entitle any development.
The area proposed to be removed from the City’s UGB is outside of the City’s approved Sphere
of Influence and included in Sonoma County’s Penngrove Area plan, where it carries a Diverse
171
5
Agricultural zoning and is included in a Scenic Resource Combining District and a Valley Oak
Habitat Combining District. The City is proposing to remove this area in order to align its UGB
with its Sphere of Influence and avoid any conflicts with County’s Penngrove Area Plan.
The City is proposing the project in order to provide the voters with the opportunity to renew the
UGB, before it expires in 2020 and in order to conform its designated UGB to existing, related
regional planning documents.
Required approvals: The project would require the following approvals:
• Approval by the City Council of a Resolution placing a ballot measure amending
the General Plan and Zoning (to reflect the renewal and modification of the Urban
Growth Boundary) on the ballot
• Approval of the ballot measure by a majority of the voters in Rohnert Park
California Native American Tribal consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
21080.3.1: The City notified the Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria (Tribe) of the proposed
project through a letter dated May 17, 2019. The Tribe requested a consultation on the project
through a letter dated May 28, 2019.
City staff met with Tribal staff and a member of the Tribe’s Sacred Site committee on June 14,
2019 to discuss the proposed project. On July 17, 2019, the Tribe responded by email that they
had no concerns about the proposal and considered the consultation closed.
172
6
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture and
Forestry Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Green House Gas
Emissions Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural
Resources
Utilities/Services Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings
of Significance
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this analysis “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the
activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment….” There are no impacts
that would be potentially affected by this project.
Signature
Date
173
7
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
• A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses
following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should
be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g.,
the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
• All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as
on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as
well as operational impacts.
• Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than
significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is
appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are
one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required.
• “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies
where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially
Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe
the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below,
may be cross-referenced).
• Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions for the project.
174
8
• Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Where appropriate,
references to a previously prepared or outside document should include a reference to the
page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
• Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used
or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
• This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however,
lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to
a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
• The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
175
9
2.1 Aesthetics
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
I. AESTHETICS – Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views
of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
The ridgelines east of Rohnert Park, which include Taylor Mountain and Sonoma
Mountain, are a prominent feature of the Rohnert Park landscape. Sonoma County’s
General Plan designates much of this area east of the City as a “scenic landscape unit” and
the Community Separator designation also overlays portions of the area east of the City.1
The City’s current General Plan calls for preserving and enhancing views of the eastern
ridgeline.2
The project, which renews the existing UGB and reduces the City’s urban footprint, by
removing 98 acres from the current UGB, will not have an adverse effect on scenic vistas.
In the southeast area of the City, the reduction in the size of the City’s urban footprint will
preserve the existing scenic character including views from the urban area towards Sonoma
Mountain and views along the Petaluma Hill Road corridor. Sonoma County includes the
property to be removed includes a Scenic Resource Combining District, which supports
protection of scenic resources. The project would have no impacts on scenic vistas or scenic
resources. The project would have no impacts on scenic vistas.
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
1 Sonoma County General Plan Figure OSCR 1 – Scenic Resource Areas
2 Rohnert Park General Plan – Goal CD-D. 176
10
The project is not located along a state scenic highway and therefore will not impact
resources along a state scenic highway.
c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings?
The project, which extends the UGB through 2040 and reduces the City’s urban footprint
by 98 acres, will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
City’s surroundings as it does not authorize any new physical development. In the southeast
area of the City, the project will preserve the existing visual character (agriculture and open
space) by slightly reducing the urban footprint of the City. Therefore, the project would
have no impacts to the visual character or quality of Rohnert Park or the County.
d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
The project will not create a new source of light or glare as there is no new physical
development authorized by or associated with the UGB renewal and reduction. There
would be no impacts affecting day or nighttime views.
Mitigation Measures:
For the reasons outlined above the proposed action will not result in impacts to
aesthetics and no mitigation measures are necessary.
2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES – In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland,
are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment
Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest
Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
177
11
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use
or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
The project, which reduces the City’s urban footprint and extends the existing UGB
through 2040, will not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of
Statewide Importance. In the southeast area of the City, the project will preserve the
existing rural land uses, by slightly reducing the urban footprint of the City. The project
would have no impacts to farmland.
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
Refer to answer provided in ‘a’ above.
c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined
by Government Code section 51104(g))?
The project, which reduces the City’s urban footprint and extends the UGB through 2040,
will not cause rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland
Production. The property within the City’s proposed UGB carries various urban zoning. In
178
12
the southeast area of the City, the project will preserve the existing rural land uses by
slightly reducing the urban footprint of the City and preserving the County of Sonoma’s
zoning of Diverse Agriculture authority for the area. The project will have no impacts due
to a conflict with zoning for forest land or timberland.
d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-
forest use?
Refer to answer provided in ‘c’ above.
e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Refer to answers provided in ‘a’ and ‘c’ above.
Mitigation Measures
For the reasons outlined above, the project will not result in impacts to agricultural
and forestry resources and no mitigation measures are necessary.
2.3 Air Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
III. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or
air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project region
is non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading
to odors or adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
179
13
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality
plan?
The project, which will slightly reduce the scope of the City’s future development by
removing 98 acres from the UGB and extending the term of the UGB through 2040, will
not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan. There
will be no air quality emissions generated by the proposed project as there is no physical
development proposed and the project will not authorize or allow any new development.
The project supports effective control of air pollution because future development will be
restricted to areas within the UGB thereby reducing urban sprawl, concentrating growth within
urban areas, and protecting surrounding open space and agricultural lands. Therefore, the
project would have no impacts due to a conflict with the Clean Air Plan.
b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard?
The project, which will slightly reduce the scope of the City’s future development by
removing 98 acres from the UGB and extending the term of the UGB through 2040, will
not contribute to air quality violations. There will be no air quality emissions generated by
the proposed project as there is no physical development proposed and no new
development authorized or allowed by the project.
c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
The project, which slightly reduces the City’s urban growth boundary and extends the UGB
through 2040, will not result in any additional air pollutants and therefore will not expose
sensitive receptors to these pollutants.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors or adversely affecting a
substantial number of people)?
BAAQMD has identified typical sources of odor in the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, a
few examples of which include manufacturing plants, rendering plants, coffee roasters,
wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, and solid waste transfer stations. The
project, which will slightly reduce the City’s urban footprint and extend the term of the
UGB through 2040, will not result in other emissions, including objectionable odors,
because it does not authorize or approve any development. In fact, the project may reduce
potential for odor creation because of the reduced urban footprint, and reduced urban land
uses.
180
14
Mitigation Measures
For the reasons outlined above the proposed action will not result in impacts to air
quality resources and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either 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 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 (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of 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
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
2.4 Biological Resources
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either 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?
The project, which involves reducing the size of the City’s urban growth boundary and
extending the UGB through 2040, will reduce the future urban footprint of the City. This
181
15
reduction in the City’s ultimate footprint will reduce the habitat modification associated
with City growth. The project does not propose any physical development or authorize or
allow any new development, and, therefore, will not impact or modify habitat.
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any 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?
The project involves reducing the size of the City’s urban growth boundary and extending
the UGB until 2040, which will reduce the future urban footprint of the City, reducing
future potential impacts. The project itself will cause no impacts on riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural communities as there is no physical development proposed, and no new
development is authorized or allowed by the project.
c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other means)?
The project involves reducing the size of the City’s urban growth boundary and extending
the UGB until 2040, which will reduce the future urban footprint of the City and potential
future impacts. The project itself will cause no impacts on wetlands as there is no physical
development proposed, and no new development is authorized or allowed by the project.
d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of 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?
The project involves reducing the size of the City’s urban growth boundary and extending
the UGB until 2040, which will reduce the future urban footprint of the City. The project
itself will cause no impacts on the movement of fish and wildlife species, interference with
wildlife corridors or interference with wildlife nursery sites because no physical
development is proposed, and no new development is authorized or allowed by the project.
e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
The proposed project will renew the City’s existing UGB until 2040 and align the UGB
with the City’s sphere of influence and policies and ordinances adopted by Sonoma
County. Under the proposed project, the area removed from the City’s UGB will remain
under Sonoma County’s jurisdiction, where it is included in a Scenic Resource Combining
District and Valley Oak Habitat Combining District. Any development occurring within
182
16
the UGB would be required to comply with City policies and ordinances protecting
biological resources. There are no impacts related to conflicts with local policies or
ordinances.
f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
The project involves reducing the size of the City’s urban growth boundary and extending
it until 2040. Because the project proposes no physical development, it will have no
impacts on adopted or approved habitat conservation plans. Further, any future
development within the City’s UGB would be required to comply with any habitat
conservation plans. Therefore, there are no impacts related to conflicts with such plans.
Mitigation Measures
For the reasons outlined above the proposed action will not result in impacts to
biological resources and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
2.5 Cultural Resources
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource pursuant to §15064.5?
The project involves extending the UGB until 2040 and reducing its size. The project will
have no impact to historical resources because no physical development is proposed and
there is no new development authorized or allowed by the project.
183
17
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
The project involves extending the UGB until 2040 and reducing the size of the City’s
urban growth boundary. The project will have no impact to archaeological resources
because no physical development is proposed and there is no new development authorized
or allowed by the project.
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
The project involves reducing the size of the City’s urban growth boundary and extending
the UGB until 2040. The project will not disturb human remains because no physical
development is proposed and there is no new development authorized or allowed by the
project.
Mitigation Measures
For the reasons outlined above the proposed action will not result in impacts to
cultural resources and no mitigation measures are necessary.
2.6 Energy
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
VI. ENERGY - Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impacts due to wasteful, inefficient or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources
during project construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction
or operation?
The project involves extending the City’s urban growth boundary until 2040 and reducing
the size of the UGB. The project will not result in any impacts related to wasteful,
inefficient or unnecessary energy consumption because no physical development is
proposed and there is no new development authorized or allowed by the project. 184
18
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
The project involves reducing the size of the City’s urban growth boundary and extending
the UGB until 2040. The project will not obstruct plans for renewable energy or energy
efficiency because no physical development is proposed. By reducing the City’s urban
footprint and encouraging a compact urban form, the project has the potential to enhance
overall energy efficiency because of reduced urban sprawl and reduced need for energy
use in the transportation sector. Any future development within the UGB will be required
to comply with any applicable state or local plans for renewable energy or energy
efficiency.
Mitigation Measures
For the reasons outlined above the proposed action will not result in impacts to
energy resources and no mitigation measures are necessary.
2.7 Geology and Soils
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
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 known fault?
Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
185
19
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life
or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
a) Would the directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as 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 known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
The project involves reducing the size of the City’s urban growth boundary and extending
it until 2040. The project will not result in impacts from the rupture of earthquake faults,
strong seismic shaking, seismic related ground failure, liquefaction or landslides because
no physical development is proposed and there is no new development authorized or
allowed by the project.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
The project involves reducing the size of the City’s urban growth boundary and extending
it until 2040. The project will not result in soil erosion or loss of topsoil because no physical
development is proposed and there is no new development authorized or allowed by the
project.
186
20
c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
The project involves reducing the size of the City’s urban growth boundary and extending
it until 2040. The project proposes no physical development and will result in no impacts
related to unstable soil, landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
The project involves reducing the size of the City’s urban growth boundary and extending
it until 2040. The project proposes no physical development and will not result in impacts
related to expansive soil.
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
The project involves reducing the size of the City’s urban growth boundary and extending
it until 2040. The project proposes no physical development and will not result in impacts
related to septic systems or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
The project involves reducing the size of the City’s urban growth boundary and extending
it until 2040. The project will not result in impacts to unique paleontological or geologic
resources because no physical development is proposed and there is no new development
authorized or allowed by the project.
187
21
Mitigation Measures
For the reasons outlined above the proposed action will not result in impacts to
geology and soils and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
The project will have no direct impact on greenhouse gas emissions because no physical
development is proposed. The project will slightly reduce the City’s urban footprint, which
indirectly results in a reduction in the greenhouse gas emissions associated with
construction and operation of urban development. The County of Sonoma designates the
area that is proposed to be removed from the City’s UGB as Diverse Agriculture with a 20
acre minimum lot size and includes it in Scenic Resource and Valley Oak Habitat
Combining District. The County’s land use designations limit development potential of the
property proposed to be removed from the UGB. As such, the proposed project will result
in less development and less greenhouse gas emissions than would have occurred without
the project and there is no impact related to the generation of greenhouse gas emissions.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The project, which slightly reduces the City’s urban footprint and extends the UGB through
2040, enhances compliance with plans, policies and regulations designed to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. Compact urban forms are a proven strategy for reducing
vehicular travel and associated greenhouse gas emissions. The UGB renewal and reduction
does not conflict with plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. Further, individual development projects will be required to
188
22
comply with any plans, policies and regulations adopted to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. Therefore, the project would have no impacts under this criterion.
Mitigation Measures
For the reasons outlined above the proposed action will not result in impacts to
greenhouse gas emissions and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site that is included on a 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) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
or excessive noise for people residing or working
in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
189
23
The project, which involves reducing the City’s urban growth boundary and extending the
term of the UGB through 2040, does not authorize or allow any new development, but
rather extends and reduces existing urban growth boundaries. There will be no impacts to
the public or environment regarding the routine transport, use, disposal or release of
hazardous materials from the proposed project because the project does not authorize any
of these activities.
b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
Refer to the answer provided in ‘a’ above.
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
The project, which involves reducing the City’s urban growth boundary and extending the
term through 2040, does not involve hazardous or acutely hazardous materials or emissions
in proximity to schools. There is no physical development that would occur from the
subject UGB renewal and reduction project and there is no new development authorized or
allowed by the project. Individual development projects will undergo environmental
review when applications are submitted and will be required to comply with existing
General Plan and any additional mitigation measures.
d) Would the project be located on a site that is included on a 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?
The project, which involves reducing the City’s urban growth boundary and extending it
through 2040, will generally reduce the intensity of development and the potential for
future significant hazards to the public or environment. The project will have no impacts
related hazardous materials sites because no physical development is proposed and there is
no new development authorized or allowed by the project. Individual development projects
will undergo environmental review when applications are submitted and will be required
to comply with existing General Plan and any additional mitigation measures.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project
area?
190
24
The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of
a public or public use airport. The northern limit of the existing and proposed UGB is over
13 miles from the Santa Rosa Airport, which is located north of the City. The southern
limit of the UGB is over 6 miles from the Petaluma Municipal Airport, which is south of
the City.3
f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The proposed project, which involves reducing the City’s urban growth boundary and
extending until 2040, will not impair emergency response or evacuation plans because no
physical development is proposed and there is no new development authorized or allowed
by the project. There will be no impacts on emergency response or evacuation plans.
g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
The proposed project, which involves reducing the City’s urban growth boundary and
extending it until 2040, will result in a compact urban form where residences are not
intermixed with wildlands. While the City’s urban form does result in a transition from
urban to rural land uses at the urban growth boundary, the proposed UGB renewal and
reduction does not change or increase the risk associated with this interface. The proposed
UGB renewal and reduction does not propose any physical development and there would
be no new development authorize or allow by the project. Therefore, it will not directly or
indirectly cause impacts related to wildland fire exposure.
Mitigation Measures
For the reasons outlined above the proposed action will not result in impacts to
hazards and hazardous materials and no mitigation measures are necessary.
3 Google Maps accessed June 19, 2019. 191
25
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or groundwater quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surface, in a manner which
would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-
site?
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on or offsite?
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm
water drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements
or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
The proposed project, which involves reducing the City’s urban growth boundary and
extending the UGB until 2040, will have no impact on surface or groundwater quality nor
will it violate water quality standards or requirements because no physical development is
proposed and no new development is authorized or allowed by the project. The project will
result in a compact urban form, with less impervious area and runoff, which may reduce
water quality impacts associated with buildout of the City.
192
26
b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
The City has adopted a Water Policy Resolution (Resolution 2004-95) which limits its
groundwater pumpage to a rate of 2,577 acre-feet annually. The City’s 2004 Citywide
Water Supply Assessment included extensive technical analysis, which concluded this
pumping rate was sustainable with the existing UGB. Ongoing groundwater monitoring
supports this conclusion. Renewal and reduction of the UGB will not alter the City’s
policies with respect to groundwater management and will not deplete groundwater or
interfere with groundwater recharge. More importantly, no new development is authorized
or allowed by the project. Therefore, the project will have no impacts on groundwater
supplies or recharge.
c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the
addition of impervious surfaces in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite?
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or offsite?
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources
of polluted runoff?
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
The proposed project, which will reduce the City’s UGB and renew it until 2040, will not
substantially alter existing drainage patterns because no physical development is proposed
and no new development is authorized or allowed by the project. There will be no impacts
to drainage patterns, addition of impervious surfaces, or alteration of stream or river
courses from the project.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
The project is not located in a tsunami or seiche zone.
193
27
While portions of the land area located within the City’s proposed UGB are mapped within
various FEMA flood zones, the project does not authorize any physical development. There
is no risk of pollutants being released because the project does not authorize any physical
development.
d) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
The proposed project, which will reduce the City’s UGB and renew it until 2040, will not
obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan because no physical development is proposed and no new development
is authorized or allowed by the project. As discussed in response ‘b’ above, any future
growth within the City’s UGB is subject to the City’s Water Policy which limits
groundwater pumping to a documented, sustainable rate. Therefore, there are no impacts
related to conflict or obstruction of the City’s water quality control and groundwater plan.
Mitigation Measures
For the reasons outlined above the proposed action will not result in impacts to
hydrology of water quality and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XI LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to
a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
2.11 Land Use and Planning
a) Would the project physically divide an established community?
The project, which will slightly reduce the City’s UGB and extend the UGB until 2040,
will not physically divide an established community and will enhance consistency with the
County’s designated community separators. The project extends the City’s existing
approved UGB and ensures consistency with the City’s approved sphere of influence.
Thus, there are no impacts related to the physical division of an established community.
194
28
b) Would the project cause a significant environment impact due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
The proposed project will reduce the City’s UGB and extend its term until 2040. The area
proposed to be removed from the City’s UGB is outside of the City’s approved Sphere of
Influence and included in Sonoma County’s Penngrove Area plan, where it carries a
Diverse Agricultural zoning and is included in a Scenic Resource Combining District and
a Valley Oak Habitat Combining District. The City is proposing to remove this area in
order to align its UGB and Sphere of Influence and avoid any conflicts with County’s
Penngrove Area Plan. The City’s proposed project will not cause any impacts related to
land use conflicts and will ensure alignment between the City and County land use plans.
Mitigation Measures
For the reasons outlined above the proposed action will not result in impacts to land
use and planning and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan,
or other land use plan?
2.12 Mineral Resources
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
The Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology classifies the City and
its environs, including the full area covered by the existing and proposed UGBs, to be
Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ-1). MRZ-1 means that adequate information exists to
document that there are no significant mineral deposits in the area. Because the project is
located in an area with no significant known mineral resources, it will have no impact to
the availability of mineral resources that would be of value to the region or residents of the
state.
195
29
b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
See response to ‘a’ above.
Mitigation Measures
For the reasons outlined above the proposed action will not result in impacts to
mineral resources and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact No Impact
XIII. NOISE – Would the project result in:
a) Generation of substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private air strip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
2.13 Noise
a) Would the project result in generation of substantial temporary or permanent increase
in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in
the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
The project, which slightly reduces the City’s UGB and urban footprint and extends the
UGB until 2040, does not propose any physical development and no new development is
authorized or allowed by the project. As a result the project will not generate noise, will
have no impacts to ambient noise and will not result in noise in excess of the local plans
and ordinances.
b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
196
30
See response ‘a’ above.
c) Would the project be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of
a public or public use airport.
The northern limit of the existing and proposed UGB is over 13 miles from the Santa Rosa
Airport, which is located north of the City. The southern limit of the UGB is over 6 miles
from the Petaluma Municipal Airport, which is south of the City. The nearest private
airstrip is the Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital Heliport, located over 6 miles from the
boundary of the UGB in the City of Santa Rosa.4 The City and is existing and proposed
UGBs are not located near a private airstrip. Accordingly, there would be no impact related
to airstrip noise exposure.
Mitigation Measures
For the reasons outlined above the proposed action will not result in impacts to noise
and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
4 Google Maps accessed June 19, 2019. 197
31
2.14 Population and Housing
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
The project, which slightly reduces the City’s UGB and urban footprint, will not induce
substantial population growth and could result in a slight reduction of the extension of
urban infrastructure. The slight reduction in the City’s UGB will increase consistency
between City and County land use plans and properly channel planned growth within the
City’s boundaries and ensure development in the County as planned. The project does not
propose to change any other element of the city’s General Plan or zoning and will not
change (either by increasing or decreasing) the amount of planned growth in the City. There
would be no impact related to inducing substantial unplanned growth.
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The project proposes to renew and slightly reduce the City’s current urban growth
boundary. There is no existing housing or population within the area proposed to be
removed from the City’s UGB, in fact the areas proposed to be removed from the UGB
carries a designation of Open Space- Agricultural Preservation on the City’s Zoning Map.
