Kl. . .
. 

4133?: 3. 

 

 

 

wn-wy?H?fr 

Land Use Element Page 41

(4) adequate public services and infrastructure must be available for the use, without inducing growth in

an area where it is not projected or planned. . 
(5) the district shall demonstrate that a need for the proposed facnlity based upon projected growth

in the district and that no economically feasible alternative location for the school facility is available in

an urban land use category. 
(6) the site has frontage on a designated collector or arterial roadway.

Private nursery. primary or secondary schools and churches in rural land use categories shall meet

all of the following minimum criteria: . 
(1) the school or church must obtain a use permit pl'lOl' to Initiation of the use.
(2) the use shall not be located on lands currently used for agricultural production and shall not result in

con?icts with agricultural production or related processing. support services. or visitor serving uses.
(3) con?icts with other resource production activities are avoided.
(4) adequate public services and infrastructure must be available for the use. without inducing unplanned

growth.
(5) sites are limited to existing parcels less than 5 acres unless an agricultural. scenic, or other in perpetuity

easement is applied to the portion of the site not part of the proposed use.

(6) the site has frontage on a designated collector or arterial roadway.
(7) the use primarily serves a congregation or student body which resides in the community in which the

proposed use is to be located.

le?g; Housing Opportunity areas for the development of affordable housing are designated as follows:

(1) Type A Housing Opportunity Areas are permitted in the urban medium and high density areas. subject
to compliance with all of the requirements of Policy on page 128 concerning such projects.

(2) Type Housing Opportunity Areas are permitted in the urban low density areas subject to compliance

with all of the requirements of Policy concerning such projects.
(3) A parcel or parcels of land consistent (1) or (2) above may be speci?cally designated as a Housing

Opportunity Area during the review of the speci?c plans and area plans."
2.1.7 Use of Environmental Suitability Criteria in Locating and Guiding Rural and Urban Growth

Development in parts of Sonoma County could result in exposure of people and property to environmental risks
or hazards. Flooding, ?re and seismic hazards, landslides. erosion and scarcity of ground water are examples.

Some land is especially sensitive to intense development. Many of these same characteristics. however, often
make land attractive as a rural homesite. As a result. opinions differ as to the extent of development which should

be allowed in these areas.

Prevent unnecessary exposure of people and property to environmental risks and hazards.
Limit development on lands that are especially vulnerable or sensitive to environmental damage.

- Restrict development in areas which are constrained by the natural limitations of the land.
including but not limited to, ?ood, ?re, geologic hazards, groundwater availability and septic suitability.

The following policies, in addition to those in the Open Space, Resource Conservation. and Public Safety
Elements, shall be used to accomplish the above objective

LIED: Avoid general plan amendments which would allow additional development in ?oodplains, unless such
development is of low intensity and does not include large permanent structures.

Limit development in wetlands designated on Figure 08-3 on page 183.

Lu-lc: Prohibit new permanent structures within the ?oodway. Require that any development that may be
permitted within the ?oodplain to be raised above the 100-year ?ood elevation.

".151; Avoid commercial. industrial, and residential land use designations in areas subject to "high" or ?very
high" ?re hazards. as identi?ed in the Public Safety Element, unless the combination of fuel load. access,

Naao

U-IVHO Ova-nu sf? . .

Mam 

I i. 

42
Land Use Element Pag
water supply, and other project design measures will reduce the potential ?re-related impacts of new
development to insigni?cant levels.

2.1.8 Protection of Agricultural Lands

Agriculture is a major part of Sonoma County's economy. Many types 0f ex:sdt. vmeytards.
orchards, daln?es. forage crops. specialty crops. and livestock. Farms are both full time an pta Id t? Operati Ions}
Agricultural production in some areas is threatened both by pressures of urban gevelopmen a: (area 9

small residential lots in the midst of agricultural lands. Continued farming IS also affected 9 angis In
commodity prices. The resulting economic pressure on the farmer can lead to requests for lan IVISIODS- and
use policy in agricultural areas must consider 1) the extent to which more small resudentlal lots should .be allowed
2) the need for agricultural support services in rural areas. and 3) the extent of servmg uses Which may be
compatible with farming.

and lands with soils and other

Protect lands currently in agricultural productio . .
al use. Retain large parcel snzes and

characteristics which make them potentially suitable for agricultur
avoid incompatible non-agricultural uses.

ijes?mLML Avoid conversion of lands currently used for agricultural production to non-agricultural use.

mm Retain large parcels in agricultural production areas and avoid new parcels less than 20 acres
in the "Land Intensive Agriculture" category. .

Agricultural lands not currently used for farming but which have soils or other characteristics
which make them suitable for farming shall not be developed in a way that would preclude future agricultural use.

Discourage uses in agricultural areas that are not compatible with long term agricultural
production.

Support farming by permitting limited small scale farm services and visitor serving uses in
agricultural areas.

In addition to the policies of the Agricultural Resources Element, the following policies shall be usedto accomplish
the above objectives:

Unless allowed by Policy 08-10 or on pages 171 and 174, limit extensions of urban services
into any agricultural production area to parcels with a health or safety problem. Out-of-service area
agreements are the preferred method of extending service in such cases.

Lian-Apply a base zoning district of agriculture for any land area designated on the land use plan map for
agriculture. Other overlay zoning districts may be applied where allowed by the agricultural land use category.
Add an agricultural services zoning district or combining district to the zoning ordinance.

Lilia: Use rezonings, easements and other methods to insure that development on agricultural lands does
not exceed the permitted density except where allowed by the policies of the Agricultural Resources Element.

Deny general plan amendments which convert lands outside of designated urban service areas with
Class I, II. or soils (USDA) to an urban or rural residential, commercial, industrial, or public/quasi public
category unless all of the following criteria are metagricultural production area and will not adversely affect agricultural operations.
2) The supply of vacant potential land for the requested use is insuf?cient to meet projected demand.
3) No areas with other soil classes are available for non-resource uses in the planning area.

4) An overriding public bene?t will result from the proposed use.

Amendments to recognize a pre-existing use are exempt from this policy. Public uses such as parks and
sewage treatment plants may be approved if an overriding public bene?t exists





?3



- eral Plan Page 49
?222T352?E?ge??" LUEBEG March 23, 1939

es ecially sensitive to intense development. Many of these same
f?gialiggiLEicsp however, often make land attractive as a rural homeSite. As a
result, opinions differ as to the extent of development which should be allowed
in these areas.

GOAL LU-7: Prevent unnecessary exposure of pe0ple and property to environ-
and hazards. Limit development on lands that are especially
vulnerable or sensitive to environmental damage.

Objective Restrict development in areas which are constrained by
the natural limitations of the land, including but not limited to, flood,
fire, geologic hazards, groundwater availability and septic suitability.

The following policies, in addition to those in the Open Space, Resource

Conservation, and Public Safety Elements, shall be used to accomplish the above
objective

 

Avoid general plan amendments which would allow additional

development in floodplains, unless such development is of low
intensity and does not include large permanent structures.
Limit

development in wetlands designated on Figure 05-3 on page
235..

 

Prohibit new permanent structures within the floodway.

that any development that may be permitted within the fl
to be raised above the lOO-year flood elevation.

Require
oodplain

Avoid commercial, industrial, and residential land use
designations in areas subject to ?high? or "very high" fire
hazards, as identified in the Public Safety Element, unless the
combination of fuel load, access, water supply, and other project

design measures will reduce the potential fire-related impacts of
new development to insignificant levels.

2.1.8 Protection of Agricultural Lands

Agriculture is.a major part of Sonoma County's economy. Many types of
agriculture eXist, including vineyards, orchards, dairies, forage crops,
Specialty crops, and livestock. Farms are both full time and part time
operations. Agricultural production in some areas is threatened both by
pressures of urban development and by creation of small residential lots in the

 


Sonoma County General Plan LUEBEG age 50
Land-Use Element


-



.

?9
.

Continued farming is also affected by

?f agricultural lands. ng economic pressure on the farmer canc?2"9esin

sulti . ad 
commodity Th9 rens Land use policy in agricultural areas mus 
fl; t?gdegtanIEO which more small residential lots should be 
co

- - allowed
. Vices in rural areas and 3)
for a ricultural ser . . . a the ext
5; 3?:i23: serving uses which may be compatible with farming. ent

- ct lands currently in agricultural production and lands With
which mate them potentially SUIFable for
:gricultural use. Retain large parcel Sizes and avaid incompatible
non-agricultural uses.

Objective Avoid conversion of lands currently used for
agricultural production to non-agricultural use.

 

Objective LU-8.2: Retain large parcels in agricultural production areas
and av01d new parcels less than 20 acres in the Land Inten51ve
Agriculture" category.

 

Objective LU-8.3: Agricultural lands not currently used for farming but
which have.501ls or other characteristics which make them suitable for

farming shall not be developed in a way that would preclUde future
agricultural use. 

Objective LU-8.4: Discourage uses in agricultural areas that are not
compatible with?TOng term agricultural production.

Objective LU-8.5: Support farming by permitting limited small scale farm
serv1ces and visitor serving uses in agricultural areas.

In addition to the policies of the Agricultural Resources Element, the
following policies shall be used to accomplish the above objectives:

 

Unless allowed by Policy 0371C or on pages 225 and 229,
limit extensions of urban services into any agricultural
production area to parcels with a health or safety problem.

