2020/01/09 Planning Commission Agenda Packet
City of Rohnert Park
Planning Commission
A G E N D A
Thursday, January 9, 2020
6:00 P.M.
130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park
To Any Member of the Audience Desiring to Address the Planning Commission:
For public comment on items listed or not listed on the agenda, or on agenda items if unable to speak at the scheduled time, you
may do so upon recognition from the Chairperson. PLEASE FILL OUT A SPEAKER CARD PRIOR TO SPEAKING.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL (Blanquie____Borba____Giudice____Haydon_____Orloff____)
4. PUBLIC COMMENT – Persons who wish to speak to the Commission regarding an
item that is not on the agenda may do so at this time.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR - ADOPTION OF MINUTES
5.1 Approval of the Draft Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting
November 14, 2019
6. AGENDA ITEMS
6.1 SOLAR AND EV CHARGING PRESENTATION FOR MULTI-
FAMILY UNITS – Mike with Powertree Services, Inc.
6.2 MASTER SIGN PROGRAM – File No. PLSI19-0017 – Signs Par
Excellence – Consideration of Resolution 2019-32 Approving a Master
Sign Program for the Empire Park Industrial Complex at 5625 State Farm
Drive (APN 143-021-031)
CEQA: This project is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Article 19, Section 15311,
Accessory Structures, On-Premises Signs
6.3 PROGRESS REPORT & STUDY SESSION – Zoning Ordinance
Update Project
7. ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION
8. ITEMS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICE STAFF
9. ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: If you challenge the nature of the proposed action in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at 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).
Disabled Accommodation: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if
you need special assistance to participate in this meeting please call (707) 588-2231. Notification
72 hours in advance of the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.35.104 AD Title III)
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA
I, Jennifer Sedna, Community Development Assistant, for the City of Rohnert Park, declare that
the foregoing notice and agenda for the January 9, 2020, Planning Commission Meeting of the
City of Rohnert Park was posted and available for review on January 3, 2020 at Rohnert Park
City Hall, 130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park, California 94928. The agenda is available on the
City of Rohnert Park’s website at www.rpcity.org.
Signed this 3rd day of January, 2020 at Rohnert Park, California.
/s/
Appeals of any decisions made tonight must be received by the Planning Division within 10
days and no later than 5:00 p.m. on January 20, 2020.
Minutes of the Planning Commission
Of the City of Rohnert Park
Thursday, November 14, 2019
6:00 P.M.
130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Giudice called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Led by Chairperson Giudice.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: Gerard Giudice, Chairperson
Daniel A. Blanquie, Commissioner
Susan Haydon, Vice Chair
Absent: John E. Borba, Commissioner
Marc Orloff, Commissioner
Staff Present: Planning Manager, Jeff Beiswenger, Consultant, Kevin Locke and
Recording Secretary, Jennifer Sedna, were present.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR - ADOPTION OF MINUTES
5.1 Approval of the Draft Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting October 10,
2019.
ACTION: Moved/seconded (Blanquie/Haydon) to approve the Draft Minutes of
the Planning Commission meeting October 10, 2019.
Motion carried by the following unanimous 3-0-2 vote: AYES: Giudice,
Blanquie, and Haydon; NOES: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: Borba and
Orloff
5.2 Approval of the Draft Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting October 24,
2019.
ACTION: Moved/seconded (Haydon/ Blanquie) to approve the Draft Minutes of
the Planning Commission meeting October 24, 2019.
Motion carried by the following unanimous 3-0-2 vote: AYES: Giudice,
Blanquie, and Haydon; NOES: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: Borba and
Orloff
6. AGENDA ITEMS
6.1 SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – File No. PLSR19-0008 –
Ed Brush, Straus Family Creamery – Consideration of Resolution 2019-34
Approving Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Straus Family Creamery
Additions Located at 655 Park Court (APN 143-040-067)
Kevin Locke, Consultant, presented the item. Recommended Action(s): Adopt Resolution
2019-34 Approving Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Straus Family Creamery
Additions Located at 655 Park Court (APN 143-040-067).
Applicant Ed Brush, the architect for Straus Family Creamery, approached the dais and
the Commission asked questions about the truck and processing canopy, enclosure of the
tanks, noise, and parking.
ACTION: Moved/Seconded (Blanquie/Haydon) to adopt Resolution 2019-34
Approving Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Straus Family Creamery
Additions Located at 655 Park Court (APN 143-040-067).
Motion carried by the following unanimous 3-0-2 vote: AYES: Giudice,
Blanquie, and Haydon; NOES: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: Borba and
Orloff
6.2 DEVELOPMENT PROJECT UPDATE
Planning Manager, Jeff Beiswenger, presented the item. Recommended Action(s):
Receive an update on current development projects including the University District
Specific Plan, the Northeast Specific Plan, the Northwest Specific Plan, the Wilfred
Dowdell Specific Plan, Stadium Lands, the West-side project areas, and
Downtown/Station Avenue.
ACTION: By Consensus (none opposed), Planning Commission received the
informational presentation and participated in the update by offering input on
various topics such as grading in the University District, overgrowth at the creek
on Keiser Avenue, balancing incoming hotels with services for visitors, including
restaurants and cafes.
7. ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Recognition of the renewal of the Urban Growth Boundary by ballot measure.