Growth within the City’s UGB will continue to be covered by the City’s General Plan,
which does not propose displacing people or housing, anywhere in the City or its Sphere
of Influence. Therefore, there would be no impact related to displacement of people or
housing.
Mitigation Measures
For the reasons outlined above the proposed action will not result in impacts to
housing and no mitigation measures are necessary.
198
32
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, 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 public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
2.15 Public Services
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, 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 public services:
Fire and police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
The proposed project will renew and slightly reduce the City’s UGB and does not propose
any physical construction and no new development is authorized or allowed by the project.
As a result, the project will not have any impacts on fire and police protection, schools,
parks or other public facilities. Growth within the City’s proposed UGB will continue to
be governed by the City’s General Plan and will continue to be subject to the City’s Public
Facilities Fee program, which ensures that infrastructure and services are extended to
match planned growth. The City’s Public Facilities Fees were calculated based on the land
use and zoning outlined in the General Plan. Because the area proposed to be removed the
UGB carries a zoning designation of Open Space – Agricultural Preservation, the City did
not include any growth in this area in its fee calculations.
199
33
Mitigation Measures
For the reasons outlined above the proposed action will not result in impacts to public
services and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
XVI. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
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 facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
2.16 Recreation
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
The proposed project, which will renew and slightly reduce the City’s UGB, does not
propose any physical construction and no new development is authorized or allowed by
the project. As a result the project will not have any impacts on regional or neighborhood
parks. Growth within the City’s proposed UGB will continue to be governed by the City’s
General Plan and will be subject to the City’s Public Facilities Fee program, which ensures
that infrastructure and services are extended to match planned growth. Because the area
proposed to be removed from the UGB carries a zoning designation of Open Space –
Agricultural Preservation, the City did not include any growth in this area in its fee
calculations.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion
of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
See response to ‘a’ above.
200
34
Mitigation Measures
For the reasons outlined above the proposed action will not result in impacts to
recreation and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XVII. TRANSPORTATION – Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3 subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
2.17 Transportation
a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities
The proposed project will reduce the City’s UGB and extend its term until 2040. The area
proposed to be removed from the City’s UGB is outside of the City’s approved Sphere of
Influence and included in Sonoma County’s Penngrove Area plan, where it carries a
Diverse Agricultural zoning and is included in a Scenic Resource Combining District and
a Valley Oak Habitat Combining District. The City is proposing to remove this area in
order to align its UGB and Sphere of Influence and avoid any conflicts with Sonoma
County’s Penngrove Area Plan. The City’s proposed project will not cause any impacts
related to conflicts with approved programs, plans, ordinances or policies addressing the
transportation system. The project will reduce potential conflicts between City and County
plans by clarifying the jurisdictional authority in the area proposed to be removed from the
UGB and renewing the existing UGB consistent with the City’s planning efforts.
201
35
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
The project, which will reduce the City’s UGB and extend its term until 2040, does not
propose any physical development and no new development is authorized or allowed by
the project. Therefore, the project will not generate any new trips or increase vehicle miles
traveled and will not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b) and there are no impacts. Individual development projects will undergo
environmental review when applications are submitted and will be required to comply with
existing General Plan and any additional mitigation measures
c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
The project, which will slightly reduce the City UGB and renew the UGB until 2040, does
not propose any physical construction and no new development is authorized or allowed
by the project. Therefore, the project will not substantially increase hazards due to
geometric design features or incompatible uses.
e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
The project will slightly reduce the City’s UGB and extend it until 2040. The project does
not proposed any physical construction and no new development is authorized or allowed
by the project. As such, the project will not impact emergency access.
Mitigation Measures
For the reasons outlined above the proposed action will not result in impacts to
transportation and traffic and no mitigation measures are necessary.
202
36
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
2.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal
cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
The project will slightly reduce the City’s UGB and future urban footprint and will extend
the City’s UGB until 2040. The project does not propose any physical development and no
new development is authorized or allowed by the project. As a result, the project will have
no impacts on historical resources.
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance
of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
203
37
The project will slightly reduce the City’s UGB and future urban footprint and will extend
the City’s UGB until 2040. The project does not proposed any physical development and
no new development is authorized or allowed by the project. As a result, the project will
have no impacts on resources of significance to a California Native American tribe because
no construction is proposed.
Mitigation Measures
For the reasons outlined above the proposed action will not result in impacts to tribal
cultural resource and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment
or storm water, drainage, electric power, natural
gas or telecommunications facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project and reasonably foreseeable future during
normal, dry or multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve
the project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
d Generate solid waste in excess of the State of
local standards or in excess of the capacity of
local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
2.19 Utilities and Service Systems
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded
water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
204
38
The project will slightly reduce the City’s UGB and urban footprint and extend the City’s
UGB until 2040. The project does not propose any physical development and no new
development is authorized or allowed by the project. As a result, the project will not result
in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, storm
water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities.
b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
The project will slightly reduce the City’s UGB and urban footprint and extend the City’s
UGB until 2040. The project does not propose any physical development and no new
development is authorized or allowed by the project. As a result, the project will not impact
water supplies. The City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan documents that the City
has adequate water supply to support buildout of its General Plan consistent with the UGB.
c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which
serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
The project will slightly reduce the City’s UGB and urban footprint and extend the City’s
UGB until 2040. The project does not propose any physical development and no new
development is authorized or allowed by the project. As a result, the project will not impact
wastewater treatment facilities. The City’s agreement with the Santa Rosa Subregional
System (its wastewater treatment provider), provides the City with adequate capacity to
support buildout of its General Plan consistent with the UGB.
d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess
of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste
reduction goals?
The proposed project, which reduces the City’s UGB and extends the term until 2040 does
not propose any physical development and no new development is authorized or allowed
by the project. Therefore, the project will not result in an increased generation of waste or
impair the attainment of solid waste goals. The City currently complies with federal, state
and local statues and regulations related to solid waste.
e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
See response to ‘d’ above.
205
39
Mitigation Measures
For the reasons outlined above the proposed action will not result in impacts to utility
services and systems and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
XX. WILDFIRE – If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones,
would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant concentration from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as road, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, powerlines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
d Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability or drainage changes?
206
40
2.20 Wildfire
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds or other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby
expose project occupants to pollutant concentration from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as road,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources, powerlines or other utilities) that may exacerbate
fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or structure to significant risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides as a result of runoff, post-fire instability or drainage changes?
CalFire designates the City and its environs, including the area in the existing and proposed UGBs
as an area of local responsibility. CalFire’s most recent mapping designates the City and its
environs, including the areas in the existing and proposed UGBs, not to be a “very high fire severity
zone.” Because the project is not located in an area of state responsibility or a very high fire severity
zone, the project will not result in impacts from excessive wildfire risk.
Mitigation Measures
For the reasons outlined above the proposed action will not result in impacts from
excessive wildfire risk and no mitigation measures are necessary.
207
41
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
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 or 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 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
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
2.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade 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 or endangered
plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
The project will slightly reduce and extend the City’s UGB and urban footprint. This will
result in a greater area of land remaining under the jurisdiction of the County of Sonoma,
where it carries rural land use designations and is adjacent to designated community
separator lands. This will help ensure preservation of the environment including habitat for
plant and animal communities. Constrained development potential will help ensure
preservation of any historic or prehistoric resources.
b) Does the project have impacts that are 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)?
208
42
As outlined above, the project has some potential to reduce impacts that were analyzed in
the City’s General Plan, because of the reduced land area subject to urban development.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
See response to ‘b’ above.
209
43
3 REFERENCES
3.1 References Cited
14 CCR 15000–15387 and Appendices A through L. Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act, as amended.
BAAQMD. 2017a. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Updated May
2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-
research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en.
BAAQMD. 2017b. Spare the Air: Cool the Climate - Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 19, 2017.
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-air-
plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en.
CALFIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection). https://calfire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps_sonoma accessed May 23,
2019.
California Public Resources Code, Section 21000–21177. California Environmental Quality Act,
as amended.
City of Rohnert Park. 2017 (August) (originally adopted 2000). City of Rohnert Park General
Plan. Our Place . . . Rohnert Park 2020, A Plan for the Future. Adopted in July 2000;
seventh edition printed August 2017. Rohnert Park, CA. Prepared by Dyett & Bhatia Urban
and Regional Planners.
City of Rohnert Park. 2016a. City of Rohnert Park Zoning Map. October 2016.
City of Rohnert Park. 2016. City of Rohnert Park Final Urban Water Management Plan 2015.
City of Rohnert Park 2004. Final Water Supply Assessment. January 2004.
City of Rohnert Park 2004. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park
Implementing Requirements Imposed on Specific Plans Outside the City’s 1999
Boundaries (Water Policy Resolution). April 2004.
City of Santa Rosa. 2018. Laguna Subregional Water Reclamation System 2017 Annual Report.
December 2018.
210
44
DOC (California Department of Conservation). 2014. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program. Sonoma County data. Accessed June 28, 2018.
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2014/son14.pdf.
DOC. 2013a. Sonoma County Williamson Act FY 2013/2014. Sonoma County data. Accessed
June 28, 2018. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/Sonoma_13_14_WA.pdf.
DOC. 1987. Mineral Land Classification and Aggregate Materials in the San Francisco and
Monterey Bay Area.
Sonoma County. 2006. Sonoma County General Plan 2020 Draft Environmental Impact Report.
January 2006.
Sonoma County Zoning Maps https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/PRMD/Planning/Project-
Review/Services/Zoning/Zoning-Codes-County/, accessed on May 22, 2019.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2017. Web Soil Survey. USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service, Soil Survey Staff. Accessed July 28, 2018.
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/.