Out-of-service area agreements are the preferred method of
extending service in such cases.

Apply a base zoning district of agriculture for any land area
deSignated on the land use plan map for agriculture. Other
overlay zoning districts may be applied where allowed by the
agricultural land use category. Add an agricultural services
ZONlng district or combining district to the zoning ordinance.

LU-BC: Use rezonings, easements and other methods to insure that . 
evelOPment on agricultural lands does not exceed the Perm?tte

density except where allowed - - the Agricultural
Resources Element. by the polic1es 

 



 











county General Plan pubnc ?ea . 
?fuse Eleme"t Draft Page: 37

La? December 4 1986

-
5"
a


ra . . reclude develo ment 

lS Permitted. Many o: tbest-zirsgirlnne"t the
teriS 1c . re associated with 

Charggtive as reSidential locations. enVironments conSidered to be

Viewpoints diffe 'th

at? . regard to the
and in mm ies eve 0pment which should 

21,338? to these conditions. be permitted on lands

?active: In order to prevent unnecessary
Wm rislfs and hazards and to protect lands that are especially
winerable to env1ronmental damage? the Land-use Element shall establish
oiicies and land-use plan map deSignations which correlate the types and
intensities of development allowed with the natural characteristics of the
land.

exposure of people and property to

am 1,114.: It shall be a goal of the County of Sonoma that the types and
intensities of development_in rural and urban areas be consistent with the
environmental characteristics and suitabilities of lands, in a manner that

ninilizes exposure of persons and property to natural hazards and protects
environmentally sensitive lands.

Objective LU-7.1: It is the County's objective that development which
entails construction of new structures or modification of land contours
not be permitted to occur within floodways and that other lands within
the 100-year floodplain be restricted by limitations on permitted uses
and densities and/or by protective building standards.

0b'ective LU-7.2: It is the County's objective that development not
occur on any land area with an average slope greater than 30 percent,

except that no parcel shall be rendered undevelopable in its entirety.

Ob'ective LII-7.3: It is the County's objective that permitted
residential densities for new development not exceed one unit per 20

acres in areas near fault zones except where authorized by specific plans
in effect as of December 31, 1986, and that construction be prohibited
within 50 feet of known potentially active fault lines.

Objective LU-7.4: It is the County's objective that residential
densities not exceed one unit per 20 acres in woodland areas which are
subject to "moderate" or "severe" fire hazard as determined by the
California Department of Forestry.

It is the County's objective that the types and
Intensities of develOpment in rural areas be consistent with availability

0f adequate groundwater supplies and soil conditions which permit

adequate wastewater disposal through individual septic systems; no

reSidential building site shall be smaller than one and one-half acres

When utilizing an individual well and septic system.

 

 

 

?mag:

Sonoma County General Plan March 23, 1939
Public Safety Element










from flooding in the design
- ial risk of damage

including those which could facilitate

floodplain develOpment.

The SCNA shall be responsible for 
flood hazard mitigation projects on a?:i of the Open Space and
selected waterways subject to the polic es
Resource Conservation Elements.

- ts on construction in
- i force county code reqUlremen .
PS 2n and other adopted regulations WhiCh implement

the National Flood Insurance Program.

 

. . . . treams and in 100
Av01d variances to buzlding setbacks along 5
year flood plains without the review and 0f the Sonoma
County Water Agency.

 

Limit filling in areas which could retain a significant amount of



floodwater. 
Encourage the timely completion and filing of inundation maps for 1&7 
all dams whose failure could cause loss of life or personal
injury within Sonoma County.

4.0 PROTECTION FROM FIRE HAZARDS

 

4.1 HILDLAND FIRE HAZARDS IN SONOMA COUNTY

The combination of highly flammable fuel, long dry summers and steep slopes
creates a significant natural hazard of large wildland fires in many areas of
Sonoma County. Wildland fire results in death, injury, economic losses and a
large public investment in fire fighting efforts. Woodlands and other natural
vegetation are destroyed resulting in the loss of timber, wildlife habitat,
scenic quality and recreation. Soil erosion, sedimentation of fisheries and
reservoirs, and flooding can also result.

Most damage results from a few large fires in the dry weather months. There

were 42 wildland fires of 100 acres or more in the county between 1965 and
l984. 


Fire hazard severity has been mapped by the California Department of Forestry
(CDF). Areas with a high or very high risk are shown in Figures PS-la through
PS-li on pages 33l through 347 and include over half of the county. The

highest hazard is found in mountainous areas with dry summers, plenty of fuel,
and steep slopes.

Residences have increased the number of fires in hazardous rural areas. Human 
activ1ties now account for 9 out of 10 wildland fires. Residences in rural

areas cause fire suppression agencies to devote limited resources to structural
protection while the wildfire spreads.

 

1%

5/

- mum

You 9?wi we! ~x .



9

 





Count General Plan Page: 325
Public Safet; Element PSE 

The probability of large damaging fires in urban areas is affected by weather
conditions and the spread of fires in surrounding wildland areas. The type 0f
construction, preventive measures, and the extent of fire suppression serVices
are the chief factors which determine how far these fires spread.

4.2 PLANNING ISSUES
4.2.l Assessment of Hazards and Risks

?ire hazards shown on Figures PS-la through PS-li are only a general picture of
the actual hazard because of the size of the areas and differences in
vegetation and slope. The maps show the fire hazards only in unincorporated
areas which are classified as ?wildlands? and are therefore within the "State

ReSponsibility Area'I served by CDF.

Project review should include an assessment of wildlife fire potential and
needed mitigation measures. This assessment iS'important for residential uses,
public facilities multi-story and contiguous buildings, mobile homes, and uses
of flammable substances or explosives.

4.2.2 land Use Planning

In order to reduce the risk of fire damage in rural areas, the types and
intensities of land uses should be limited. Wildland fire hazards may be
reduced by mitigation measures including the removal of vegetation and
installation of dependable water systems, but cannot be eliminated entirely.
Rural development should be most restricted where natural fire hazards are
high, fire protection is limited, and road access prevents timely response by
firefighting personnel and rapid evacuation by residents.

4.2.3 Development Standards

Fire hazard regulations are intended to minimize on-site property damage and
personal injury, avoid damage to adjacent properties and reduce the cost of
fire suppression services. Increasing "built-in" fire protection in new
construction is the most cost effective way of achieving these objectives. All
development must have adequate water available for fire suppression, whether
from a hydrant and community system or from an on-site storage tank.

Where development is permitted near wildlands and natural vegetation, the fire
hazard_must be further mitigated by other measures. The locations of
lots and building envelopes can maximize access by emergency
vehicles and minimize construction in steep or wooded areas. Fire retardant
roof materials are now required in high hazard areas. Preventing the spread of
uildland fires to and from structures also requires removal of surrounding
vegetation and clearing of fuel breaks.

 

 

Page: 326
Sonoaa County General Plan
Public Safety Element PSE 23. 1989





Fire safety standards adopted by the County include the Uniform 
National Fire Code, Uniform Building Code and companion co es. an 
subdivision and zoning ordinances. Differences in code requiremgn a. gtaffing
and training among local fire districts prompted the formation 9 onoma
County Department of Fire Services in 1985. The Department 5 Fire Marshal
reviews projects and assists local fire districts in adoption.and enforcement
of fire safety codes. Improvements in standards for road de51gn. water supply

and Sprinkler systems could increase the effectiveness of local fire PVOtECtion
services.

CDF enforces requirements for fire fighting and prevention. works With .
landowners on controlled burns, and advises rural reSIdents on fire prevention

methods. Minimum fire safety standards for wildland areas are now being
prepared.

4.3 REDUCTION OF POTENTIAL DAMAGE FROM HILDLAND FIRE HAZARDS

GOAL Prevent unnecessary exposure of peOple and prOperty t0 risks of
damage or injury from wildland and structural fires.

Objective Continue to utilize complete data on wildland and urban
fire hazards.

Objective PS-3.2 Regulate new development to reduce the risks of damage
and injury from?known fire hazards to acceptable levels.

The County shall use the following policies, in addition to those in the Land
Use Element, to achieve the above objectives:

 

 

Continue to utilize available information on wildland and
structural fire hazards.

Consider the severity of natural fire hazards, potential damage
from wildland and structural fires, adequacy of fire protection
and mitigation measures consistent with this element in the
review of projects.



 

Adopt revisions to the Uniform Fire and Building Codes which
address fire safety after they are approved by inspection
organizations and the State of California.

Require on-site detection and suppression
sprinkler systems, where available servi
acceptable levels of protection.

 

including automatic
ces do not provide



Refer projects and code revisions
Services and res

their comments.

 

. . to the Department of Fire
9?"51b19 fire protection agency and consider



 



,5



 

 

 

 

Page: 327
PSE March 23. 1989
The Department of Fire Services shall offer assistance to local

ies in adoption and enforcement of fire safety regulations
work with local agenc1es to develop proposed
improvements to county codes and standards.

Encoura strong enforcement of state requirements for fire
safety ?y the California Department of Forestry.

Encourage continued operation of GDP programs for fuel breaks,
brush management, controlled burning, revegetation and fire
roads.