8. ITEMS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICE STAFF
The Annual Planning Commissioners Conference at SSU and the next Planning
Commission meeting on December 12th.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Giudice adjourned the regular meeting at 6:42 p.m.
____________________________________ ___________________________________
Gerard Giudice, Chairperson Jennifer Sedna, Secretary
1
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 9, 2020
Item No: 6.2
Prepared By: Suzie Azevedo, Planner I
Agenda Title: PLS I19-0017, Sign Program Empire Park Industrial Complex
Location: 5625 State Farm Drive
GP/Zoning: I-L, Industrial
Applicant/Owner: Michael Flanagan, Signs Par Excellence/New California Land Co.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt
Resolution No. 2019-32 approving a Master Sign Program for the Empire Park industrial
complex located at 5625 State Farm Drive. This proposal is consistent with the Industrial land
use designation in the General Plan and the associated I-L– Industrial zoning district. (Figure 1)
Figure 1: Project Location
BACKGROUND: The existing Empire Park industrial park is developed with a 28 unit, 36,400
square foot single story tilt-up concrete light industrial building on a 2.09 acre site. The building
houses a variety of light industrial, office and service commercial tenants. The applicant, Sign
Par Excellence, has submitted an application requesting approval of a Master Sign Program to
set criteria relative to location, size, design and materials for each tenant space as well as the
2
industrial park as a whole at this location. There is currently no sign program for the Empire
Park development and the City has encouraged the owner to submit a program before any
additional sign requests are made and in an effort to clean up illegal and non-conforming signage
that currently exists.
The sign program proposal was originally presented at the October 10, 2019 Planning
Commission meeting. The Commission unanimously voted to continue the item for an
unspecified period of time to allow further review of the Master Sign Program and give an
opportunity for the sign vendor to work with the City and property management for the site,
Keegan & Coppin, to design a sign program that would meet the needs of all tenants and allow
for the possibility of additional signage throughout the site.
Staff met with the applicant, Signs par Excellence, and provided direction and examples of
additional sign allowances and locations that would be supported by the City. The submittal
before the Commission does not fully take advantage of those recommendations provided;
however, the applicant has indicated that through careful consideration and discussion with all
tenants and the property management firm, the proposal before the Commission satisfies the
current and future needs of the industrial complex.
Table 17.27-4 Standards for Signage in C-R, I-L, and I-L/O Districts allows for 200 sf of signage
per lot of record, which may be exceeded with a Sign Program. The submitted sign program
allows for one freestanding sign, one ten (10) sq. ft. wall sign for each unit and allowances for
secondary lettering per private entry as contained in this report and defined and attached as
Exhibit A. It also calls for the removal of any tenant signage that is considered non-conforming
and unpermitted at this time by either the tenant or by the landlord at the tenant’s expense.
ANALYSIS: The Industrial District is intended to provide appropriate areas for businesses that
manufacture, process, assemble, repair, or otherwise create and maintain goods. The proposed
sign program accommodates all current businesses and will support future tenants and
approximately 20 businesses including, but not limited to, Reliable Auto Glass and Repair,
eWaste Sonoma, Old Caz Brewery, Plumbing Services, Inc.
The applicant has submitted a Sign Program for the industrial park as follows:
Wall Signage: The total sign area of fascia signage for a single front Tenant shall not exceed 10
square feet. The sign area allowed is 5’ x 2’ and is centered immediately above the door
entrance. The sign sub-straight as proposed is made up of 3/16” aluminum composite and with a
1/2” MDO wood frame.
Freestanding Signage: The proposed location of the freestanding/directory sign will be at the
southeast entrance of property. It will replace the “Keegan and Coppin” real estate sign that
currently exists and be placed out of the public right of way. The sign will be double faced, with
the sign structure measuring approximately 9.8’ x 8’ feet tall, with the frame and posts made of
4x4 wood posts, a MDO wood background with Dibond inserts, black cut vinyl for the tenant
slots, and white print cut vinyl for the street address. Each unit will be designated an
approximately 5.3” dibond insert. Tenants occupying multiple units will be designated a larger
sign copy within the frame of the sign structure accordingly. As the tenant population changes,
3
the sign structure, as designed, will accommodate and will be modified to allocate space based
on the number of units occupied.
Window/Glass Signage: Signage is allowed on the front door and on the window immediately
next to the front door entrance. Signage may not exceed twenty percent of the total glazed area.
The City of Rohnert Park Design Guidelines provides standards that sign colors and materials be
compatible with the existing building designs and should contribute to legibility and design
integrity. Signs should convey simple messages and should use high quality durable materials
that relate to the building. Metal or dibond panels are recommended. Additionally, Chapter
17.27.080 of the Rohnert Park Municipal Code notes that all signs must be constructed and
maintained in compliance with the following standards and these standards have been added as a
condition of approval in the attached Resolution 2019-32.
• Every sign and all parts, portions and materials must be maintained in good repair.
The display surface of all signs must be kept clean, neatly painted, and free from rust,
cracking, peeling, corrosion or other states of disrepair. This maintenance obligation
includes the replacement of broken faces, repainting of rust, chipped or peeling
structures or faces within fifteen days following written notification by the city. When
there is a change or discontinuance of a business or occupancy such that a sign no
longer represents a place of business or occupancy, the sign must be removed or the
name of the prior business or occupant either removed, or the sign face covered in a
manner that blends with the building or supporting structure.