211
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-095
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
1) CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A SPECIAL ELECTION TO
ASK VOTERS TO A) EXTEND THE DURATION OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY (“UGB”) TO DECEMBER 31, 2040, AND (B) REVISE THE
BOUNDARIES OF THE UGB TO EXCLUDE APPROXIMATELY 80 ACRES OF LAND
LOCATED AT ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER 047-111-050; 2) REQUESTING THAT
THE SONOMA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONSENT TO THE
CONSOLIDATION BY THE SONOMA COUNTY ELECTIONS OFFICIAL OF THE
SPECIAL ELECTION WITH THE ESTABLISHED ELECTION TO BEHELD NOVEMBER
5, 2019 AND DIRECT THE SONOMA COUNTY REGISTRAR OF VOTERS TO CONDUCT
THE ELECTION ON THE CITY’S BEHALF; AND 3) REQUESTING THE CITY
ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AND FILE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED
BALLOT MEASURE
WHEREAS, Rohnert Park voters approved ballot initiative “Measure N” in January
1998 to establish a 20-year Urban Growth Boundary (“UGB”) and related policies; and
WHEREAS, by its terms, Measure N sunsets on June 30, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has expressed intent to place a measure on the ballot to
extend the duration of the UGB until December 31, 2040 and reduce the boundaries of the UGB
to exclude an approximately 80-acre site located at the southeasterly corner of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered a CEQA Exemption Analysis prepared under the
California Environmental Quality Act for this proposed ballot measure and determines that the
proposed ballot measure has no environmental impacts and is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that
the activity in question would have a significant effect on the environment since: (1) it does not
authorize any changes or increases in density or any physical construction; and (2) it aligns the City’s
proposed UGB with the City’s Sphere of Influence, the County’s General Plan and Penngrove Area
Plan, and supports the implementation of the City’s prior agreements regarding land use. Any future
projects within the UGB would undergo project-specific environmental review prior to approval by
the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is authorized by statute (Elections Code section 9222) to
submit the proposed ordinance to the voters.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park does resolve,
declare, determine and order as follows:
Section 1. Call for Election. Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9222, the City
Council hereby calls a special election at which it shall submit to the qualified voters of the City
of Rohnert Park a measure that, if approved, would extend the duration of the City of Rohnert
212
Resolution 2019-095
2
Park Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to December 31, 2040, and revise the boundaries of the
UGB to exclude approximately 80 acres of land located at APN 047-111-050. This measure
shall be designated by letter by the Sonoma County Registrar of Voters.
Section 2. Ballot Language. The City Council, pursuant to its right and authority, does hereby order
the following question submitted to the voters at the consolidated special election to be held on
November 5, 2019:
To continue the existing protections provided by the current Urban
Growth Boundary (“UGB”), such as preventing urban sprawl, protecting
community separators, and preserving agricultural land and open space,
shall the City of Rohnert Park extend its UGB until December 31, 2040,
exclude approximately 80 acres located in the County and south of Valley
House Drive and west of Petaluma Hill Road, and require that future
changes to the UGB be approved by the voters?
YES
NO
Section 3. Proposed Ordinance. The proposed measure to be submitted to the voters is attached hereto
as Exhibit A. The City Council hereby approves the proposed ordinance, in the form thereof, and its
submission to the voters of the City at the November 5, 2019 election.
Section 4. Notice of Measure. In accordance with Section 12111 of the Elections Code and
Section 6061 of the Government Code, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause
notice of the measure to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation, printed,
published, and circulated in the City of Rohnert Park and hereby designated for that purpose by
the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park. The City Clerk may request that the County of
Sonoma Elections Department prepare and publish the required notice.
Section 5. Request to Consolidate and Conduct Election and Canvass Returns.
(a) Pursuant to the requirements of Sections 10400 et seq. and 9222 of the Elections
Code, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma is hereby requested to consent and
agree to the consolidation of a special election on Tuesday, November 5, 2019, for the purpose
of submitting a measure to the voters. The City acknowledges that the consolidated election will
be held and conducted in the manner prescribed in California Election Code 10418.
(b) The election on the measure set forth in Section 2 shall be held and conducted,
the voters canvassed and returns made, and the results ascertained and determined as provided
for herein. In all particulars, the election shall be held in accordance with the Elections Code of
the State of California.
(c) In accordance with California Elections Code 10002, the Board of Supervisors of
the County of Sonoma permit the Registrar of Voters Office to render such election services,
prepare all required notices and election materials of holding of the municipal election, to give
all such required notices and send to the City’s registered voters all required election materials,
conduct the special municipal election and canvass the vote received, and take all steps
213
Resolution 2019-095
3
necessary and required for the holding of this election within the City of Rohnert Park. That the
County Registrar of Voters of Sonoma County is authorized to specify the location for the tally
of ballots and certify the results to the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park.
(d) The County of Sonoma is requested to procure and furnish any and all official
ballots, notices, printed matter and all supplies equipment and paraphernalia that may be
necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election.
(e) At the next regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park
occurring after the returns of the election for the measure set forth in Section 3 have been
canvassed, and the results have been certified to the City Council, or at a special meeting called
for such purpose if required by law, the City Council shall cause to be entered in its minutes a
statement of the results of the election.
Section 6. Notice of Election. The notice of the time and place of holding the election is given
and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the
election, in time, form and manner as required by law.
Section 7. Submission of Ballot Arguments and Impartial Analysis.
(a) The City Clerk is directed to set the deadlines, in accordance with statute, for the
submission of ballot arguments (E.C. 9282, 9286) and rebuttals (9285).
(b) Direct arguments shall not exceed three hundred (300) words and shall be signed
by not more than five (5) persons.
(c) Rebuttal arguments shall not exceed two hundred fifty (250) words and shall be
signed by not more than five (5) persons; those persons may be different persons than the
persons who signed the direct arguments.
(d) The City Attorney is directed to prepare the Impartial Analysis in accordance
with statute (E.C. 9280).
(e) The Mayor is hereby authorized to file a written argument, not to exceed three
hundred (300) words, in favor of the proposed measure, on behalf of the City Council. At the
Mayor’s discretion, the argument may also be signed by members of the City Council or bona
fide associations or by individual voters who are eligible to vote. In the event that an argument is
filed against the measure, the Mayor is also authorized to file a rebuttal argument, not to exceed
two hundred fifty (250) words, on behalf of the City Council. The rebuttal argument may also be
signed by members of the City Council or bona fide associations or by individual voters who are
eligible to vote.
(f) Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9285, when the City Clerk has
selected the arguments for and against the measure, which will be printed and distributed to the
voters, the City Clerk shall send copies of the argument in favor of the measure to the authors of
the argument against it, and copies of the argument against it to the authors of the argument in
214
Resolution 2019-095
4
favor. Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the direct arguments. Each
rebuttal argument shall immediately follow the direct argument that it seeks to rebut.
Section 8. Appropriation of Necessary Funds. The City of Rohnert Park recognizes that
additional costs will be incurred by the County by reason of this special election and agrees to
reimburse the County for any costs. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to
appropriate the necessary funds to pay for the City’s cost of placing the measure on the election
ballot.
Section 9. Time for Election. The polls for the election shall be open at 7:00 a.m. of the day of
the election and shall remain open continuously from that time until 8:00 p.m. of the same day
when the polls shall be closed, except as provided in Section 14401 of the Elections Code of the
State of California.
Section 10. Services of City Clerk. The City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of
this resolution with the Board of Supervisors and the Registrar of Voters of the County of
Sonoma on or before August 9, 2019 and enter this resolution into the book of original
resolutions. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to place
the measure on the ballot and to cause the ordinance or measure to be printed. A copy of the
ordinance or measure shall be made available to any voter upon request.
DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED this 23rd day of July, 2019.
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
____________________________________
Gina Belforte, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
JoAnne M. Buergler, City Clerk
Attachment: Exhibit A- Proposed Ordinance
ADAMS: _________MACKENZIE: _________ STAFFORD: _________ CALLINAN: _________ BELFORTE: _________
AYES: ( ) NOES: ( ) ABSENT: ( ) ABSTAIN: ( )
215
Resolution 2019-095
5
EXHIBIT “A”
ORDINANCE NO.______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, CALIFORNIA
AMENDING THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK GENERAL PLAN TO
RENEW AND REVISE THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK DO HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section A. Statement of Purpose and Effect.
1. Purpose. For the last 20 years, the Rohnert Park Urban Growth Boundary (“UGB”)
encouraged a cohesive pattern of urbanization, promoted efficient and orderly growth
patterns, supported stability and certainty in long term planning, ensured that lands outside
the UGB are not prematurely or unnecessarily converted to urban uses, and protected what
is unique about Rohnert Park. This ordinance will renew the UGB and extend the
purposes of the UGB until December 31, 2040. This ordinance will remove approximately
80 acres of land located in the southeasterly corner of the UGB and outside the City’s
Sphere of Influence from the UGB.
2. Effect. The renewed UGB will continue to:
• Encourage efficient growth patterns and protect the quality of life in Rohnert Park
by concentrating future development within existing developed areas;
• Foster and protect lands to the east and west of the City that are dominated by hills,
farms and fields.
• Concentrate growth within the boundary in order to limit the extent of required City
services and restrain increases in their costs;
• Allow housing needs for all economic segments of the population to be met,
especially lower and moderate income households, by directing the development of
housing into areas where services and infrastructure can be provided more cost
effectively and with fewer environmental impacts.
Section B. General Plan Amendment.
The People of the City of Rohnert Park hereby adopt the following amendment to the text and maps of
the land use element of the General Plan of the City of Rohnert Park. It is the intent of the People of
the City of Rohnert Park that Sections B.1 and B.2 are each part of the amendment to the General Plan
adopted by this measure.
1. Land Use Map Amendments. All figures and maps in the General Plan of the City of
Rohnert Park, adopted July 25, 2000 (as amended) illustrating the UGB are amended as shown
on Attachment 1. The revised UGB excludes Assessor’s Parcel Number 047-111-050.
216
Resolution 2019-095
6
2. Land Use Element Text Amendments. The Land Use Element of the City of Rohnert Park
adopted July 25, 2000, as amended, is amended as follows:
a) Amend Policy GM-2 to read as follows:
A Twenty-Year (Year 2040) Urban Growth Boundary is extended in accordance with ballot
Measure [NEW BALLOT MEASURE LETTER] (2019) as follows:
b) Amend Section 1 of an Ordinance of the City of Rohnert Park Amending the City of
Rohnert Park General Plan by Establishing an Urban Growth Boundary to read as
follows:
Section 1. Purpose and Findings.
1.1 This measure reaffirms and readopts The City of Rohnert Park's commitment
to planned growth through the designation of an urban growth boundary This
measure establishes the City of Rohnert Park's Urban Growth Boundary
("UGB") as depicted on the map attached to this Ordinance (Attachment 1) as
the area within which the City generally projects that development will occur
within a specified period. Until December 31, 2040, the UGB shall be changed
only by a vote of the people, except in certain circumstances and according to
specific procedures set forth in this measure.
1.2 Encouraging a cohesive pattern of urbanization. Adoption of a UGB will
encourage a cohesive pattern of urbanization by (1) promoting efficient and
orderly growth patterns; (2) supporting stability and certainty in long term
planning by advancing the concept of planned growth; and (3) ensuring that
lands outside the UGB are not prematurely or unnecessarily converted to urban
uses.
1.3 Protecting what is unique about Rohnert Park. The City of Rohnert Park is
bordered to the east and to the west by unincorporated lands that are
dominated by hills, farms, and fields. This unincorporated landscape is
enjoyed by the persons who work and live in Rohnert Park and forms a part of
the environment of Rohnert Park even though it is outside the city limits.