Incorporate the fire safety standards recommended in "Fire

Safety Guides" into County development standards when adopted by
the Board of Supervisors.

5.0 PROTECTION FROM HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN SONOMA COUNTY

Many man-made substances can be hazardous to health. The increased use of such
materials has increased potential hazards and actual damage. Public concerns
have led to tighter controls on the production, transport, storage, sale and
use of hazardous materials and, particularly, on the handling and disposal of

concentrated residues and wastes produced by power plants and other industrial
operations.

Hazardous materials are found at many locations in Sonoma County. The
electrical generating plants in the Geysers geothermal area use and produce

hazardous materials hauled on winding mountain roads. Spills and releases of
such materials have occurred. -

Petroleum fuels get into ground water and surface water, particularly from
underground tanks. Prevention of hazardous materials in the County's solid

waste landfills and transfer stations and industrial operations is important
because these materials could affect water quality.

5.2 PLANNING ISSUES

The management of hazardous materials is included in this element because it
has become a maJor public safety issue requiring significant resources and
attention by local agencies.

While different agencies have different responsibilities in the regulation of
hazardous materials, the Health Department has been designated as the lead
agency for preparation of

. . a comprehensive hazardous materials management plan,
including the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan now in the draft stage.

 .Iml ln\ mn\ Planmng An?

    
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
  

 

Figure 

. as SCHEMATIC MAP OF

EAS SUBJECT TO SAFETY
POLICY REQUIREMENTS:

nta Rosa and Environs
Planning Area

  
    
   
   
     
 



(i

m! 
Luv Imuurm \umuu I 

The Publm Satet? Element text expresses polrc I95 are
to the tollovung desrgnated satety hazard areay

AREAS SUBJECT TO SEISMIC HAZARDS


Alqurst?Pnolo Specral Studies Zones

Other tault zones considered potentially active

Areas With high or moderate potential for liquetactlon

AREAS SUBJECT TO NON-SEISMIC HAZARDS

Areas with high or moderate potential for landslides
Areas subject to ?ooding by loo-year storm event

PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT
44-. .- 

Sonoma County General Plan
momma I 2 3

 

MILES 0 2

 

 

 



- --
co"-


xupsm 17

- 
I


-


LICIES ran PROTECTION mom FIRE HAZARDS
mm FIRE HAZARDS SONOHA comm

4.0 9?
of highly flammable fuel (vegetation)

4.1 
ion :10" dr
The combln":It ed topography (SteeP 51?93) and occupancy (weathefh hazard of Significant PY?QPOrtions in many areas 0
result in a damaging. fires is a mum concern of the Count Sonoma County.

. - not onl
Preggtseaths? inJuries, economic losses and long-term disrupt-ion caugegegguse
?Iructural fires but also because of the large public investment in fire
5

ion equipment and personnel and the high costs of maintainin 
thesgeizsources. Destruction of goodlands and other natural vegetatgozngyusmg
wildland fires 15 315? a because of the resulting loss of
timber, wildlife.habitat, scenic gua lty and recreational sites and the
increased potential for 5011 erosion, sedimentation of fisheries and
reservoirs, and flooding.

Most damage from wildland fires.results froma few large fires in the dry-
weather months. Due to its Mediterranean climate, Sonoma County experiences a
long dry period which lasts from May to November, during which high-risk
conditions are commonly maintained. Two maJor fires in 1964 burned 85,000
acres east of Santa Rosa and destroyed over 100 homes and 25,000 acres of
comnercial timber. The Creighton Ridge fire of 1978 burned more than 11,000
acres west of Cazadero and destroyed 56 dwellings. Reports show 42 wildland
fires of 100 acres or more in the county in the 1965-1984 period.

The estimated severity of natural fire hazards for most of the unincorporated
areas of the county has been mapped by the California Department of Forestry
areas with a moderate or high risk are shown in Figures through
for the nine planning regions. The categories of probability of large
destructive wildfires are determined by the amount and flammability of
vegetation, the steepness of surface slopes, and the area's climatic
characteristics, including temperature, precipitation and fuel moisture,
humidity, and winds. Over one-half of the county is classified as "High" and
"Very High" in severity with the highest hazard found in mountainous areas
there summers are very dry, woodlands provide abundant fuel, and steep slopes
increase fire spread and the difficulty of containment.

 

gprimary concern to both CDF and the Sonoma County Department of Fire
rgrifices, as well as most local fire protection agencies, is the development 0f
:idences in high-risk rural areas. Human activities have greatly increased
?reLumber of fires in these areas and now account for 9 out?of 10 wildland
direc? Rural residential uses not only cause fires.and receive fire damage
Person ?5.th the responsibilities of fire suppresswn agenCies to prev? must
7 bEdeVa anUi?y and pmperty damage mean that limited resources frequen dy
'5 ?ad to structural protection while the wildfire's perimeter sprea 5?

 

 

aft u?
General Plan Public Hearing Dr Page; 20
Sonoma coun December

fety Eleme" - 1
Public 53 - 1935

. a County 
a "War goal of the Sonom (apartment
- . ttainment of 
1dely. ormed in 1985, has been a a Peaso 1r
whichnw?r?: prevention efforts?throughout the county, Tagble 
of 1 eviews building Pel?m?ts and develOpment

rshall . . . 
Department.S local fire districts in their adoption and e?fghan
l?cem I
at ent

Consequently?

uation of current standards indicate

fety co es. Egalf road design. water supply and autozatgc
increase the effectiveness of local f1 re protection 
. . ire revention process in several ways.

CDF 1.5 inglveg ggf?gefr?equgrements on setting, containing and ?g??nlav
requiris stems spark arrestors, roof coverings and attic Openings. gf?les,
eXhaustizh?s are,made in wiidland areas as staff time permits, and VlOlato
-. In order to reduce flammable fuels 1n.w1ldland areas, CDF 53?"
with landowners to conduct controlhad burns. CDF guides for rESIdEHtial 
developent in wildland areasOprov1de recommended standards on access, road
design, street numbers and Signs, water supply, materials, Windows
setback of structures and clearance of vegetation. These gu1des have not bgen

officially adopted but are considered by County staff in reviewing development
permits.

4.3 POLICIES RELATED TO HILDEAND FIRE HAZARDS

GOAL PS-3: It is a goal of the County of Sonoma to prevent unnecessary
exposure of people and property to risks of damage or injury from uildland and
structural fires.

Objective PS-3.1: It is the County's objective to maintain complete
documentation and assessments of data on wildland and urban fire hazards.

Objective PS-3.2: It is the County's objective that the location, type,
intensity, design and construction of new development be regulated to
reduce the risks of damage and injury from known fire hazards to
acceptable levels.

 

IlI'he Cgunty shall utilize the following policies related to wildland fire
azar s:

azards

Maps and other information on wildland and structural fire htment:

Sham.? maintained by the Sonoma County Fire Services DelJar
Planning Department, and Office of Emergency Services.

.EnVIronmental assessments prepared by the County of Sonoma 523:5
conSider the severity of natural fire hazards, potential dam.
from Wildland and structural fire hazards, the adequacy
pmtichon provisions, and appropriate mitigation merit-Wes
conSistent with the provisions of this element.

 

 

-.-
.u??h-an?-uan-?nd 


 

eral Plan Public Hearing Draft 
SO"?ma county ?gment XUP51-0 Page: 21
Pblic [December 18. 1986
a 
If . I. 
. eas subJect to and moderate"
?ggures through should notfggedga?ards' as mapped on
commercial, industrial or residential land-us: gnated for
two of the following three criteria are met- Categories unless
1) Flammable vegetation is minimal or will 
2) The supply. Storage and availability of wgtgimoved..
suppression purp9$es conform to applicable or fjre
5 the County and fire districts. equirement 0f CDF.
3) The access, road design and response times confer
ire en .m t?
applicable requ ts of CDF, the County and fire districts.
s-3d: Revisions to the Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Buil 
National Fire Code and other model codes which 
shall be adopted and enforced by the County as soon as practiia?ii
after such revisions are approved ins ect? 
the State of California. "gan?zatmns ?d
Modifications to adopted codes to require higher levels of on-site
prevention, detection and suppression, including automatic
sprinkler systems, shall be considered where model codes and
services do not provide acceptable levels of
Proposals by County departments and agencies for plan changes,
code revisions, or public facility construction and privately-
initiated applications for discretionary development permits shall
be referred to the Department of Fire Services, CDF and/or local
fire protection agencies where appropriate, for comment; comments
of these agencies shall be considered by the applicable decision-
making body prior to taking any action on the proposal.
2 The Department of Fire Services shall assist local agencies in
5 their efforts to evaluate, adopt and enforce fire safety standards
and shall encourage adoption of up-to-date model codes.
Strong enforcement of state requirements for fire safety by the
Califbrnia Department of Forestry shall be encouraged.
Continued operation of CDF programs for fuel break?.l??sh
management, controlled burning, revegetation and fire roads shall
be encouraged. 
my): The fire safety standards recommended in CDF's "Fire Safety

 

GUEdes". including guidelines for water minimum road
widths and clearance around structures, shall be incorporated
where deemed appropriate by the County Department of Fir:
ervices, into any proposed revisions to County codes an
standards for consideration by the Board of 



    

Healdshurx and (minim 

   
     
 
 
 
 
 
    
  
   
 
  

lannmg 

~ht- 

.011 

hII-lul?J?
.