As proposed, the sign program presented for the Empire Park industrial complex ensures that
signage is clearly stated, appropriately scaled, and in harmony with the character and appearance
of the building and use that is being identified.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This project is categorically exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Article 19, Section 15311, Accessory Structures,
On-Premises Signs.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: Public notification is not required for a Sign Program.
Planning Manager Approval Date: January 3, 2020
Attachments (list in packet assembly order):
1. Planning Commission Resolution 2019-32
2. Exhibit A - Applicant’s submittal package dated December 6, 2019
PLANNING COMMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2019-32
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK APPROVING A SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE EMPIRE
PARK INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX AT 5625 STATE FARM DRIVE
(APN 143-021-031)
(Michael Flanagan, Signs par Excellence)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Michael Flanagan, filed Planning Application No. PLS I19-
0017 for a Master Sign Program for the property located at 5625 State Farm Drive (APN 143-
021-031), in accordance with the City of Rohnert Park Municipal Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PLSI19-0017 was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, on October 10, 2019, the Planning Commission reviewed Planning
Application No. PLSI19-0017 at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify
either in support of or opposition to the project; and,
WHEREAS, at the October 10, 2019 Planning Commission meeting, upon considering
all testimony and arguments, continued the item to a date uncertain to allow the applicant an
opportunity to further review the Master Sign Program and design a sign program that would
meet the needs of all tenants and allow for the possibility of additional signage throughout the
site.
WHEREAS, at the January 9, 2020 Planning Commission, upon considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Planning Commission
considered all the facts relating to Planning Application No. PLSI19-0017;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROHNERT PARK DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. Factors considered. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning
Application No. PLSI19-0017 makes the following factors, to wit:
A. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the objectives of the zoning
ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the sign is located.
Criteria Satisfied. The signage is appropriately sized, located and designed. The
proposed locations of the signs are in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance and purpose
of the “I-L” zoning district in which the signs are located. Approving the application will
create a sign program as required by the sign code and creates framework to allow for
approval of future signs in accordance with its provisions.
2
Resolution 2019-32
B. That the proposed location of the sign and the conditions under which the sign would be
operated and maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
Criteria Satisfied. The proposed locations of the monument sign, wall signs, and window
signs will continue to maintain the public’s health, safety and welfare. The sign
installation work will be completed with the appropriate permits. All signs will be
attractive and present an orderly appearance in accordance with the regulations and
standards of the Zoning Ordinance.
Section 4. Environmental Clearance. The project is categorically exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Article 19, Section 15311 accessory
structures on-premises signs.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission does hereby
approve Planning Application No. PLSI19-0017 subject to the following conditions:
1. The Sign Program approval shall expire one year from the Planning Commission
approval date, unless prior to the expiration a sign and building permit is issued and
construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion or an
extension is requested and approved.
2. The facility shall comply with any and all applicable provisions of the Rohnert Park
Municipal Code and any state or federal agency requirements.
3. Prior to the installation of any signs, the applicant shall submit and receive approval
of a Sign Review application.
4. The signs shall conform to Exhibit A attached hereto.
5. Every sign and all parts, portions and materials must be maintained in good repair.
The display surface of all signs must be kept clean, neatly painted, and free from rust,
cracking, peeling, corrosion or other states of disrepair. This maintenance obligation
includes the replacement of broken faces, repainting of rust, chipped or peeling
structures or faces within fifteen days following written notification by the city. When
there is a change or discontinuance of a business or occupancy such that a sign no
longer represents a place of business or occupancy, the sign must be removed or the
name of the prior business or occupant either removed, or the sign face covered in a
manner that blends with the building or supporting structure.
6. All unpermitted and non-conforming signage that currently exists must be removed.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said action shall not be deemed final until the
appeal period has expired and that the appeal period shall be ten (10) working days from the date
of said action. No building permits shall be issued until the appeal period has expired, providing
there are no appeals.
3
Resolution 2019-32
DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED on this 9th day of January, 2020 by the City of
Rohnert Park Planning Commission by the following vote:
AYES: _____ NOES:_____ ABSENT:_____ ABSTAIN:_____
BLANQUIE _____ BORBA _____ GIUDICE _____ HAYDON ____ORLOFF _____
________________________________________________________
Gerard Giudice, Chairperson, Rohnert Park Planning Commission
Attest: ________________________________
Jennifer Sedna, Recording Secretary
Attachment: Exhibit A
Exhibit A
SIGN PROGRAM December 6, 2019
5625 State Farm
Rohnert Park, CA
PURPOSE AND INTENT:
The following sign criteria has been established and adopted by the City of Rohnert
Park, as its operative sign criteria for 5625 State Farm Drive Industrial Park (Empire
Park), for the purpose of assuring a consistent, effective, well designed, sign program
for Industrial Park and for the mutual benefit of all tenants. Flexibility of creative design
is encouraged and at the same time overall visual harmony is maintained. Conformity
with this criterion will be enforced by the Landlord. The sign code will be enforced by the
City of Rohnert Park. Any non-conforming or unapproved sign will be brought into
conformity at the expense of the Tenant or removed by Landlord at Tenant's cost and
expense.