Adoption of a UGB will preserve and protect this aspect of Rohnert Park by
requiring urbanization to stop where the unincorporated landscape begins.
1.4 This General Plan Amendment is not intended to prevent the City from
meeting its obligation under state housing or zoning and planning law. The
City's Housing Element, including the sites identified therein for housing, and
the programs and activities adopted to promote and encourage the
development of housing, will allow the City of Rohnert Park to meet its
obligations for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing.
This measure establishing a UGB is consistent with the objectives of the City's
Housing Element and with the other mandatory elements of the City's General
217
Resolution 2019-095
7
Plan. It is fully expected that the policies and programs in the City's Housing
Element, including the sites identified therein for housing, will allow the City
of Rohnert Park to meet the requirements of State law to provide housing
opportunities for all economic segments of the community. This measure
allows the City Council to bring land into the UGB without a public vote for
very low and low income housing only, in recognition of the fact that
sometimes it is necessary for a local government to take special steps to
provide opportunities for very low and low income housing.
1.5 The UGB outlines the area within which the City generally projects that
development will occur within the next twenty years. However, the General
Plan of the City of Rohnert Park Growth Management Policies prohibit growth
from commencing, if the necessary public facilities - streets, water,
wastewater, solid waste, and parks - are not in place when the growth is
completed. In addition, the General Plan of the City of Rohnert Park Specific
Plan Policies require that new growth will not be permitted unless and until the
specific plan for the area in which the growth is proposed, has been adopted.
c) Amend Section 2 of an Ordinance of the City of Rohnert Park Amending the City of
Rohnert Park General Plan by Establishing an Urban Growth Boundary to read:
Section 2. Extending the Urban Growth Boundary.
The following policies shall apply to the Urban Growth Boundary:
2.1 No urban development shall be permitted beyond the Urban Growth Boundary.
"Urban development" shall mean development requiring one or more basic
municipal services including, but not limited to, water service, sewer, improved
storm drainage facilities, fire hydrants and other physical public facilities and
services; provided, however, that open space uses, parks, agricultural uses,
community fields and golf courses beyond the Urban Growth Boundary that are
provided with municipal or public services, shall not be defined as "urban
development."
2.2 The Urban Growth Boundary shall be in effect until December 31, 2040.
2.3 The Urban Growth Boundary may be amended only by a vote of the people or
as provided for in Section 2.4.
2.4 The Urban Growth Boundary may be amended by a majority vote (three
affirmative votes) of the City Council under the following circumstances:
2.4.1 Affordable Housing. To comply with state law regarding the provision of
housing for low and very-low income families, the City Council may amend the
Urban Growth Boundary in order to include within the UGB, lands to be
218
Resolution 2019-095
8
developed primarily (51%) for low and very-low income families provided,
however:
(a) An amendment to the UGB pursuant to this Section 2.4.1 may not be made
earlier than January 1, 2035;
(b) No more than 10 acres may be brought into the UGB in any calendar year;
(c) If in any year, fewer than 10 acres are brought within the UGB, then the
unused increment, up to a maximum of 5 acres, may be brought within the
UGB in a subsequent year;
(d) Such amendment may be adopted only if the City Council makes each of the
following findings:
(i) That the land is immediately adjacent to comparably developed areas;
(ii) That there is no existing residentially designated land available within
the UGB that can feasibly accommodate the proposed development;
(iii) That it is not reasonably feasible to accommodate the proposed
development by redesignating lands within the UGB for housing;
(iv) That there has been an application submitted to provide housing
primarily for low and very-low income families, and the applicant has
provided substantial evidence that sufficient and adequate capacity is
available in all city services and facilities, all school district facilities,
and any other relevant public agency facilities, to accommodate the
proposed development.
(v) That the application to provide housing primarily for low and very low
income families is consistent with GM-4 in General Plan 2000.
For purposes of this section, the concept of "feasibility" shall include
considerations of market feasibility, environmental feasibility, and other rules
and regulations affecting the development of the property.
2.4.2 To adjust the UGB exclusively for the purpose of protecting agricultural or
open space lands.
2.4.3 To add lands exclusively to protect natural resources.
2.4.4 To add lands exclusively to be maintained as public parks or public open space.
2.4.5 To add lands to provide exclusively for the disposal of treated wastewater
and/or sewage treatment and disposal use.
2.5 This General Plan Amendment is not intended, and shall not be applied or
construed, to authorize the City to exercise its powers in a manner which will
take private property for public use without the payment of just compensation.
This General Plan Amendment will be interpreted, applied and implemented so
as to accomplish its purposes to the maximum permissible extent, by all
constitutional means. If the application of this General Plan Amendment to a
specific property would take private property for public use without the
219
Resolution 2019-095
9
payment of just compensation ("taking"), then the City Council may take any
action necessary to avoid a taking.
2.6 This General Plan Amendment is not intended, and shall not apply to any
development project that has obtained as of the effective date of this resolution,
a vested right pursuant to state law.
d) Amend Section 3 of an Ordinance of the City of Rohnert Park Amending the City of
Rohnert Park General Plan by Establishing an Urban Growth Boundary to read:
Section 3. Amending the General Plan to Manage Growth within the Urban Growth
Boundary.
3.1 The UGB establishes the area within which urban development will be
contained through the year 2040. This limitation restricts development to lands
within the UGB. Such restriction is necessary to implement and to be consistent
with the following community goals:
3. 1. 1 Efficient and orderly growth patterns.
3.1.2 A well-designed mix of residential, commercial, business park, and open space
uses, featuring a pedestrian-oriented community focal point with a small town,
village-like character.
3.1.3 Stability and certainty in long term planning through planned growth.
3.1.4 Adequate and efficient delivery of public services and facilities.
3.2 In order to manage development within the UGB in a manner that is consistent
with these community goals, a growth management program shall be adopted
that includes each of the following components:
3.2.1 An annual standard to determine the number of residential development
approvals that are consistent with the goals and policies of the City's General
Plan.
3.2.2 A requirement to implement the growth management program, including the
annual standard in a manner that is consistent with the goals, objectives,
obligations and policies of the City's Land Use and Housing Elements.
3.2.3 A population growth rate in accordance with the City's then existing growth
management program.
3.2.4 An annual review by the City Council to determine the consistency of each of
the components of the growth management program with the goals, plans, and
policies of the General Plan and State housing, planning, and zoning law.
220
Resolution 2019-095
10
3.2.5 A requirement to coordinate the development in each of the specific plan areas
with the growth management ordinance.
Housing that is affordable to very low and low income households shall be exempt
from the growth management program.
Section C. Amendment or Repeal.
Except as otherwise provided herein, no part of this General Plan Amendment may be amended or
repealed except by a vote of the voters of the City of Rohnert Park at a regularly scheduled general
election or at a special election called for that purpose.
Section D. Interpretation.
This measure shall be interpreted so as to be consistent with all federal and state laws, rules, and
regulations. This measure shall be broadly construed and interpreted in order to achieve the purposes
stated herein.
Section E. Effective Date.
This ordinance shall take effect November 6, 2019 if a majority of the voters, voting on the ordinance,
vote in favor of its adoption at the general municipal election to be held on November 5, 2019. Upon
the effective date of this ordinance, the provisions of Section B are hereby inserted into the General
Plan of the City of Rohnert Park as an amendment thereof. At such time as this general plan
amendment is inserted into the City of Rohnert Park General Plan, any provisions of the City of
Rohnert Park Zoning Ordinance or any other ordinances of the City of Rohnert Park inconsistent with
this general plan amendment, shall not be enforced.
Section E. Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this resolution is for any reason held to
be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this resolution. The voters hereby declare that they would have passed and
adopted this resolution, and each and all provisions hereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more of
the provisions, either alone or as applied in connection with other provisions, may be declared invalid.
Section F. Project Approvals.
Upon the effective date of this ordinance, the City, its departments, boards, commissions, officers,
and employees shall not grant, or by inaction allow to be approved by operation of law, any General
Plan amendment, rezoning, specific plan, tentative or final subdivision map, conditional use permit,
building permit, or any other ministerial or discretionary entitlement, which is inconsistent with this
ordinance. Nothing in this ordinance shall prevent the City from redesignating or relabeling the maps
or the policies described herein, so long as the text of the amended policies is not changed and the
geographical scope of the Urban Growth Boundary is not changed. Nothing in this ordinance shall be
construed to prohibit the City from complying with State laws requiring density bonuses and/or other
221
Resolution 2019-095
11
incentives for affordable housing development projects, as defined by State law.
Section G. Exemptions for Certain Projects.
This ordinance shall not apply to any development project that has obtained a vested right pursuant to
state law as of the effective date of this ordinance.
Section H. Amended or Repeal.
Except as specifically provided herein, this ordinance may be amended or repealed only by the voters
of the City of Rohnert Park at a City election.
Section I. Publication.
The Clerk of the City of Rohnert Park is hereby directed to cause the following summary of the
ordinance to be published by a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City
of Rohnert Park:
Contingent upon majority voter approval, this ordinance will renew the City’s existing urban
growth boundary until December 31, 2040, and remove an 80-acre parcel known as Assessor’s Parcel
Number 047-111-050 consistent with the City’s sphere of influence.
THIS ORDINANCE WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROHNERT PARK ON JULY 23, 2019, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
THIS ORDINANCE WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE OF THE
PEOPLE ON NOVEMBER 5, 2019
YES ____
NO ____
222
Resolution 2019-095
12
Adopted by declaration of the vote by the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park on
___________ effective ________ 2019.
___________________________________
GINA BELFORTE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________
JOANNE BUERGLER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
MICHELLE MARCHETTA KENYON, CITY ATTORNEY
223
Resolution 2019-095
13
Attachment 1 Proposed Rohnert Park Urban Growth Boundary
224
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park will be holding a
PUBLIC HEARING.
WHERE: Rohnert Park City Hall – Council Chamber
130 Avram Avenue
Rohnert Park, California
WHEN: Tuesday, July 23, 2020, at the hour of 5:00 p.m.
or as soon thereafter as the matter is reached on the agenda.
PURPOSE: To solicit input regarding a Resolution Calling for an Election to Renew and
Revise the City of Rohnert Park’s Urban Growth Boundary (File No. PLPG19-0002)
City staff will be available to respond to questions.
All persons interested in this matter should appear at the July 23, 2019 City Council meeting.
Written statements may be submitted to the City Clerk in advance for presentation to the Council
as part of the public hearing.