Ht? mpm?mi p(?lmll\ .mtl Flkurv 

SCHEMATIC MAP OF
AS SUBJECT TO SAFETY
oucv REQUIREMENTS:

. 
i tin-thuhn-quwtmt 
?uusu in
?mun"

t.
.r I
Allin

nta Rosa and Environs

Planning Area

4

odosuqag
any lutuuqa momma put?

"r Public Satay Element text expresses policies which are
u-cabie totlietollowing designated safety hazard areas:

AFASSLBIEU TO SEISMIC HAZARDS



Alquist-Pnolo Special Studies Zones

ll

Other iault zones considered potentially active


Areas high or moderate potential for liquefaction

?74?5 TO NON-SEISMIC HAZARDS

?935 With high or moderate potential for landslides

. .- .. PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT
Areas subject to ?ooding by too-year storm event
. .. Areaswith high or mode 

We Wildland mes ra potential for



  
 

Sonoma County General Plan

3
-


MILES 0 1 2

 

 

Flguro 13

 

 

 

  

I Flu-Hazard Am

 

 

  

cultural: 8m Division of Forestry

?Eire?Hazard Areas



 

 

 

108 PUBLIC SAFETY

Fire Hazards

Each year wildland fires in Sonoma County cause major damageto natural
resources and property. Most damage is caused by a small number of fires
that burn with severe intensity during critical dry-weather periods.

Two major wildland fires occurred simultaneously in September 1964.
The smaller fire began in Adobe Canyon near Kenwood and spread
southward along the west face of the Napa mountains to Agua Caliente and
Boyes Hot Springs. Meanwhile, another blaze occured on the low slopes of
Mount St. Helena and quickly spread into Knights Valley. With the aid of
eighty-mile-per-hour winds, the fire swept into Rincon Valley on the east
and up to Highway 101 on the west. After six days, the more than 2,400
firefighters and community volunteers finally brought the two fires under
control. More than 100 homes had been destroyed and hundreds were
damaged; the commercial timber on 25,000 acres of land was destroyed
over the 85.000?acre area, but no fatalities occured.

The wildland-fire season is closely associated with the summer-weather
conditions of low humidity, lack of precipitation. and high temperatures.
The wildland-fire frequency increases relative to distance from the ocean,
with the result that areas inland beyond the influence of frequent summer
fog are subject of numerous wildland fires. Fuel is another one of the factors
that determine how a wildland fire will burn. Light fuels, such as grasses,
contribute to rapid rates of fire movement but burn with a low heat intensity;
brush allows a lower rate of movement but burns with a greater heat
intensity, whereas woodlands allow the lowest rate of movement but
contain fuels having the highest level of heat capacity. Fires burn faster
when moving up steep slopes, so areas of steep slopes covered with
woodland vegetation present the greatest resistance to control and have
the greatest fire danger (see figure 13).

Issues include (1) the lack of a firm rural-land policy related to fire
hazards, (2) a need for a countywide fire-suppression plan, (3) the lack of
land-use regulations in extremeofire-hazard areas, (4) a lack of public
information, and (5) the use of controlled burning.

Ftecommendatlons:
9.15. The land-use plan should be Implemented.
9.18. A countywide fire-suppression plan should be prepared.

9'17' The Guide for California water 
ually used. eds should be contin-

9.18. Development guidelines for fire-hazard areas should be
and utilized. 
9.19. Department of Forestry representation on the project ievie
advisory committee to implement the fire-safety gum? 
mendations should continue. 
9.20; Maintenance and establishment of fire trails, where needed Sho
be a continued policy. u?
9.21. Rural-Iand-use policies should be evaluated.
9.22. The use of controlled burning should be evaluated.

Emergency Services

PROVISIONS

Emergency services are provided as a coordinated response of government
to extraordinary emergencies. such as earthquakes, floods, fires, or other
related natural disasters, and to human-induced emergencies. The emer-
gency-services section of the public-safety element is concerned with
responses to natural disasters, although emergency-service procedures
are similar during other types of disasters.

Sonoma County presently has an emergency plan that sets objectives.
organization procedures, and task assignments for use in time of disaster.
The emergency plan and Ordinance 1953, which operate through the
Emergency Council, the Coordinator of Emergency Services, and the
Director of Emergency Services, outline implementation procedures for
times of disaster.

The primary responsibility for a program to provide emergency services-
including the use of mutual aid, is that of a local jurisdiction. However. the
state is responsible for coordinating these individual efforts in order ?0
provide relief if the disaster reaches, or threatens to reach. region??
proportions.

PUBLIC SAFETY DURING EMERGENCIES

. . - that
The COUMY coordination with various designated agenCIes indicates
plans have been made to provide necessary protection. as 

. (as by
1. Major county and state highways are considered evacuagcti"; 0:

the Sonoma County Office of Emergency Services. . of Emit"
County Airport has been officially designated by the office

SONOMA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

William K. Johnson. 4th District, ChairperSOn
Brian Kahn, District, Vice-Chairperson

George T. DeLong. 2nd District
Eric J. Koenigshofer, 5th District

Helen B. Rudee. 3rd District

SONOMA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Dr. Paul V. Benko
Edward T. Meese
George Mickelsen
Janet G. Nicholas

Thomas J. Lubas. Chairperson
Donald E. Marquardt, Vice-Chairperson

Margaret Shank

LaVerne B. Solkov

David A. Steiner
Jan Thibodeau

COMMITTEES

[The following lists do not include the names of all citizens who. through the years. participated

in the general-plan program]

The General Plan Advisory Committee

L. G. Anderson
Helen Anthon
Curtis Askim
Robert Burwell
Wes Cameron
Richard Carlile
Lynne Collins
Marge Conley
Ernest Curtis
Leland Davis
Mary Jo DeLong
Clarence Fisher

Jack W. Burroughs
Jack Fore 
Bob Goetzinger
Jim Harberson
William F. Hibbard

Joe McCleiIand. Chairperson

Barry Hill

William Lipton
Hobart McDaniel
Keith McDaniel
Paul Martinez

Jim Mitchell
Marshia Read

John F. Richardson
Norman Richardson
John Rodgers
Mary Samis

Paul Seely

The Transportation Committee
Sue T. Parker, Chairperson
Rev. Lawrence A. Anderson

Gordon Husby
Rand Link

P. J. McCormick
Martin May
Julius Nervo

John Simmons
Les Symonds
George Trefcer
Marie Toscano
Martha Toscano
Ken Vaughn
James Voss

Iva Warner

Carsin Whitlatch
George Wickstead

Jack O'Connell
Marie Vandagritt
Clarence H. Wikse
Carol Williams
Carolyn Wolfe

 

 

 

LAND USE ELEMENT
5 PUBLIC HEARING 

Sconontwa
oun 
General Plan

 

 P13 plan
. 5553a 65"?iile 
?mm a? 

NOHLEDGMEN
150R 1strict

a5: 

Janet Harberso Distr?ct

Jar: Rudees 'stl?i 

3r 1 'str?iC

Nick tSPOSeng 5th D1s

Ernie

SION
PLANNING COMWIS 

r, . .
3rd District

District
Nelson, 4th. .
earsnidills, 5th District

Bow 0F 
ffre a . .
ggnaldyMarquardt, 2ndoDistrictV
Laverne Solkov, 3rd Distric_
Clifford Stewart, 4th District
Darlene Mann, 5th District

GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE

First District

Tnf?o'ny CermaE, Vice Chairman, Sonoma
Grove Bolles, Santa Rosa

Jim and Nancy Sonoma

Bil] Clegg, Sonoma

Harren Watkins, Santa Rosa

Third District

ganta Rosa
a osa
Andrea Learned Sa

. nta Ro
gack Lepinski, Rohnert Pzik
cot Stegeman, Santa Rosa

3
ySer

Second District

Leroy Bean, Petaiuma
Marjorie Chance, Penngrove
Patricia Cheda, Petaiuma
Louis Steinberg, Petaiuma
Jim Nirt, Cotati

fourth District

Phi] Trowbridge, Chairman, Heaidsburg
Wesley Cameron, Windsor

Allen James, Windsor

Ed Sherrer, Aiexander Valley

Loren Turk, Heaidsburg

. Guernevi'lle

. Sebastopol

aStO 01 1986)
Santa Rgsa (unt11 summer

enner
SEba$t0901 (beginning summer 1985)

 Sonoma ounty General Plan
Introduction and Guide to the Plan GPINTRO March 23, 1989

AGRICULTURAL POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Second District

 

First District .
Alan Siegle;?Eennett Valley Mai Mickelsen, Chairman, Petaluma
Dan Silacci, Petaluma

John Sheela, Kenwood

Steve Hill, Sonoma Kathleen Simmons, Petaluma

Fourth District

Third District
Henry Matteri, Santa Rosa a enspie Dry Creek
Steve Sommer, Alexander Valley

Ed Grossi, Santa Rosa
Earl Holtz, Santa Rosa Harold Duncan, Santa Rosa
At-large Members

Fifth District
Mitch Mulas, Sonoma

tee Martinelli, Forestville .
Bob Muelrath, Santa Rosa and Coast Caswell, 0cc1dental