The following sign program shall be adhered to by anyone wanting to erect/install
signage at Empire Park at 5625 State Farm Drive (see Exhibit A)
APPROVAL PROCEDURES:
1) Prior to the manufacturing of any sign the Tenant shall submit to the Landlord, for
approval,
a) two copies of
i) detail shop drawings Including: font size, layout, color (including all copy and
graphics) and materials used.
ii) A site plan showing proposed sign location
iii) Detailed elevation drawings showing proposed signage including dimensions
and location:
2) Landlord’s written approval of Tenant’s prepared sign drawings and specifications is
required. Landlord shall review submittal for conformance with this criteria and
overall design quality. Approval or disapproval of sign submittals based on
aesthetics of design shall remain the sole right of the Landlord
3) Prior to sign production and installation, the Tenant shall submit three (3) copies of
the detailed shop drawings, that have been approved by Landlord, to the City of
Rohnert Park for approval. Minimum information shall include:
a) detail shop drawings Including: font size, layout, color (including all copy and
graphics) materials used, and method or attachment with landlord’s signature
approval.
b) A site plan showing the proposed sign location with landlord’s signature approval
c) Detailed elevations showing proposed signage, including dimensions and
location with the landlord’s approval signature
4) Tenant shall pay all costs for its signs including design, manufacture, installation,
maintenance and City permits/certificates.
5) Tenant shall be responsible for and repair any damage to the sign fascia or any
other surface caused by the signage or its installation or removal.
6) Landlord reserves the right to periodically hire an independent engineer or sign
company, at Tenants sole expense, to inspect the installation of Tenants signs.
Tenant will be required to have any discrepancies and/or code violations corrected at
Tenants expense. All code violations, request for sign removal, and/or discrepancies
not corrected or completed within, twenty-one (21) days of written notice, may be
corrected by the Landlord at the Tenants expense.
7) Landlord shall have the right to disapprove any sign(s), even if said sign meets all
the applicable criteria mentioned herein, if Landlord in its sole and absolute
discretion determines that the sign proposed does not fit into the space available on
the storefront sign fascia. In such an event Landlord will work closely with the Tenant
and its sign contractor to develop an acceptable sign.
SIGN CRITERIA
1) SIGNS ALLOWED
a) One Tenant sign on building (see exhibit C &D)
b) One Tenant sign on Sign Directory (see exhibit A & B, Landlord responsible)
c) Window/ Glass Door sign
2) SIGN CONSTRUCTION
a) Tenant Sign on building (see exhibit C & D)
i) The total sign area of fascia signage for a single front Tenant shall not exceed
10 square feet. The Sign Area allowed is 5’ x 2’ and is centered immediately
above the door entrance. The sign sub-straight must be made of aluminum
composite and must be 5’ wide and 2’ in height.
ii) Copy height shall not exceed twenty-four (24") inches. The overall height of
the sign shall not exceed twenty-four (24") from the top of the tallest letter to
the bottom of the lowest letter.
iii) Signs shall be limited to the store name and logo.
iv) Letter and logo face, color, and font are subject to Landlord approval and design
review by the City of Rohnert Park.
b) Tenant sign on Sign Directory. (see exhibit B)
i) Directory sign consists of 50 sqft on each side. There are 30 tenant spaces for
signs. Signs included Suite number and name of company in an Arial Font. All
directory signs must conform to these specifications.
ii) The landlord will be responsible for the maintance of the directory sign
c) Window/Glass Door Sign
i) Signage is allowed on the front door and on the window immediately next to
the front door entrance. Signage may not exceed 20% of the total window /
door area. Window/Glass Door sign shall be non-illuminated. Only exterior
adhesive vinyl signage may be installed on window/door.
3) SIGN INSTALLATION
a) All exterior signs shall be properly secured.
b) All signs shall be designed to minimize the number of holes to be drilled into the
sign fascia
4) SIGN LOCATIONS
a) Building – Tenant sign
i) The sign area allowed is 5’ x 2’ and is centered immediately above the door.
Exhibit C & D
b) Monument sign -Tenant sign on Sign Directory
i) The monument sign is locate at the EAST Entrance
ii) The Landlord shall create a double sided directory sign per specifications and
located in South end of property, see picture (see Exhibits A & B).
c) Window/Glass door sign.
i) Signage is allowed on Door and large window immediately next to the door.
5) NOT ALLOWED SIGNAGE
a) No Temporary sign, window signs (except as stated under Sign Criteria 2Ci),
placards, flags, pennants and banners of any type shall be prohibited, except as
otherwise previously approved by the Landlord and if required by the City of
Rohnert Park prior to installation.
b) No sign manufacturers names, stamps, or decals visible from normal viewing
angles.
c) No paper, cardboard, or Styrofoam signs, stickers or decals hung around, on or
behind storefronts.
d) No Animated, flashing, moving and/or audible signs.
e) No Signs located above the fascia or on the roof. Roof mounted signs are
prohibited.
f) No Signs in the public right of way or on public property.
g) No Signs located within a vision triangle.
h) Any sign that has not been specifically approved by Landlord and, if required, the
City of Rohnert Park.