The City of Rohnert Park’s City Council will consider calling an election on November 5, 2019
to ask voters to adopt an ordinance that would: (1) extend the duration of the City of Rohnert
Park Urban Growth Boundary (“UGB”) to December 31, 2040; and (2) revise the boundaries of
the UGB to exclude from the UGB an approximately 80-acre parcel of land located at Assessor’s
Parcel Number #047-111-050. A Notice of Exemption has been prepared in accordance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
NOTE: If you challenge this matter 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.
Documents related to this item are available for public review during normal business hours at the
City Clerk’s Office, 130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park, CA, (707) 588-2227.
Questions regarding this matter should be directed to Jeff Beiswenger, Planning Manager (707)
588-2236.
Dated: July 10, 2019 JoAnne Buergler, City Clerk
Published: July 12, 2019
[NOTE: Forward completed
Notice to City Clerk’s Office at
least four days prior to first
publication.]
225
From:
To:Belforte, Gina; Callinan, Joseph; Adams, Susan; Mackenzie, Jake; Stafford, Pam
Cc:CityClerk; Pawson, Mary Grace; Beiswenger, Jeffrey
Subject:Please support RP UGB Measure: City Council,Tuesday, July 23
Date:Tuesday, July 23, 2019 2:30:03 PM
Item 7C
Public Hearing: Urban Growth Boundary Renewal Ballot Measure
(PLGP19-0002) - Consideration of a Resolution Calling a Special Election
to be Held on November 5, 2019, to Ask Voters to Extend the Urban Growth
Boundary to December 31, 2040, and Revise the Boundary to
Exclude Approximately 80 Acres of Land Located at 047-111-050 (CEQA
Review: Exempt under CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3))
Dear Mayor Belforte and Rohnert Park City Council,
As a Cotati resident who has in the past supported Community Separators
throughout the County and the renewal of UGBs in Cotati and other Sonoma
County cities, I urge you to support the Urban Growth Boundary Renewal
Ballot Measure as proposed, to renew the city of Rohnert Park's UGB for
the next 20 years.
I also urge you to support the removal of the 80 acres from the
southeast corner of the UGB (located at 047-111-050) as proposed and to
immediately request that the County add this to the Community Separator,
to help protect this important part of the upper Petaluma River
watershed, helping to prevent flooding downstream in Penngrove and
Petaluma, and to prevent urban sprawl into the agricultural lands
neighboring Rohnert Park.
Thank you for your commitment to renewing the Urban Growth Boundary with
a vote of the people to uphold open space protection, community
separators and city-centered growth for the next generation and to
protect open space between and around the cities.
Jenny Blaker
Supplemental item 7C
From:
To:Belforte, Gina; Callinan, Joseph; Adams, Susan; Mackenzie, Jake; Stafford, Pam
Cc:CityClerk
Subject:Urban Growth Boundary Renewal
Date:Saturday, July 20, 2019 9:52:16 AM
Dear Mayor Belforte and City Council,
I am writing in support of the Urban Growth Boundary Renewal Ballot Measure to renew the city of
Rohnert Park's UGB for the next 20 years.
Thank you for your commitment to renewing this important growth management policy with a vote of the
people to uphold open space protection, community separators and city-centered growth for the next
generation.
Sincerely yours,
Shirley Johnson
Supplemental Item 7C
CI YCO CARD
a m#:1LDate:
Name:0
Address:
Phone:
TOPIC:
Brief Summary of Comments:
See Reverse ->
CITY COUNCIL S PEAKER CARD
Name: CltEl 5 ltl€,1 € e.-
Address: /
4 .,1-TOPIC: / C."b6E
Brief Summary of Commenls:_5zh. (/
--TT
See Reverse -+
o^t", -(f LZ Agendartem#: 7 (-
ITEM NO.
1
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: July 23, 2019
Department: Administration
Submitted By: JoAnne M. Buergler, City Clerk
Prepared By: JoAnne M. Buergler, City Clerk
Agenda Title: Consideration of Supporting “Letters of Interest” for Appointments
to Vacancies by the Sonoma County Mayors’ & Councilmembers’
Association on August 8, 2019
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Consider supporting the requests of those submitting letters of interest for Mayors’ and
Councilmembers’ Association Board of Directors appointments to the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) Executive Board and alternate.
BACKGROUND:
The Sonoma County Mayors’ and Councilmembers’ Association Board of Directors
(Association) and the City Selection Committee (Committee) is a collaboration of all Sonoma
County cities with a goal of creating a united front to represent the strongest voice possible in
support of city interests. On August 8, 2019, the Association will make appointments to existing
vacant committee positions. The deadline to submit letters was July 19, 2019.
ANALYSIS:
ABAG Executive Board
One position is available on the ABAG Executive Board. As of July 17, 2019, one letter was
received.
ABAG Executive Board, Alternate
One position is available as the ABAG Executive Board, Alternate. As of July 17, 2019, no
letters were received by the deadline.
At its next meeting on August 8, 2019, the Association will consider letters of interest submitted
to fill the various vacancies which are attached for consideration of support by Council
(Attachment 1).
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
This item aligns with the City’s Strategic Plan Goal A & C by facilitating participative
leadership at all levels while also ensuring the effective delivery of public services.
“We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a
Better Community for Today and Tomorrow.”
7D
226
ITEM NO.
2
OPTIONS CONSIDERED:
Recommended Option: Staff recommends following the course of action outlined in this report.
No other options were considered as these actions are initiated by previously established
Association protocols.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE:
None.
Human Resource Approval Date: NA
Department Head Approval Date: NA
Finance Director Approval Date: NA
City Attorney Approval Date: NA
City Manager Approval Date: 7/17/19
Attachments:
Letter(s) of Interest
7D
227
228
229
ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL
EDUCATION COMMITTEE
MMEEEETTIINNGG AAGGEENNDDAA
Thursday, July 11, 2019
2:30 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: Conference Room 2A, 2nd Floor
Rohnert Park City Hall 130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park, CA
PUBLIC COMMENTS: For public comment on items listed or not listed on the agenda, or on agenda items if
unable to speak at the scheduled time.
If you wish to speak regarding a scheduled agenda item, you may do so upon recognition from the
Chairperson. After receiving recognition from the Chairperson, please state your name and address for the
record before making your presentation.
ANNOUNCEMENT: Please turn off all pagers, cellular telephones and all other communication devices
upon entering the meeting room. Thank you for your cooperation.
DISABLED ACCOMMODATIONS: If you have a disability which requires an interpreter or other person
to assist you while attending this meeting, please contact the City Offices at (707) 588 -2223 at least 72 hours
prior to the meeting to insure arrangements for accommodation by the City. Please make sure City
Administration staff is notified as soon as possible if you have a visual impairment that requires the meeting
materials be produced in another format (Braille, audio-tape, etc.).
1. Call to Order
Committee Members: Gina Belforte (Mayor), Jake Mackenzie (Councilmember)
Sonoma State University Attendees: Joyce Lopes (Vice President of Administration & Finance)
Christopher Dinno (Associate Vice President of Admin & Finance)
2. Public Comments
Persons wishing to address the Committee on any item or on City business not listed on the Agenda may do
so at this time upon recognition from the Chairperson.
3. Introductions
4. Faculty Staff Housing Update – Petaluma Marina Apartments Project
5. Zinfandel Village New Traditional First Year Student Housing Project Update (Phase – I and II)
6. Five- Year Master Plan Capital Outlay Projects
7. Brookfield Homes Project Update
8. SMO Village Project Update
9. Recreation Fields Update
10. Downtown Master Plan Update
11. College Life in Residential Neighborhoods (e.g. Fauna Dr.)
12. Next Meeting
13. Adjournment
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA
I, Elizabeth Machado, Office Assistant of the City of Rohnert Park, declare that the foregoing agenda was posted and
available for review on July 8, 2019, at Rohnert Park City Hall, Community Center, Public Safety Main Building, and
Public Library. The agenda is also available on the City web site at www.rpcity.org.
Executed this 8h of July, 2019, in Rohnert Park, California
/s/ , Office Assistant
Item 8.A.1
230
ROHNERT PARK
GOLF COURSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, July 16, 2019
6:00 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: Foxtail Golf Course
100 Golf Course Drive, Rohnert Park, California
PUBLIC COMMENTS: For public comment on items listed or not listed on the agenda, or on agenda
items if unable to speak at the scheduled time.
If you wish to speak regarding a scheduled agenda item, you may do so upon recognition from the
Chairperson. After receiving recognition from the Chairperson, please walk to the rostrum located in
the front and center of the room and state your name and address for the record before making your
presentation.
ANNOUNCEMENT: Please turn off all pagers, cellular telephones and all other communication
devices upon entering the meeting room. Thank you for your cooperation.
1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Chair M. Harrow M. Schwarz L. Ferstl S. Harrow J. Wendel
2.PUBLIC COMMENTS
Persons wishing to address the Committee on any item or on City business not listed on the
Agenda may do so at this time upon recognition from the Chairperson.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the regular meeting minutes of April 2, 2019.
4. COURSE REPORT
Report on status of golf course operations by CourseCo/Foxtail representative
5. OLD BUSINESS
a. None
6. NEW BUSINESS
a. Leash Law Enforcement
b. Spring 2019 Maintenance Summary Report
7. COMMITTEE MEMBERS’ COMMENTS & REQUESTS
8. ADJOURNMENT
Item 8.B.1
231
DISABLED ACCOMMODATIONS: If you have a disability which requires an interpreter or other person to
assist you while attending this Golf Course Oversight Committee meeting, please contact the City Offices
at (707) 588-3456 at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to insure arrangements for accommodation by the City. Please
make sure the Recreation Department is notified as soon as possible if you have a visual impairment that requires the
meeting materials be produced in another format (Braille, audio-tape, etc.).
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA
I, Renee Eger, Administrative Assistant for the City of Rohnert Park, declare that the foregoing agenda for the July
16, 2019, Regular Meeting of the Golf Course Oversight Committee was posted and available for review on Friday,
July 5, 2019, at Rohnert Park City Hall, Community and Senior Centers, Public Safety Main Building, and the Public
Library. The agenda is also available on the City web site at www.rpcity.org.
Executed this 5th day of July 2019, at Rohnert Park, California.
Renée Eger
Renée Eger, Administrative Assistant
232
Mission Statement:
We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a Better Community for Today and
Tomorrow.