Forrest lancer, Forestville Max (Kip) Herzog, Petaluma


COUNSEL

Stephen K. Butler, Assistant County Counsel
Counsel Support Staff: Raquel Rivera

PLANNING STAFF

 

Kenneth L. Milam, Planning Director

Kenneth M. Curtis, Chief, Division of Comprehensive Planning
Greg Carr, Chief, Division of Comprehensive Planning

Program Manager and Editor: Kenneth Curtis, Greg Carr

EIR Manager: Sheila Lee, Maria Cipriani

Introduction: Kenneth Curtis, Greg Carr

Land Use Element: Kenneth Curtis, Greg Carr, Sheila Lee, Carol Nhitmire,
Richard Rogers, Robert Gaiser, Rick Jones, Nick Chase,
Steve Sharpe, Maria Cipriani, Cate Braschi, Ron Taddei

Housing Element: Richard Rogers

Open Space Element: Sheila Lee, Maria Cipriani

Agricultural Resources Element: Carol Nhitmire

Resource Conservation Element: Sheila Lee, Maria Cipriani

Public Safety Element: Robert Gaiser

Circulation and Transit Element: Kenneth Curtis, Sheila Lee, Cate Braschi

Air Transportation Element: Kenneth Curtis, Greg Carr

Public Facilities Element: Richard Rogers

Noise Element: Robert Gaiser

 

Planning Department Support Staff: Richard Lehtinen, Steve Sharpe,
Nick Chase, Elizabeth Eddins, Helene
Steinlauf, Paula Stamp, Tod Fletcher,
Ron Taddei

 

 

 



or), John Plunkett, Larry Watson

ary Mann (Coordinat
Darlene Arriola, Irene Martin

Graphics: 6

Word Processing: Jean Nolcott,

CONSULTANTS

IngueT?nsportation Planning

a er . i fiHan and Associates, Air Tra 
Brown-Buntin, Associates, Noise nSportation
Mestre-Greve, Aviation Noise

    
  
  
 
 
 

Hrahlslulru .Inxl I nun-1n \n .

Figure PS?le

MAP OF
EAS SUBJECT TO SAFETY
POLICY REQUIREMENTS:

nta Rosa and Environs

Planning Area

 

as

vhf'l
ur  m t
mun! 

I. 

umuurl

   
 
  

llu- l?ulm \m'h lh-mvnl [mlm Iv~ \x'rm dH?
.uullunhln 

alt-(l mum am?
\l l( Sl l\\ll( 

I 5gx-ual5ud1w 11mm
(Mu-v luull /rmkun~lden1l d( tlu'
Me.? ?uh high or mode

mu- mr lqul??ldk tum
AREAS TU 

 

Arms nh high or moderate

Aw.? \ulnv

potential Ior 

(I to ?ooding by lOU-ycdr \lorm 9w

 

nt
Am? h'gh or high potential for large wildland fires.

PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT

Sonoma County General Plan
KILOMETERS 0 1

MILES 0

 

 

r?

 

in;

147

an rviooro recessed to ll .
u" ?rd of ?00 01? Directors.

39!" of supervisors reconvened.


w" 
"it?

Occidental County Sanitation District.

cussed neoti he
to be gasovod?xmkroad?dtgf City 01? Sonoea City Council, and question arose
ml ?m we are when? our contract on that Man? weir does not now aeasuro all the flow
.3 ?uh 1 uel?? slporvioor Voila obtain letter 11:1: for ?Nam then we could be grossly in error.
?naval ?l of the weir. a. said he pointed out if :thitation district board asking then if they had on!
no! the city's anount of contribution to tn 1. ?My Wuld have to go to a different set?
NS ?and"; . a. asked Mr. Head. on. Public war-kri??mco diatrict. They agreed they would be willing
e1 ?0 ??nd ourified tin: [Id used data ?rm the weir . it w? "neon why the weir couldn't be re-
?51 nod of assessed valuation. and Supervilor s?Ml'visor Voila said he would pre-
gr ?"gg?sacaa mm Sewer Haintenanco District. Hr. Hood schedule lottor on next week's
ed of looting with Son
or voila e1" Ole on
?sh. on advancing sanitation district out on 


Supervisors recessed to Board or
50 ?310? Directors, County Hood Control and Water Conservation
?twist 2? p.

on April 21 regarding Bl St. E. property own-
use of assess-out district nothods.

of sugar-visors reconvened.
(t
?t

msolutim endorsing the Karine Affairs Conferenoo?

my ?a Na tional needs for recs-nondations for Federal handing of Cal-
iforni Via the acting 1130.1

gear
HELD - TUESDAY
?itsOther it on concerned mrthering Corp of Ninesr? once at the lower end of the Russian River - Jen-

a
08183 for construction of either . .01. the for $200,000. for Bodega Bay to complete

so! shore
'uimrins spi? along the entrance road into the county park. to con?rm? Channel tut you?

I sand -
is ind. 0n the sand shit 1 91 1 mnde would be in theeither of these is the local cash pay

anount of $1 000. and on the mole
befoN th- ??rP mine? ?19 PIN-lect- ?orps contribution is $200,000. Veils said if we

to to raise our share. Chairman Shoemker asked what our share would
lie. ?d an Killer 8&1 ha of 0 amount. Director Thoiller asked Mr. Miller if we were to endorse

- this Moo would iwoulrbe 89 118 through? Mr. Miller said none this year. Director Theiller asked Mr.
inner his opinion local 0? and Mr. Miller replied that he would questionif the county is
in?, to 35%? munK- Hm Nichols. Co. ld., added that Board approval has got to be
?anion? on whether: ?1911? part in the local cosh. Hr. Killer agreed, and said we
Esme have to be prevent! ?0 ?10 this in ?30 the appropriation is approved. 01mm Shoelaker asked that the mat-
5. held until Ii?uesday.

?2312 p.a- Board ?f sipervisore t? Board 01' mmo?m. So. 00. Flood Control and water Conservation Dis-
u-ict. 
.300 in. Board of supervisors reconvened.

W30: Yello. read the following prepared statement to the Board:



uthoogh the Prepared State-cut is not ny usual fora of address to you. I consider both the action and the
?_mm ?high 1 on going to place before you for consideration worthy of this departure from the usual.

the first request which I will place before you is a request for your understanding and forgiveness for having
{may put you collectively in a bad light through various news stories regarding salary for dutiesas Flood
[Control Directors.

1 I certainly appreciate your various and sincerecttenpts to avoid the issue and not throw the our blame (if
guns there be) upon as where it, inall honesty. belonged. (has more it gives the lie to the oft-repeated story
Etlat we are continually at each other's throats or will go to any to embarrass one another. It is my be-
!lifo.however. that you do expect the party who omitted the indiscretion to atend forth and admit it. I am here
?nd I do.

i lothing could have been lore taken for granted than the fact that Kr. Veils. would be responsible for the re-
ivision of the Flood Control Act hecause,both publicly and privately. he was the one who centinually harped upon
more revenues tron developlentSoproper reserves for expanding water distribution and on and on and on.

2 When, in aid-1968, the Chairman, after a discussion, allowed me to look into the "Shortcomings" of our
Hot?J19?! objectives against 1968 problens". I then called it--you people quite naturally assumed that I would
ifollow it through and put it. for the most part at least, out of your minds.

5 The medial wort progressed a pace and at the end of 1968, some drafts were done and the search for a legis-
{lator to sponsor this 13111 beganiin Sacra-sate. Up to this point, I have reason to believe that the various staff
kept you all infomed and up to date. he stipend was nenticned at this tine.

The ?rst approach was ads in uid-Decenber or thereabouts to Senator Collier's office by Mr. Miller and Mr.
and they were told to prepare the bill through the office of the legislative Counsel. By the tinethe neces-
?Point-eats had been made, the Christms season passed and the draft bill was ready for discuseion with Sen-
?gxri?zll?r. Senator George Killer paseed am and Senator Collier was thrust by both his colleagues and the Gover-
0 's new Finance Conittee Chaimnshi .

'1 Senator Collerts Office muggy contacted Hr. Barney and. in view of the Senator's new committee duties,
in?! ?3 to find another local legislator to sponsor the bill. This was January 1959-

When infer-ed of this, I inediately telephoned Belotti whose interest in water legislation was
to lead I personally advised him of the bill and of our need for a sponsor. He was interested and I arrang-
for Hr. Nine!- md Hr. We, go a? nr. Bangui. I also candidly told Mr. Belotti that the Legislative Counsel
asked Kr. Ruse, whether stipend would be attached to this change in thrust because throughout the state,
?lter 1mg?, traditionally have carried an extra salary and it could be included in the bill, thus causing the sp>n
E301.- Msible ??ail and pain. Kr. Belotti said that he would $31 with that issue if and when it arose. He also
{kid be ?mild attenpt to get Hr. Bagley to oo?author the leasure if possible.

h- Busey so infer-ed colleagues of the above telephone conversation and they too apparently agreed to
that bridge if and cane to it. At this point, Gentlemen, I made the one mistake for which I am today
a for Mr left off sheperdins this measure and delegated it to the staff without informing
?aps! or asking one of you to take over the reinS- This has brought us to the place we are today-?from my

the 5611 in February to the 0f April 1969'

111-. Chirun and ny fellow colleagues on the Sonora County Board of Supervisors:

 

 

 :148 ?1
ll: MM you in
Dar.
um?) do" ?mm wm 0? Menuhin; 

. mm
m- nun-vim? mogul "doubl. tutu .
w. Mn" ?It 
'il? l! Ngu?i ma VhiOh of 
nun "J?mloot?? earls; ml were Just an aversion to Mn? 
. 

ml! up!? but
I "h or an 1on9. ?viva? ?to? 0 

.11 at? that be In" nothing? on us sine. 3?5??th 3% 
em. M0 up for? .N X), 

. or by 3:03.! ?en ?In 

- mm- n. ?is? rhmdey next a

c? sum ?nun so the an" ?3 the, 2; It ?in?