EXHIBIT A – 5625 State Farm Drive, Rohnert Park location of directory sign
Exibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
Page 1
City of Rohnert Park
Planning Commission Report
DATE: January 9, 2020
ITEM NO: 6.3
PREPARED BY: Jeffrey Beiswenger, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Progress Report & Study Session on Zoning Ordinance Update Project
LOCATION: City of Rohnert Park
SUBJECT: The purpose of this progress report is to update the Planning Commission on the
zoning ordinance project.
INTRODUCTION: City staff is in the process of preparing a full update of the zoning
ordinance for consideration in 2020. An introductory study session was held in July of 2019 and
a draft of the code is now being prepared. Staff is approaching the zoning ordinance update
under the following guiding principles:
1. Ready the zoning ordinance for a targeted update following the adoption of the new
General Plan at the end of 2020;
2. Incorporate contemporary best practices;
3. Remove inconsistencies and conflicts;
4. Make the zoning ordinance easier to understand and use; and
5. Impart greater flexibility to foster economic development and encourage development.
So far, draft updates to three sections of the zoning ordinance are complete and are under review
by staff: administrative procedures, land use regulations and telecommunications. Summarized
as follows:
Topic 1 –Permit Processes
The draft ordinance includes the following provisions related to permit processes and
administrative procedures:
Decision Authority
The code will clearly assign the decision-making authority for each planning entitlement (see
Table 1 below). Administrative and minor design decisions are made by the Zoning
Administrator. The Zoning Administrative role is defined in the zoning ordinance and is filled by
a staff person appointed by the City Manager. The Planning Commission makes most
Page 2
discretionary decisions on site and building design issues, and use permits. The City Council
makes all legislative decisions (e.g. zoning changes, specific plan amendments) with a
recommendation by the Planning Commission.
Table 1: Authority for Zoning Decisions
Entitlement
Zoning
Ordinance
Section
Role of Reviewer or Decision-Maker1
Zoning
Administrator
Parks and Recreation
Commission
Planning
Commission City Council
Certificate of Zoning
Compliance 17.38.010 Decision
Similar Use
Determination 17.38.020 Decision Appeal Appeal
Temporary Use
Permit 17.38.030 Decision Appeal Appeal
Administrative Use
Permit 17.38.040 Decision Appeal Appeal
Conditional Use
Permit 17.38.050 Recommend Decision Appeal
Minor Site Plan and
Architectural
Review
17.38.060 Decision Appeal Appeal
Major Site Plan and
Architectural
Review
17.38.070 Recommend Decision Appeal
Adjustment 17.38.080 Decision2,3 Appeal Appeal
Variance 17.38.090 Recommend Decision Appeal
Minor Sign Program 17.38.100 Decision2,3 Appeal Appeal
Major Sign Program 17.38.100 Recommend Decision Appeal
Zoning
Amendments 17.38.110 Recommend Recommend Decision
Planned
Development 17.38.120 Recommend Recommend Recommend Decision
Specific Plan 17.38.130 Recommend Recommend Recommend Decision
Development Area
Plan 17.38.140 Recommend Decision Appeal
General Plan
Amendment 17.38.150 Recommend Recommend Decision
Development
Agreements 17.38.160 Recommend Recommend Decision
Page 3
Minor Site Plan and Architecture Review
A minor design review process would enable property owners to make minor modifications to
facades and site plans without a full SPAR process. This would be less expensive for property
owners, but leave more design decisions to staff. Staff would work with the Planning
Commission to determine the appropriate threshold for when a design review would go to staff.
Adjustment Entitlement
To provide applicants with a process for obtaining minor deviations from development
standards, the ordinance update will incorporate an adjustment process. For example, an
adjustment could allow for a 10% deviation to building height to accommodate a unique roof
design. Currently only a variance is available for deviations from the code and findings for a
variance are very difficult to meet.
Specific Plan and Development Area Plan Entitlement
The zoning ordinance currently includes a complicated Development Area Plan (DAP)
entitlement process, folded under the Specific Plan section of the code. The DAP will be moved
to a separate section. DAPs currently go to the City Council for a final decision after a
recommendation from the Planning Commission. Since DAPs are primarily site and building
design documents, staff recommends the Planning Commission as the final decision making
body for a DAP (with any appeals going to the City Council).
Consolidation of Processing Requirements
The update will consolidate the process for all permits, entitlements, and approvals into a single
area of the code. For example, while the majority of procedures are now in Chapter 17.25, the
process for reasonable accommodations is in Chapter 17.10, the procedure for processing a
Specific Plan Zoning District request is included in Chapter 17.06, Article VIII, and development
agreement procedures are in Chapter 17.21. This results in unnecessary duplication.
Nonconforming Provisions
The current nonconforming provisions in the code are narrowly focused on nonconforming uses,
but are silent on nonconforming structures (e.g. where a structure was built legally, but the
zoning code changed and the structure may now be too tall, in the setback, short on parking or
other nonconforming circumstance). The code update with include a section on structures.
Enforcement Procedures
Planning staff is working with code enforcement staff and the City Attorney’s Office to
strengthen the enforcement procedures in the code.