City of Rohnert Park 130 Avram Avenue Rohnert Park, California 94928
PHONE: (707) 588-2227 FAX: (707) 792-1876 WEB: www.rpcity.org
SENIOR CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Thursday, July 18, 2019, 12:30 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: SENIOR CENTER ACTIVITY ROOM
6800 Hunter Drive, Rohnert Park, California 94928
The Senior Citizens Advisory Committee of the City of Rohnert Park welcomes your attendance,
interest, and participation in its meetings regularly scheduled the third Thursday of January,
April, July, and October at 12:30 p.m. at the Senior Center. The Commission may discuss and/or
take action on any or all of the items listed on this agenda.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: For public comment on either listed or unlisted agenda items, please fill
out a speaker card and provide it to the Commission Secretary prior to the start of the meeting.
Each request for public comment will be recognized by the Commission Chair in conjunction
with its respective topic.
ANNOUNCEMENT: Please turn off all pagers, cellular telephones and all other communication
devices upon entering the venue because of electrical interference with the sound recording and
TV projection systems
DISABLED ACCOMMODATION: If you have a disability which requires an interpreter or
other person to assist you while attending this Senior Citizens Advisory Commission Meeting,
please contact the City Offices at (707) 588-3456 at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to insure
arrangements for accommodation by the City. Please make sure the Community Services
Department is notified as soon as possible if you have a visual impairment that requires the
meeting materials be produced in another format (Braille, audio-tape, etc.).
Item 8.B.2
233
1. SENIOR CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMISSION – CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
(Abbott___ Burton___ Coffman ___ Sherman___ Transue__)
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF MEETING AGENDA POSTING
4. Approval of Minutes – Approval of Minutes for the regular Senior Citizens Advisory
Commission meeting April 18, 2019.
5. Senior Center Report
a. Community Services Coordinator
i. BINGO Updates
19-20 budget/projects
ii. Council on Aging Dining Site Update
iii. Senior Trips Update
iv. Senior Center Security Measures
v. Age Friendly Community Program Update
6. Consideration of 4 Paws Pilot Program
a. Staff Report
b. Commission recommendation
7. Parks & Recreation Commission Liaison Report
8. City Council Liaison Report
9. Community Services & Public Works Director Report
a. Year End Review Accomplishments
b. PG&E Power Outage Community Meeting
10. Communications
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS Persons wishing to address the Commission or on City business not
listed on the Agenda may do so at this time. Each speaker will be allotted three minutes.
Those wishing to address the Commission on any report item listed on the Agenda should
submit a "Speaker Card" to the City Clerk before announcement of that agenda item.
12. Matters to/from Commissioners
13. Adjournment
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA
I, Amanda Foley, Community Services Program Coordinator for the City of Rohnert Park, declare that the
foregoing agenda for the July 18, 2019, Regular Meeting of the Rohnert Park Senior Citizens Advisory
234
Commission was posted and available for review on July 15, 2019, at Rohnert Park City Hall, 130 Avram
Avenue, Rohnert Park, California 94928. The agenda is also available on the City web site at www.rpcity.org,
Executed this day of July 15, 2019, at Rohnert Park, California.
___________________________________________
Amanda Foley, Community Services Program Coordinator II
235
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AGENDA PACKET
Monday, July 8th, 2019
2:30 p.m.
Sonoma County Transportation Authority/
Regional Climate Protection Authority
411 King Street
Santa Rosa, California
1
Item 8.C.1
236
411 King Street, Santa Rosa, CA 95404 | 707.565.5373 | scta.ca.gov | rcpa.ca.gov
BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA
July 8, 2019 – 2:30 p.m.
SCTA/RCPA Board Room
411 King Street, Santa Rosa, CA 95404
1.Call to order the meeting of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) and the Sonoma
County Regional Climate Protection Authority (RCPA)
2.Public comment on items not on the regular agenda
3.Consent Calendar
A.SCTA
3.1. Admin – agreement with Local Government Commission for 2019/2020 CivicSpark Fellow
(ACTION)*
3.2. Hwy 101 – Marin Sonoma Narrows Caltrans Cooperative Agreement 4-2213-A8 & Cooperative
Agreement 4-2386-A3
B.SCTA/RCPA Concurrent Items
3.3. Admin – meeting notes from May 29, 2019, RCPA Workshop (ACTION)*
3.4. Admin – minutes of the June 10, 2019, meeting (ACTION)*
4.Regular Calendar
A.SCTA Items
4.1. SCTA Planning [estimated time – 2:45]
4.1.1. Plan Bay Area – approve the SCTA submittal to MTC for projects of regional
significance (ACTION)*
4.1.2. CTP/Measure M Reauthorization – authorize a joint call for projects for Moving
Forward 2050 and for projects that may be included in a Measure M reauthorization
(ACTION)*
4.1.3. Planning Activities Report – (REPORT)*
4.2. SCTA Projects and Programming [estimated time – 3:30]
4.2.1. M Reauthorization – authorization to hire a consultant for polling and strategy
development (ACTION)*
4.2.2. Highways Report – update on State Highway projects (REPORT)
B.RCPA Items
4.3. RCPA Projects and Planning [estimated time – 4:15]
4.3.1. Admin – proposed RCPA Strategic Plan (ACTION)*
4.3.2. RCPA Activities Report – (REPORT)*
C.SCTA/RCPA Items
4.4. Community Affairs Report – (REPORT)*
5.Reports and Announcements
5.1. Executive Committee report
5.2. Regional agency reports
2
237
5.3. Advisory Committee agendas*
5.4. SCTA/RCPA staff report
5.5. Announcements
6. Adjourn
*Materials attached.
The next SCTA/RCPA meeting will be held September 9, 2019
Copies of the full Agenda Packet are available at http://scta.ca.gov/meetings-and-events/board-meetings/
DISABLED ACCOMMODATION: If you have a disability that requires the agenda materials to be in an alternate format or that requires an interpreter or
other person to assist you while attending this meeting, please contact the SCTA/RCPA at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to ensure arrangements
for accommodation.
SB 343 DOCUMENTS RELATED TO OPEN SESSION AGENDAS: Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the SCTA/RCPA after distribution
of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the SCTA/RCPA office at 411 King Street, Santa Rosa, CA, 95404, during normal business
hours.
Pagers, cellular telephones and all other communication devices should be turned off during the committee meeting to avoid electrical interference
with the sound recording system.
TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS: Please consider carpooling or taking transit to this meeting. For more information check www.511.org,
www.srcity.org/citybus, www.sctransit.com or https://carmacarpool.com/sfbay
3
238
AGENDA
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
THURSDAY, JULY 11, 2019
8:45 A.M.
___________________________________________________________
50 Santa Rosa Avenue, Fifth Floor, Santa Rosa, California
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. BOARD OF DIRECTORS CONSENT CALENDAR
1.Approve June 6, 2019 minutes of the SCPA Board of Directors meeting QH
2.Approve Professional Services Agreement with S2 Advertising for Comprehensive Media
Consulting Services QH
3.Approve Contract between Sonoma Water and SCP for Education Program QH
4.Ratify Continued Use of Residential Electric Vehicle Rate EV2 Effective July 1, 2019 QH
III. BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR CALENDAR
5.Joint SCP/PG&E Presentation on Time of Use Rates and Bill Protection QH
6.Receive Informational Report on the Spirit of Entrepreneurship Grant Recipients QH
7.Receive Internal Operations and Monthly Financial Report and Provide Direction as
Appropriate QH
8.Receive Legislative and Regulatory Updates and Provide Direction as Appropriate QH
9.Adoption of Customer Rates for September 1, 2019 Consistent with Community Advisory
Committee Recommended Bill Savings QH
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
Comments are restricted to matters within the Board jurisdiction. Please be brief and limit
comments to three minutes.
V. CLOSED SESSION
The Board of Directors of the Sonoma Clean Power Authority will consider the following in
closed session:
10.Public Employee Performance Evaluation – General Counsel (pg. 95)
(Government Code Section 54957)
11.Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (pg. 97)
(Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9)
Name of Case: In re PG&E Corporation, Debtor; Chapter 11; US Bankruptcy Court, Northern
District of California San Francisco Division, Case No. 19-30088(DM) and Case No. 19-
300889(DM)
VI. BOARD MEMBER ANNOUNCEMENTS
IV. ADJOURN
DISABLED ACCOMMODATION: If you have a disability which requires an accommodation, an alternative format, or
requires another person to assist you while attending this meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (707) 890-8491,
as soon as possible to ensure arrangements for accommodation.
1 of 97
Item 8.C.2.
239
COMMONLY USED ACRONYMS AND TERMS
AER Advanced Energy Rebuild (A program that helps homeowners affected by the October
2017 firestorms rebuild energy efficient, sustainable homes).
CAC Community Advisory Committee
CAISO California Independent Systems Operator
CAM Cost Allocation Mechanism
CCA Community Choice Aggregation
CEC California Energy Commission
CleanStart SCP’s default service
CPUC California Public Utility Commission
DER Distributed Energy Resource
ERRA Energy Resource Recovery Account
EverGreen SCP’s 100% renewable, 100% local energy service
Geothermal A locally-available, low-carbon baseload renewable resource
GHG Greenhouse gas
GRC General Rate Case
IOU Investor Owned Utility (e.g., PG&E)
IRP Integrated Resource Plan
JPA Joint Powers Authority
LSE Load Serving Entity
MW Megawatt (Power = how fast energy is being used at one moment)
MWh Megawatt-hour (Energy = how much energy is used over time)
NEM Net Energy Metering
NetGreen SCP’s net energy metering program
PCIA Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (This fee is intended to ensure that customers
who switch to SCP pay for certain costs related to energy commitments made by PG&E
prior to their switch.)
ProFIT SCP’s “Feed in Tariff” program for larger local renewable energy producers
PV Photovoltaics for making electric energy from sunlight
RA Resource Adequacy – a required form of capacity for compliance
REC Renewable Energy Credit – process used to track renewable energy for compliance in
California.
SCP Sonoma Clean Power
TOU Time of Use, used to refer to rates that differ by time of day and by season
2 of 97
240
ABAG Executive Board
Meeting Agenda - Final
375 Beale Street
Suite 700
San Francisco, California
94105
President, David Rabbitt, Supervisor, County of Sonoma
Vice President, Jesse Arreguin, Mayor, City of Berkeley
Immediate Past President, Julie Pierce, Vice Mayor, City of
Clayton
Board Room - 1st Floor7:00 PMThursday, July 18, 2019
Association of Bay Area Governments
Executive Board Meeting No. 439
The ABAG Executive Board may act on any item on the agenda.
The meeting is scheduled to begin at 7:00 p.m.
Agenda, roster, and webcast available at https://abag.ca.gov
For information, contact Clerk of the Board at (415) 820-7913.