. use tro- thereo 8t is
anaemia". ?It??nlnu that see-:8 ?in?v?l? ere Inn? in \y
a? can. 

. an??i

the proportion of . 30nd a? 
. new? 01? Sq 1? 
x" ?xii?. 3 :?umrns iatom?t? ?0 numb-to t?mSorsuf?fzet
. 
. new me 8 
. xi: . the ??33 1, m; bowl roe-?Jon on ?till?! hypothgucu 
or vie! a: slut?? a We of mg 1.. knows of govern-en ?fairs 
. Let In as; an the 3m? enema note that atxry in.? or $1994: tag or.
?m we mama. .gzmum to
Kl ?mu" we ?a the: 1 ?mu
?tan: $310: mm trim if the ?Attractive ,0 ?m
3 I in radii; . t. 1e
if 313- Ni? m? I?m?ti?nish {3:51:3er .3 he M8 for his; that the reason um egendeh? 

. 9 "Hair 
with the sent its a . ?o 91?. press table and it vould be dlf? ?my
?1:53 Kai: ?ue ?port?! do ?ies-198m "Otesutml? for be:
hell do I are about reeo on ffexenoe between he? 
to: 
. me sum-mt Gentle-en: the question of 
tut. this leads I0 ?Sim? ?in in 1 one. not hypotheticel 

me tine tree end ?none
3 .- cite a .11? last mm. . ?etter ma Kr. Bob Veils eshing no how new it

. . omit: 
. eel-m allotment for 1968 end 1909- 0? '3 no" ?18758an In . Ni.
tie-in: I ?y?udu 1.31.3 questions. the result was two oloseLy written peg film-w
. e: such Mir smelt I my?: aim the uords: to ?les are open to you .3 I ?at? ab eserihik?.
3. I: Pm? free agthis an he in its proper context and es reflecting the views, name-?3?:
tall: Sereniwinl District end the active directors fro- thet district. Wining
91 Pm}: sine Guiana?an. Yelle as not gain: to 1:110"in like ?new?r?
to the 
You will mu three on msevood Ferns??you recall the severel hundreds of thou 
of ?mm: tint the Wt district castuthe onerous levies of thousands of dollars upon the indivimss?n
o?ers: ?t I never fund any need to write sore than a single page letter, to )3 recollection at ..
in steer to usuer any query regarding this greet project and grand ?its.
gases close]; written on fair admissions-?less than one page on Edge? 8.
II this saves us to note thet psi-hens the words of lurk Anthony in Julius Caesar be applied in para-
m2
5 he listens this Baud ates live after then; The good is oft interred in their ninntes (be those u?
ntes copies. brief or in between). 
h. shert. Gentle-en, I a tired of being teased of running and not being able to con
m?ll . . . Verse
:3 ?tam 2: sure doinspicion?being of being a social cm.
s? {it to ?0 the-selves at on an act the Melanie-man not incidentally which :53:
Hr. Yell de enen
arias or 12:; Ko$?hoaemt h; 5! 81} I?m charge about private gs:-
tiers: stopping by his was?Me's 
menu. leniyte. We out to unnege - a source, he ssii,u

one-mention,





2



3 tesiteextt



I

I will conclude with these 

- . 

lexie
I
Imagotthis *ob
. mseetoservenyi?ellw
that helpshinvheni-tncen

Bataan: 
. hmthegnvement the: int is one that will

When ms ?aimlsu- Yella- ?593:3?. TVella's back
. 1r

 

- sv- - ..-- 





"lgwr

 

 


?aunts did turn end of "tor outs? did

. a. out! 3. went from ?some elee's sphirfgh
. of Welter. outs. The Pen of Mentel Neath--
me'm: .epoused. should drop or shore wealth
it It" Baden!" en' the ?Sohool Baum;

OI a guy um

?fit? the "Soopgrv100r'l 'i?ex Rete" when the tux 

friends pervieor?s Tex Rate" when the tea they ?0 w.

IV
.. then did go. to try to find wey
9? emu-11:. quit. group who didn?t went to 
9109.0? 0101' ?1d they wished to have with haste end speed;
to? ths? thq'd proved with oherts and messuree of their need
?the Asussor in! WI lend ?00 hish" end tears shine in his 03;:
. et four tines that price it?s "Private Enterprise." 
"Print? Enterprise" I: friends. it?s "Prints Enterprise"
. wu- e: four times that price it?s ?Prints Enterprise."
cones to mind en' oh the hue end I uellI
9? "ugh; he that I set an' sole my mom gt ell"
screen ?inflation soars" end "You should take less win
??lzh do not refuse the raise that comes to them 
I: it? ?spend full ties for thirteen-two" cause it's "only right; you n. 
But whet the! ree1ly neon is. "Now you shouldn?t live well es we; 1' 
the: like our tine-Mia! want some "olssa"--they need us every 
Th0! went the progrensuwent the help-?they Just don?t want to pay.

Ignssio A. Velle.
15 April. 1969

Boerd of Supervisors adjourned to 10:00 A.N., April 15, 1969.
submitted.

Carline Poliekoff
Deputy County Clerk

NMION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SONOMA
APPROVING CLAIMS AND WARRANTS SUBMITTED BY THE AUDITOR FOR AP-
PROVAL

BNLUTION OFTHE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SONOMA
AUDIT REPORT OF LIGHTING 8e LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS -
FISCAL YEAR 1967-1968, AS SUBMITTED BY COUNTY AUDITOR



RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF TEE COUNTY OF SONOMA
ILTRA DEPARTMENTAL TRANSFER WITHIN GENERAL FUND
AREASURER - TAX COLLECTOR



OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SONOMA
AULEIORIZING TRANSFER WITHIN GENERAL FUND JU-
VEIIE HALLS

WWPION 01'" THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SONOMA

A .
$39323? MBA-DEPARTMENTAL TRANSFER WITHIN GENERAL FUND PUB-



3230
LUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SONOMA

5? 1333;;sz MRS DEPARTMENTAL TRANSFER NITHIN GENERAL FUND
MUNICIPAL COURT

.- 


3?

Amman; OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SONOMA

mm FUND CENT-
HUNICIPAL TRANSFER WITHIN GENERA

.-


LL.
SD 1?1 3
OF

.310 THE BOARDOF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF 
um.

mm? DEPARTMENTAL TRANSFER WITHIN GENERAL FUND
SERVICES



e?a?c?v?

 

 

Resolution No.
April 15. 1969

Resolution No.
April 15, 1969

Resolution No.
April 15. 1969

Resolution No.
April 15, 1969

Resolution No.
April 15, 1969

Resolution No.
April 15. 1969

Resolution No.
April 15, 1969

Resolution No.
April 15, 1969

25826

149

25820

25819

25821

25822

25823

258 21+

25825

 

 

 

 
 
 

b.

QLPINE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT

?nanat, 7, [971.

I

Hi. Iawience ?ndiewc,
[xeotwiue Office?; .c?9C

Sonona Co Ca.

Deai Ni. Iawience:


(thx 9 want to conpiinent you on the 9004
you compiied on the pioponed annexation by Kincon
you eeitainiy did coniideiabie 
f? 9 howeuei take iccne on one cection
of qoni tepott. When you nepOited we had antiquated equipment

9 ?L?04t 90? a biohen iib {ion a iab by the aid coot atone-
4Lde ?f ?e Who wai one of {one of M4 that 4pent a wintei
oueehauiing the two piecea of canipment ctationed at the
?i eebniit ati cat and pump notote teconditioned the
PMP4- Make, new tanhc {at the engine inweaaina the
c?P??Ltq to 480 cat 0f watei, which it aieatei than the
90?e4t?y tenckc catty and within 20 of the ieaniied

anantity {on a appiooed etinctniai engine.
Iepin Iena nay back and when the hiti

the toad and tny to thiow you into the but when 4he
aeti to the fite 4he wont take a back ieat foe any of hei
fancy city continn. She may not weai and in ptoud
to dinpiay hei aiietn. She dont have fancy anaaea and ctome
i2?! fittinae aha; when it conec to get wheie 4he can do good

4he chow a ciean paii of heaie to the city 9{ you
dont it anh the iobi at the ait {ieid who wan the
oniy tench to get etuch on ?atwatei Kd tact yeat.

So watch yout iananaae and dont go into hei

etaii the i4 iiabie to kick you thionaht the back wait

into the eewaae tank.

I
I




   

now

    

?7

 

Pieaident

5390 St Hebna Road
Santa Rosa, California 95404
Telephone (707) 539-0524

I
rid? .V
.. 