Topic 2 –Land Use Regulations
The zoning ordinance’s existing land use regulations include outdated use listings that do not
adequately describe uses that are not allowed, and do not provide enough flexibility in some
cases. Focusing on the ordinance’s land use tables, land use regulations will be modernized by
omitting outdated use listings, including appropriate contemporary listings, and tailoring the new
and revised listings to be as broad as possible. The revisions will also include uses of concern,
specifically not allowed (e.g. cannabis related businesses). This will facilitate reducing the
tables’ length, simplifying the understanding and implementation of the land use regulations, and
providing increased flexibility in mixed use and nonresidential zones.
Page 4
Updated Land Use Tables
Table 2 provides an example of a new format for listing permitted (P), administratively permitted
(A), conditionally permitted (C) and not permitted (N) land uses. The new code will accomplish
the following enhancements over the existing code:
• Use categories will be consolidated where possible. “Commercial Lodging” is an
example of this in the table below that groups “Bed and Breakfast Inn”, “Hotel and
Motel” and “Hotel and Motel, Extended Stay” together.
• Administrative approvals will be required where uses may need special consideration, but
do not need to go to the Planning Commission for a CUP. For example, alcohol beverage
sales are currently regulated by public safety with an “alcohol use” permit. Adding an
administrative permit to the zoning ordinance will create a review process under the
zoning ordinance.
• Certain uses that are NOT permitted will be listed, such as commercial marijuana uses.
This is a change from the current ordinance, which operates under the assumption, that
any use not listed is not permitted. This will remove ambiguity.
• A cross reference to specific use regulations will be provided for quick reference. This
allows for a hyperlink to be added in the digital version of the code.
Table 2 – Example of Use Listings
Updated Land Use Tables
The new code will include an update to all of the definitions. The current code has many land use
categories that are not well defined or not defined at all and this has led to code interpretation
ambiguities. Table 3 below illustrates the differences between existing definitions and new
definitions in the “Commercial Lodging” category.
Page 5
Table 3 – Example of Use Definitions
Topic 3 - Wireless Communication Facilities
The Planning Commission held a study on telecommunications in July of 2019 and a new
telecommunication ordinance has been written to implement many of the concepts discussed at
that time. It is currently under final review by the City Attorney’s Office. On January 14, the
City Council will be conducting a study session on telecommunications. Staff plans to return to
Page 6
the Planning Commission to consider changes to the telecommunication ordinance as early as
January 23, 2019.
The primary focus of the code update is to implement new FCC requirements. In September
2018, the FCC adopted its Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order in Accelerating
Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure, Investment, WT
Docket No. 17-79 (the “Small Cell Order”). The Small Cell Order requires streamlined
processing of small cell facilities applications and imposes strict time limitations for local
jurisdictions to issue all approvals (building permits, zoning approvals, etc.).
To ensure that the most up to date and effective ordinance is adopted by the City, staff has
researched work completed by other jurisdictions and has compiled best practices, discussed as
follows.
Best Practice #1: Electromagnetic Frequency (EMF) Safety Confirmation
Federal law preempts local agencies from regulating radio frequency or electromagnetic waves
that comply with FCC regulations. However, the City can require proof that these standards are
being met.
Most of the policy examples that staff has reviewed require proof that the wireless carriers
comply with the FCC EMF parameters. A typical best practice is to require on-site post
installation radio frequency (RF) emission testing to ensure that limits established by FCC OET
Bulletin 65 RF emission safety rules are met. The City has included this requirement in its
encroachment permit standards for installation on private poles and staff recommends that future
updates to the zoning ordinance and Manual of Standards require an EMF safety confirmation
prior to operation of the equipment.
Best Practice #2: Priority Locations
The new FCC regulations present a challenge to jurisdictions since local governments have
limited authority to prohibit the installation of new facilities. In response, many jurisdictions are
establishing priority locations in order to encourage new facilities to locate or co-locate in non-
residential zoning districts as a first option.
Best practices include prioritizing locations by zone (industrial, commercial, residential, etc.),
public versus private ownership, type of right-of-way (local, collector or arterial street). The
primary goal of this prioritization is to locate facilities away from residential areas when
possible, while still providing adequate service. In addition, because small cell technology is
generally intended to serve mobile technology, locating these facilities along transportation
corridors or in commercial districts (where mobile device use is high) can be an effective
strategy for meeting service demands.
Historically the City has had a practice of locating facilities in parks and on other public
property. These areas are well suited for telecommunication equipment since the space is
available to keep the equipment away from homes and to more easily screen and/or camouflage
it. Leasing City property for telecommunications purposes has also been a historical source of
revenue for the City.
Page 7
Based on review of various model policy documents and the geographic layout of the City, staff
is proposing the following priority location list for consideration:
1. City-owned property or structures outside public rights-of way
2. City-owned property and structures in the public rights-of-way (adjacent to non-
residential zoned property)
3. The Public Institutional zone (includes city parks)
4. Industrial zones
5. Commercial zones
6. Mixed-used zones
7. City owner property and structures in the public rights-of-way (adjacent to residential
zoned property)
8. Residential zones
The priority location list and configuration preference list would be used with the design and
clutter reduction standards (discussed below) to ensure that equipment is located in the most
desirable configuration without overly restricting the ability of telecommunications companies to
provide service.
Best Practice # 3: Design Considerations
While the FCC rules shorten the timeframe for processing a telecom facility application and
curtail the ability of jurisdictions to restrict the location of telecom facilities, these rules do not
prevent cities from applying design standards to help reduce the visual impact of these facilities.