Roster
Candace Andersen, Jesse Arreguin, London Breed, Cindy Chavez, Christopher Clark, David
Cortese, Lan Diep, Pat Eklund, Maya Esparza, Nikki Fortunato Bas, Richard Garbarino, Leon
Garcia, Liz Gibbons, Lynette Gibson McElhaney, Scott Haggerty, Barbara Halliday, Matt Haney,
Erin Hannigan, David Hudson, Wayne Lee, Rafael Mandelman, Nathan Miley, Karen Mitchoff,
Raul Peralez, Julie Pierce, Dave Pine, David Rabbitt, John Rahaim, Belia Ramos, Dennis
Rodoni, Warren Slocum, Loren Taylor, Lori Wilson, Norman Yee.
William Kissinger (Non-voting).
1. Call to Order / Pledge of Allegiance / Roll Call / Confirm Quorum
2. Public Comment
Information
3. Executive Board Announcements
Information
4. President's Report
President’s Report19-07624.a.
InformationAction:
David RabbittPresenter:
Item 8D1
241
July 18, 2019ABAG Executive Board
Ratification of Appointments to the Regional Planning Committee19-08264.b.
ApprovalAction:
Ken KirkeyPresenter:
Item 04b Summary Sheet RPC Appointments v2.pdfAttachments:
5. Executive Director's Report
Executive Directors’ Report19-07615.
InformationAction:
Therese W. McMillanPresenter:
6. Executive Board Consent Calendar
Approval of ABAG Executive Board Minutes of May 16, 201919-08006.a.
ApprovalAction:
Clerk of the BoardPresenter:
Item 06a Minutes 20190516 Draft.pdfAttachments:
Authorization to enter into contract with Frontier Energy for Bay Area
Regional Energy Network (BayREN) Consulting Services in an amount not
to exceed $1,300,000
19-07556.b.
ApprovalAction:
Jenny BergPresenter:
Item 06b BayREN Summary Sheet Frontier Energy v2.pdf
Item 06b BayREN Summary Approval Frontier Energy v2.pdf
Attachments:
Adoption of Resolution No. 03-19 Authorization to receive $723,421 in
bridge toll funds from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
to support the San Francisco Bay Trail Project in Fiscal Year 2019/2020
19-07566.c.
ApprovalAction:
Laura ThompsonPresenter:
Item 06c Bay Trail Summary Sheet Program Capital Support v2.pdf
Item 06c Bay Trail Attachment Resolution 2019 03 v2.pdf
Attachments:
242
July 18, 2019ABAG Executive Board
Adoption of Resolution No. 04-19 Authorization to submit a proposal to the
California Department of Water Resources to Obtain a Proposition 1
Integrated Regional Water Management Grant and to enter into an
agreement to receive a grant for the Integrated Regional Water
Management Disadvantaged Community and Tribal Involvement Program
(IRWM DACTIP)
19-07636.d.
ApprovalAction:
Caitlin SweeneyPresenter:
Item 06d SFEP Summary Sheet DACTIP Resolution v2.pdf
Item 06d SFEP Attachment Resolution 2019 04 Authorizing DACTIP.pdf
Attachments:
Authorizations related to the Association of Bay Area Governments’
(ABAG) Integrated Regional Water Management Disadvantaged
Community and Tribal Involvement Program (IRWM DACTIP) Grant
19-08156.e.
ApprovalAction:
Caitlin SweeneyPresenter:
Item 06e SFEP Summary Sheet DACTIP CIEA Authorizations.pdf
Item 06e SFEP Summary Approval DACTIP CIEA Authorizations.pdf
Attachments:
Adoption of Resolution No. 05-19 Authorization to submit a Delta Septic
Relief proposal with the California State Parks Division of Boating and
Waterways for Clean Vessel Act Operation and Maintenance Grant for an
amount not to exceed $24,500 and, if awarded, to enter into a grant
agreement and designate an Authorized Representative
19-07646.f.
ApprovalAction:
Caitlin SweeneyPresenter:
Item 06f SFEP Summary Sheet CVA Application Resolution v2.pdf
Item 06f SFEP Attachment Resolution No 05 19 CVA Application v2.pdf
Attachments:
Authorization to enter into agreement for catering for the State of the
Estuary Conference with either of the two required catering vendors
(Checkers Catering or Miraglia Catering) allowed by the conference venue
for up to $95,000 between August 1 and December 31, 2019
19-07656.g.
ApprovalAction:
Caitlin SweeneyPresenter:
Item 06g SFEP Summary Sheet SOE Catering.pdf
Item 06g SFEP Summary Approval SOE Catering.pdf
Attachments:
243
July 18, 2019ABAG Executive Board
Authorization to enter into contract amendment with CLEAResult Inc. for
Bay Area Regional Energy Network (BayREN) consulting services for the
Single Family Program in an amount not to exceed $902,600
19-08026.h.
ApprovalAction:
Jenny BergPresenter:
Item 06h BayREN Summary Sheet CLEAResult.pdf
Item 06h BayREN Summary Approval CLEAResult.pdf
Attachments:
7. ABAG Administrative Committee Report
ABAG Administrative Committee Report19-07577.
ApprovalAction:
David RabbittPresenter:
8. ABAG Legislation Committee Report
ABAG Legislation Committee Report19-07588.a.
ApprovalAction:
Julie PiercePresenter:
AB 1487 (Chiu): Bay Area Regional Housing Funding
This bill would authorize a regional housing funding measure for affordable
housing production, preservation, and protection of tenants from
displacement to be placed on the ballot in the Bay Area with funds
administered by MTC and ABAG.
19-08168.b.
Support if Amended / Executive Board ApprovalAction:
Randy RentschlerPresenter:
Item 08b Summary Sheet AB 1487 v2.pdf
Item 08b Attachment Joint Legislation AB 1487.pdf
Item 08b Attachment AB-1487.pdf
Item 08b Attachment Eklund Email.pdf
Attachments:
244
July 18, 2019ABAG Executive Board
SB 330 (Skinner): Housing Crisis Act of 2019
SB 330 aims to accelerate new housing construction by speeding up
project approvals; prohibiting downzoning in high-rent, low-vacancy areas;
and providing project proponents with a higher degree of certainty as to the
rules and standards that apply when submitting a preliminary application
for a housing development.
19-08178.c.
Support / Executive Board ApprovalAction:
Georgia Gann DohrmannPresenter:
Item 08c Summary Sheet SB 330 v2.pdf
Item 08c Attachment Joint Legislation SB 330 (Skinner).pdf
Attachments:
AB 1486 (Ting): Surplus Lands Act Expansion and Revision
AB 1486 would revise the Surplus Lands Act (SLA) - the state law that
requires local agencies to prioritize affordable housing, as well as parks
and open space, when disposing of land no longer necessary for the
agency’s use.
19-08198.d.
Support / Executive Board ApprovalAction:
Georgia Gann DohrmannPresenter:
Item 08d Summary Sheet AB 1486 v2.pdf
Item 08d Attachment Joint Legislation AB 1486 (Ting).pdf
Attachments:
9. ABAG Finance Committee Report
ABAG Finance Committee Report19-07599.a.
ApprovalAction:
Karen MitchoffPresenter:
Authorization to enter into contract with Visual Strategies for Association of
Bay Area Governments website operations and maintenance in an amount
not to exceed $150,000 for Fiscal Year 2019/2020
19-08279.b.
ApprovalAction:
Nick RoethelPresenter:
Item 09b Summary Sheet Visual Strategies.pdf
Item 09b Summary Approval Visual Strategies.pdf
Attachments:
10. ABAG Regional Planning Committee Report
ABAG Regional Planning Committee Report19-076010.a.
ApprovalAction:
Karen MitchoffPresenter:245
July 18, 2019ABAG Executive Board
Report on Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA)
Staff will introduce the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) process
for the 2022-2030 period.
19-077410.b.
InformationAction:
Gillian AdamsPresenter:
Item 10b Summary Sheet RHNA v2.pdf
Item 10b Attachment A Objectives and Factors.pdf
Item 10b Attachment B Key Milestones.pdf
Item 10b Attachment C Proposed HMC Composition v2.pdf
Item 10b Attachment D Subregions Letter and Fact Sheet.pdf
Item 10b Attachment E Presentation v2 Corrected.pdf
Attachments:
Report on Plan Bay Area 2050: Regional Growth Forecast Methodology
Staff will present the approach, tools and assumptions underlying the
Regional Growth Forecast of total jobs, population, and households for
Plan Bay Area 2050.
19-077310.c.
InformationAction:
Cynthia KrollPresenter:
Item 10c Summary Sheet PBA50_Growth Forecast Methodology_v3.pdf
Item 10c Attachment A PBA50_Growth Forecast Methodology_v7.pdf
Item 10c Attachment B PBA50_Growth Forecast Methodology_Presentation_v5.pdf
Attachments:
11. Adjournment / Next Meeting
The next meeting of the ABAG Executive Board is on September 19, 2019.
246
July 18, 2019ABAG Executive Board
Accessibility and Title VI: MTC provides services/accommodations upon request to persons with
disabilities and individuals who are limited-English proficient who wish to address Commission matters .
For accommodations or translations assistance, please call 415.778.6757 or 415.778.6769 for
TDD/TTY. We require three working days' notice to accommodate your request.
Public Comment: The public is encouraged to comment on agenda items at Committee meetings
by completing a request-to-speak card (available from staff) and passing it to the Committee secretary .
Public comment may be limited by any of the procedures set forth in Section 3.09 of MTC's Procedures
Manual (Resolution No. 1058, Revised) if, in the chair's judgment, it is necessary to maintain the orderly
flow of business.
Meeting Conduct: If this meeting is willfully interrupted or disrupted by one or more persons
rendering orderly conduct of the meeting unfeasible, the Chair may order the removal of individuals who
are willfully disrupting the meeting. Such individuals may be arrested. If order cannot be restored by
such removal, the members of the Committee may direct that the meeting room be cleared (except for
representatives of the press or other news media not participating in the disturbance ), and the session
may continue.
Record of Meeting: Committee meetings are recorded. Copies of recordings are available at a
nominal charge, or recordings may be listened to at MTC offices by appointment. Audiocasts are
maintained on MTC's Web site (mtc.ca.gov) for public review for at least one year.
Attachments are sent to Committee members, key staff and others as appropriate. Copies will be
available at the meeting.
All items on the agenda are subject to action and /or change by the Committee. Actions recommended
by staff are subject to change by the Committee.
Acceso y el Titulo VI: La MTC puede proveer asistencia/facilitar la comunicación a las personas
discapacitadas y los individuos con conocimiento limitado del inglés quienes quieran dirigirse a la
Comisión. Para solicitar asistencia, por favor llame al número 415.778.6757 o al 415.778.6769 para
TDD/TTY. Requerimos que solicite asistencia con tres días hábiles de anticipación para poderle
proveer asistencia.
247