7 

 

 

 



   

. 
x. 3?th 

.P

RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SANTA ROSA CHAMBER OF

COMMERCE URGING PROMPT APPROVAL OF ANNEXATION OF THE FOUNEAIN GROVE

AND HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT PROPERTIES

WHEREAS, the Board oleirectors of the Santa Rosa Chamber
of Cammerce, c0mposed of approximately 585 tax-payers and employers of
the Greater Santa Rosa area, have expressed in the past and will con-
tinue?to express in the future a concern that jobs, incomes, and a
sound?economic base are and must be a part of any overall plan of
growth and development for the Santa Rosa area, and

FEWHEREAS, the Chamber of Commerce believes that the economic

'growth and develOpment of the area, subject'to prOper planning controls,
?is essential to and hot?inconsistent?With the preservation of the environ-
mentwof our area'which has given us our reputation as the ?City Designed
for we guy; u: 

WHEREAS, the recently completed extenSIve survey made bY the
Chamber of Commerce, through personal interviews with a flarge number of
voters and homeowners, clearly IndIcated that the vast majority 0f
citizens of our community considered light industrial devel0pment as an
essential part of the growth of the greater Santa Rosa area, and

WHEREAS, the Chamber of Commerce firmly believes that the
proposed location and development by the Hewlett-Packard Company of its
facilities in Santa Rosa is the type of non-polluting light industrial
development and growth desired by the Chamber of Commerce and the majority
of citizens of Santa Rosa, and

WHEREAS, the Chamber of Commerce believes that any difficulties
arising out of any temporary irregularities in the City boundaries or need
for interpretation of the sc0pe and purpose of the Santa Rosa General Plan

should be resolved in favor of the greater_needs and desires of the

community which would be served by the annexation.

 

 >Amm? H??va?ra 

:Ll-rw??vtwum "ma-v

 

NON, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors
of the Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce that it does hereby urge the
Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission to give a prompt and
favorable approval to an annexation required for the proposed-Hewlett-
Packard and Fountain Grove devel0pment. In urgin? prompt appr0val of
this annexation,.the Chamber ofl Commerce is not unmindful'of the 
alternate means by which this annexation can be accomplished. We are

confident that the Commission can and will select a method of

 

_annexation which is in accord with the public welfare and the best

interests  of our community. 

DULY AND ADOPTED this/29th of November, I971

 

 

?*,Vance H. Olivea?, President .

Motion: .Richard Makwell


AYES: 15 


I -, "1

JOHN H. Downsv, JR.

MAYOR

CLEMENT R. GUGGIANA

Vic: 

HUGH s. 

GREGORY JONES, JR.
GERALD M. POZNANOVICH November 23, 1971


1

CITY OF SANTA ROSA 
cm 

looms ROISA AVENUE .. no. Box 1673
(707) 523-526:

I
6

 

Mr. C. Lawrence Andrew, Executive Director
Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission
2555 Mendocino Avenue

Santa Rosa, California 95401

 

Dear Mr. Andrew:
Subject: North Santa Rosa Annexation No. 37

At the November 4, 1971, meeting of the Sonoma County Local Agency Forma-
tion Commission boundary preferences were expressed by members of the
Commission. Consistent with the Commission's expression, it is requested
that the boundaries of North Santa Rosa Annexation No. 37 be amended to
include assessor's parcels numbers 42-071-13, 42-071-17, and 42-071-18.

The amendment of the boundaries to include the above mentioned parcels

would result in the following data for the proposal: the area would be
increased to 1105. 12 acres, the assessed value for land would be $144, 465,

improvements $62, 670, for a total assessed value of $207, 135.

There are eleven registered voters residing within the area and there are
nine dwelling units. Sentiment survey data shows owners of 66 per cent of
the total assessed value to be favorable to annexation.

It is respectfully requested that the Sonoma County Local Agency Formation
Commission make appropriate consideration of the request.

Very truly yours, p;
H. 
Mayor



 

 

 

 

 

 

61:5, Sam MEMORANDUM DATLNovember 12, 19_7_1 
Commission - . 3
FROM City Manager Kenneth R. Blackman DEPARTMENT

 

SUBJECT Santa Rosa General Plan - Amendment Procedure

 

During the course of the review of the Fountain Grove development proposal, more 'specifically
identified as North Santa Rosa Annexation No. 37, numerous references have been made to the
Santa Rosa Area General Plan and to the General Plan Amendment Procedure. Although several
members currently serving on the Planning Commission have been a party to the amendment of
the last General Plan, all of the present Plaming staff have been hired since the last General
Plan was adopted. In order that the Commission might have one additional viewpoint of the
General Plan and the General Plan Amendment Procedure, I have prepared the following
memorandum which is largely historical and hopefully chronological in nature.

The first Santa Rosa Area General Plan was prepared by a consulting firm under a 701 Planning
Grant. The application for federal funding commenced late in 1958,. was formally submitted in
1959.. and funding occurred late in 1959. Most of the Plaming input was coordinated by former
1311111118 Director Tom Cordill and completed by former Planning Director George Smeath.

The consulting firm Candeub. Fleisig Associates developed, in conjunction with a citizen
committee, inPut and the respective city and county planning commissions the basic "quadrant"
system 0f design whereby Highways 101 and 12 divided the community into four basic sections.
Neighborhood faCilities, including schools, parks, etc. were acquired and designed on this
basis. The General Plan process at this time required approximately 2-1/2 years to complete.

Subsequent to the adoption of the original General Plan, Oakmont was proposed and annexed to
the City of Santa Rosa and the Llano Sewage Treatment Plant and accompanying Plains sewer
area were developed. At that time Oakmont was outside of the Santa Rosa Area General Plan

as was the Llano Treatment Plant and much of the Plains sewer area. At the time Oakmont was
considered for annexation many questions similar to those posed in the review of North Santa
Rosa Annexation No. 37 were raised. With the recognition that the Plains area would be subject
to development and that Oakmont was in the process of developing, the Santa Rosa Planning
Commission in 1965 suggested that a total updating of the General Plan was necessary. With
the concurrence of both legislative bodies, a joint staff proposal was developed which involved
the City and County Plaming Departments over a projected one year period. As an advisory

body, a 100+ citizens committee was appointed and work commenced.

Due to staffing changes whereby both the City Planning Director, Mr. George Smeath. and

the County Planning Director, Mr. John Prather, resigned their respective positions and other
key staff people with both the City and County terminated employment during the course of this
study, the General Plan updating required approximately two years to complete. Staff budget
diverted to General Plan updating by both the City and County was estimated at far in excess
of $100, 000. At the time the General Plan was submitted to the County of Sonoma for adoption,
its consideration by the Board of Supervisors was prefaced with a firm understanding and
commitment that two detailed studies would be completed within a 12-month period. These

studies were the Coddingtown?Area Study and the Sonoma Highway Study. With this clear
understanding, the Board of Supervisors adopted the plan and directed that the supplementary
ouncil considered the

studies be undertaken immediately. At the time the Santa Rosa City 

 


I

Planning Commission -, 2 .. November 12, 1971 
?aw-am a" pm.
Ddated General Plan, direct criticism was raised concerning the general nature of the plan
and how it might be interpreted by the respective Flaming staffs. This criticism resulted 
in the resolution of General Plan Interpretation which was included as a part of the text docu- i
ment of the General Plan. Even with this clarification, dissenting votes on the General Plan
Were cast by a minority of the Santa Rosa City Council. During the course of citizen review,
repeated questions were raised regarding the General Plan and how it would be interpreted by
bOth the City and County Planning staffs. In response to this question, a committee of the
City and County Planning Commissions was appointed and worked for several months on the
development of the resolution which was subsequently incorporated into and made part of the 
?rea General Plan. It was the intent of both Commissions at this time to use this policy
esolution form as the guideline to assist both Flaming Commissions in interpreting and 
the General Plan. 

13:22:28 Elle rather exhaustive two-year amendment procedure and the accompanying public

the General :lSanta Rosa MetrOpohtan committee Spent approximately six months discussing
that in additi an Amendment Procedure which should be followed in the future. It was recognized
ing the Natu r01; :3 the Study and Sonoma Highway Study, other major studies includ-
the Ci . .aterways Study, the Central Business District Development Plan, the review of
ty Ubdiwsmn Ordinance, and others were PrOposed to be undertaken in the near future.

:iatther exhaustive discussion and the consideration of several alternate proposals,

Plan in the mislete 1(Izonclusmn of the Metropolitan Committee that amendment of the General

cedure which hr: 1smould be done on a study-by- study basis rather than the total review pro-

stud' . .a en used in the past. In accordance with this determination, subsequent

lee Including those listed above were undertaken, ratified, and adopted by both Planning

submitted to and approved by both legislative bodies prior to initiating formal
eneral Plan Amendment Procedures. To date this process has worked well and has permitted

thorough review and modification where appropriate of all plans prior to amendment of the

General Plan. This procedure has the obvious benefit of refining plans during the development

process and using the General Plan Amendment Procedure as the final act of legislative approval.

 

The last formal amendment to the Santa Rosa Area General Plan was the adoption of the Central
District Development Plan. Since this last formal action, a number of additional changes have
occurred which should, in the near future, be recognized as formal changes to the General Plan.
The Annadel State Park proposal, the termination of Coddingtown Airport, and the rejection of
the Marmor'Elementary School site are three such changes which readily are identifiable.
Others of a more minor nature involved in traffic circulation should likewise be identified.