Common design standards include limits on the height and bulk of facilities, and requirements to
conceal accessory equipment to the extent feasible. Typical design considerations include:
• Height limits. Height is typically limited based on the underlying zoning designation or
“minimum functional height.” The main concern is that new towers do not loom over
adjoining neighborhoods. A typical limit is 35 feet within residential districts and 65-75
feet in non-residential zones. Taller structures will usually require conditional use
permits.
• Setbacks. Telecommunication towers are required to be setback from property lines and
away from residential properties. One example code provision states that, “towers and
antennas shall be setback at a ratio of two horizontal feet for every one foot in height and
shall be screened and/or concealed from the nearest residentially zoned property.”
Excessive setbacks, which could indirectly prohibit the adequate provision of
telecommunication service should be avoided.
• Concealment. Zoning codes prescribe various ways to conceal or camouflage
telecommunication towers, small cell hardware and ground equipment. As long as these
Page 8
requirements do not interfere with the operation of the equipment, telecom providers can
be required to comply. Towers designed to look like trees or building elements (e.g. clock
towers, church steeples) and ground equipment placed within a building, screen with
landscaping, or hidden within a landscape feature (e.g. a fake rock) are common
techniques. The encroachment permit standards which the City Council recently adopted
for small cell placement on privately owned poles include objective, prescriptive
requirements that protect public health and welfare without compromising equipment
operation.
Best Practice # 4: Clutter Reduction
As multiple telecommunications companies compete to provide enhanced service within Rohnert
Park, city parks, streets and public and private property could quickly become cluttered with new
telecommunication towers and equipment. As technology changes, equipment could become
obsolete, increasing the risk that equipment is left behind when no longer in use – littering the
streetscape with obsolete equipment. The following are a few best practices to reduce
telecommunications clutter:
• Configuration preferences. To reduce the number of new poles erected, particularly in the
right-of-way, a city can establish configuration preferences to encourage co-location, for
example:
1. Co-locate on exiting telecommunication facility.
2. Co-locate on existing (or replacement) utility poles.
3. Co-location on existing (or replacement) City owned street light pole.
4. Existing or replacement structure on industrial or commercial building.
5. New utility poles.
• Co-locations. If an existing tower exists, it should be used for co-location as a first
option. As new towers are built, at least two providers should be able to co-locate on a
single facility. One pole can accommodate two facilities with limited structural and
height implications. For each additional facility an additional 10 feet in height is required,
as well as increases in pole diameter due to the weight and spacing requirements. The
trade-off for fewer poles is taller and bulkier towers.
• Pole separations. Minimum space requirements between poles could range from 500 feet
in most preferred locations to 1,000 feet or more in the least preferred areas. A best
practice is to have the limit apply only to new poles to minimize the need for new
structures.
• Clustering. In some cases, it may be preferable to cluster facilities instead of separating
them. The City already has telecommunication facilities on city owned property (e.g. fire
stations, B Park). Adding additional facilities in existing locations can reduce the need to
add towers nearby. It is also easier to camouflage facilities if disguised as a cluster of
Page 9
“monopines,” install on top of parking lot light poles, and/or screen with park
landscaping.
• Abandonment avoidance. Due to new FCC regulations, the City is required to allow for
new telecommunication with rights-of-way. This creates a significant risk of adding a
clutter of new equipment and towers. As technology evolves these towers and the related
equipment will become obsolete and the temptation will be to leave them behind. New
regulations would prevent abandonment by one or more of the following: requiring a
bond to insure removal; requiring a master license agreement; and/or requiring immediate
removal upon discontinuation of service.
Best Practice # 5: Public Rights-of-Way Consideration
New federal law allows for use of City right-of-way by telecommunication providers. However,
the right-of-way is a city controlled public asset and tools are still available to the City to avoid
clutter and obstructions in the right-of-way. The following are some best practices:
1. Adopt regulation to limit obstructions in right-of-way. Standards in the zoning ordinance
and improvement standards control the function of facilities installed in the right-of-way.
Codes typically include requirements to remove or relocate facilities if needed to
accommodate a necessary public improvement (e.g. road widening, undergrounding of
utilities, etc.). Codes also include maintenance provisions and measures to require
abatement if facilities are vandalized. Codes also include measures to ensure that
facilities do not create safety hazards (visual or physical) to pedestrians or vehicles.
2. Master Lease Agreements (MLAs) and Master License Agreements (MILA). MLAs
would apply to macro cell facilities located on public property (including rights-of-way)
or multiple small cell facilities. An MILA would apply to a single small cell facility.
Both of these agreements allow for the City to recover costs and/or generate revenue and
to ensure that equipment is adequately maintained and removed when no longer in use,
through a bond or other mechanism.
3. Public Works Standards. The City recently adopted standards for small cell devices
located on privately owned poles and similar standards for installations on City standard
light pole that includes telecommunications equipment are being prepared for City
Council consideration. (Figure 1 illustrates this concept). New telecommunication
regulations allow for the use of public rights-of-way by providers, but the City can direct
the use of existing streetlight and other existing structures as an alternative to a new pole
in the right of way.
4. Encroachment Permit. Prior to any work within the public right-of-way, the City can
require the issuance of an encroachment permit. The permit includes reimbursement
provisions to ensure that the public is not on the hook for expenses related to the
processing of applications for private telecommunication providers. Encroachment
permits require the submittal of certain documents to ensure public safety, including:
traffic control plans, construction drawings, structural analysis reports, photo
simulations, and RF Reports. Encroachment permits should be paired with MILAs in
order for the City to be most effective in regulating the use of its rights of way.
Page 10
Figure 1 – City Standard of City Light Pole with Telecommunications Equipment
Best Practice #6: Streamlined Procedures
New FCC shot clock and other requirements limit the ability of cities to require conditional use
permits and other types of discretionary decisions (e.g. design review), for specific types of
telecommunication equipment. For example, a jurisdiction has only 60 days to act on an eligible
facility request (e.g. co-location that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of an
existing facility), 90 days to act on a collocation application and 150 days for all other
applications (e.g. new tower). These timeframes must include any appeals. It would be difficult,
if not impossible to process a conditional use permit or a design review within a 90-day
timeframe.
Page 11
A best practice in many of the codes that staff has studied is to divide the different types of
telecommunication equipment into different categories with different procedural requirements.
These allow for compliance that are consistent with the FCC shot clock (see Table 1).
Administrative permits are faster, but do not allow for the full public review process of a
conditional use permit. In order to ensure that telecommunications facilities are adequately
regulated for safety and aesthetic purposes, the zoning ordinance will need to include standards
that address these concerns so that they can be administratively applied (see discussion under
Best Practice #7, below).
Table 1 – Typical Permits Required for Types of Telecommunication Applications
Telecommunication Facility Residential Districts Non-Residential Districts
New telecom tower Not permitted Conditional Use Permit
Building mounted equipment (e.g.
rooftop)
Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit
Co-location – existing tower (including
Eligible Facility requests)
Administrative Permit Administrative Permit
Small cell facility Not Permitted Administrative Permit
Public right-of-way Encroachment Permit / MLA required
Some of the policy documents reviewed by staff included community meeting and pre-submittal
staff meetings requirements. Staff does not believe these requirements represent a best practice
because the scheduling could impact the City’s ability to meet shot clock limits and result in the
“automatic” approval of applications. A best practice would be to include an optional
neighborhood meeting and/or optional pre-submittal conference with staff.
Best Practice #7: Standard Conditions of Approval
Jurisdictions use conditions of approval (COAs) when approving permits to make sure that
procedures and regulations apply throughout the construction and life of telecommunication
facilities. COAs are typically applied on a case-by-case basis. This practice is flexible and allows
for adjustments to respond to changing regulations. However, to comply with FCC rules and to
accelerate processing due to shot clock limits, it is necessary to include standard COAs in the
zoning ordinance. Based on review of the model policy documents, staff if proposing the
following standard COAs for consideration:
• Strict compliance to approved plans. Technology is changing rapidly and this provision
would require any alterations to go back through the review process.
• Build-out permit. A one-year limit would be placed on any approval to make sure
facilities are installed in a timely manner.
Page 12
• Maintenance obligations. The telecommunications provider would be required to keep
any facility free of debris and make any necessary repairs that result from vandalism, bad
weather, or other causes.
• RF compliance evaluations. The FCC sets safe RF exposure limits. Prior to the operation
for any equipment, the operator would be required to conduct on-site post-installation RF
emissions testing to demonstrate compliance with FCC OER Bulletin 65 RF emission
safety rules.
• Tree Protection. If a protected tree is nearby, the applicant may be required to hire a
certified arborist to develop a tree protection plan.
• Indemnification. Telecommunication provider would be obligated to defend, indemnify
and hold harmless the City from all claims.
• Performance Bond. A bond equivalent to 100% of the cost of removal of a facility is
required for facilities in the right-of-way.
• Conflict with Improvements. If the roadway needs to widened, underground
infrastructure installed or other public improvements made, a telecommunication
provider may be required to remove or relocate equipment.
• Encourage co-locations. New facilities would be required to be constructed to
accommodate more than one provider.
• Abandonment. If a facility is abandoned for more than 90 days, removal is required. If
not removed within 30 days, the City would have the option of having the facility
removed at the expense of the operator (e.g. calling a bond).
• Master Lease and License Agreements. All facilities on public property, including rights-
of-way would be required to enter into a master lease or license agreement with the City.
NEXT STEPS: The following is the anticipated public hearing and adoption schedule for the
telecommunication ordinance and the status of the remainder of the code:
Telecommunications Ordinance
• January 23, Planning Commission Hearing
• February 11, City Council Hearing, First Reading
• February 25, City Council, Consider Adoption
• March 26, Effective Date
Full Zoning Code
• Administrative Procedures (under review by staff)
Page 13
• Land Use Regulations (under review by staff)
• Development Standards (consultant preparing draft)
• Special Use Provisions (consultant preparing draft)
o Telecommunications (see above)
• Planned Developments / Specific Plans (consultant preparing draft)
• Definitions (consultant preparing draft)
The goal is to have a draft code completed by the end of May of this year so that the Planning
Commission can complete a detailed review of the full draft document before a public hearing
draft is prepared.
Planning Manager Approval Date: 1/3/20
Attachments (list in packet assembly order): none