This procedure has, in staff's opinion, worked well and avoided many problems associated
with the total General Plan Amendment Procedure.

The Santa Rosa Area General Plan has, over the past several years, provided a viable working
document for the community. The changes which have been made to the General Plan have
largely been of a refinement nature primarily designed to improve the plan. Policy guidelines
outlined by both text document, and resolution of the Commission have withstood the test of

time and continue to be effective policy guidelines.
QTH R. 

City Manager
KR?zks 

. no?!

 



RESOLUTION NO. 29W
-

RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF SANTA ROSA RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL PRE--
ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED NORTHEASTERLY OF
MENDOCINO AVENUE.

WHEREAS, the Fountain Grove preposal is for a large area and
enViSions a mixture Of land ?sea Staged over a 15 Year Period. the CitY
Planning Commission is Concerned that City Council have all of the
necessary infm?mation on which to base a deci sion and that the plan be
subject to continuing review.

NOW THEREFOREBE IT RESOLVED, by the City of Santa Rosa
Planning Commission that the Fountain Grove Ranch be prezoned 
(Single Family Re sidential-Planned Development) adopting the plan and
Statement as preliminary permitting a gross density of up to l. 0
dwelling units per gross acre. The Hewlett-Packard development is to
be zoned (Light Industrial- Planned Development) and;

. BE IT RESOLVED that the plan map be amended by the
Planning Commission in accordance with the following studies and that

the approval of the final deve10pment plan be subject to the following
conditions:

1. The industrial area will be limited to Hewlett-Packard at
this time. Expansion of the industrial area shall be subject
to conditions set forth by the Flaming Commission after an
assessment of need and desirability.

2. Densities for the planned development project shall not exceed
one dwelling unit per gross acre of residential use.

3. The school site and boundary problems be resolved and a more
equitable revenue distribution formula be worked out either
through boundary changes or other agreements.

4. More public Open space be provided, including public trails,
and shall be submitted for approval in an open space plan.

5.. A traffic impact study prepared for the ranch and the surrounding
area by a private traffic engineering firm acceptable to the City
could more clearly determine the impact on the area.

6. A three phase soil analysis be performed at various stages in the
planning process including:

a. Air photo interpretation for the entire site.
b. Area analysis during subdivision application.
c. Individual foundation analysis.

7. Marketability studies shall be performed for the Lake Complex,
the neighborhood shopping center and the apartments, condominiums
and townhouses. The study for the multi-family residential will
be in response to industrial employee needs.

 

 

.. . - -. 

lion. Nu. 198$?

- - ?v mqu?wrm Amwwpahnqnuengineering report shell be prepared {or the dams by firm
acceptable to the City and eny necessary repeirs shell be made
and maintained by the developer.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event of inconsistencies
between the above stated resolution and the development policy statement,
this resolution will preveil end tske precedence.

REGULARLY PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission
on the 22nd dey of November. 1971, by the following vote:

AYES: Commissioners Grosman, ,McNair, Payne and Thomas
NOES: Commissioners Rocco, Born and Chairman Askim
ABSENT: None

ABSTAIN: None

APPROVED E. 
Chairman 

DONALD H. LAIDLAW
Secretary

I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution

is a. true and correct cepy of a resoltuion duly

and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission
of the City of Santa. Rosa at a. regular meeting
thereof, held Novem 1969.

  

 
   

To:

FROM:

1 s" 141? U1 1' I \4 La 11113 
,2 COUNTY 
November 23, 1971

 

County Administrator
Attention: Larry Andrew

Engineering Advisory Committee

SUBJECT: :Pountain Grove Ranch Annexation to the City of Santa Rosa.

At the request of the Local Agency Formation Commission, the
Engineering Advisory Committee met with various staff members of
the City of Santa Rosa to further evaluate the proposed annexa-
tion of the Fountain Grove Ranch to the City of Santa Rosa.

After reviewing many facets of the preposed annexation, this
committee feels that, based on technical aSpects, there are no
major obstacles to the planned community deve10pment. The
determination as to whether the proposal conforms to general
plan, whether the total benefit to City of Santa Rosa and County
of Sonoma will counter balance the true concerns of many exist-
ing City and County property owners over the added traffic on
both major and minor streets, both adjacent to the development
and those leading to other parts of the community is for your
consideration. The remainder of the report endeavors to project
the facts as well as the committee could determine them from
the reports and information available.

Further consideration was given to the proposed development as

it relates to the general plan. The major portion of the ranch
lies within the category described as allowing a density of one
residential unit per acre. The City of Santa Rosa staff report
has based the density factor on gross acres. The Planning Com-
mission plans prOpose between 1,850 to 2,250 units for the ranch
exclusive of the one hundred acre area surrounding the lake which
has an apartment complex of 450 units.

In Appendix 1, Fountain Grove Ranch Preposal on page 6, Item 
on Density, the following statement is made:

The entire 2,000-acre ranch, excluding the
loo-acre lake complex, will be developed to
an overall residential density not to ex-
ceed 1.0 units per acre.

The question posed by the Engineering Advisory Committee is
whether it is feasible to declare a density ratio including
the industrial and commercial zoned areas. The industrial areas
certainly generate traffic, place extra burdens on the utilities
and fill Space with buildings as well as requiring parking areas

. 



. .W. .
i 

n? .

 

va~ -.. 

 

for the numerous automobiles. The committee feels that indus-
trial,areas should be considered in the density ratio in the
general plan. With the same approach, it appears that the com-'
mercial area could have a greater density ratio than many sub-
divisions or even high?density planned unit developments.

Three hundred thirty?five acres of industrial zoning is prOposed
for this planned community development with employment for
4,000 to 7,000 employees. Assuming that 3,000 automobiles are
used to prOV1de transportation to and from work plus an additional
500 automobiles for visitors and deliveries, the traffic would
eaSily account for 7,000 to 8,000 trips?per'day. Planning
?80916 assume 8Jto 10 trips per day per residential unit as a
.6515 for traffic counts.' Using this trip consideration the
area would be'equivalent to at least 750 residential
or more The 100 commercial acres could equate an additional 500
the ove risidential units. To include the commercial zones in
is to sra factor without adding some type of correction
dent' lay . at an area like Coddingtown is zero insofar as resi-
la units are concerned. It would not seem feasible that
the mahers of the general plan had this basis for the densities
shown in the overall plan. .

The above consideration would place the overall density includ-
ing the area around the lake at:

 

 

Minimum Figures 1850+4535330+500 1.57Aunits/acre
Maximum Figures 2250+4528?go+500 2 units/acre.

Another critical factor which should not be overlooked is the
geological features of the area under consideration.. Prior to
any determination of density or approval of any planned unit

the developer should retain a qualified soils-expert to deter-
mine the type of community that can safely be built on the ranch.
The developer should also reimburse the City of Santa Rosa for
costs incurred by the City to retain an engineering geologist

to verify the report submitted by the develOper.

Traffic concerns was one of the major items for_further consid-.
eration per the request of the Local Agency Formation Commission.
The City staff has listed expenditures of $280,000.00 for the
first phase for the City would be the
City's share of the Redwood Bypass and $30,000.00 as the City's
share of the Mendocino anlearkway intersection. Traffic stu?
dies are presently being made by the City to determine which
streets will require widening or rebuilding. It will be very
difficult to improve some of these streets to a standard to
accommodate the estimated traffic use because of existing

improvements or tOpography.

 

Kuge? 

My?; 8,No_vember. 2 3 ,hmlg. ?a ?mi-.13 . .

The traffic which will be added to Parker Hill Road, Chanate
Road, Humboldt and many other streets will require improvements.
Santa Rosa City policy is to pave two lanes on multi-lane streets
and require that the adjacent property owners pay for curb,
gutter and one lane of pavement on their side of the street.

It is therefore possible that property owners outside the
development will be forced to improve their streets to accom-
modate the traffic generated by the project, or any other
development on or near their property. 

The Mendocino Avenue-Freeway intersection needs improvements at
the present time to reduce traffic congestion; therefore, any
added traffic by the Fountain Grove Ranch will add to the pro-

:lim. The State is presently working with the City to make cer-

Ba modifications of the interchange. The proposed Redwood
ypass will also assist in providing a solution.

One major benefit to be derived from this I 

project is the proposed
Egu?taig Grove Parkway. The deve10per is to dedicate the full
t-o sway for this parkway and pave two lanes through the
oun ain Grove prOperty. As indicated before, the policy of
Santa Rosa is to pave two lanes and require the developer or
adjacent preperty owners to construct the remainder of the
street improvements. .

The City of Santa Rosa will provide water service to the develop-
ment. The construction costs needed to build the necessary facil-
ities for water to the edge of the development will be provided
by the developer and the Economic DevelOpment Agency grant on

a fifty-fifty basis. The city of Santa Rosa can provide the
necessary quantity to serve the area under question.

Sewer service will also be furnished by the city of Santa Rosa.

A volunteer sewer assessment district has been proposed to act as
the vehicle to bring the trunk sewers from the College Avenue
sewage treatment plant to the Fountain Grove development. An
agreement between the City and Sonoma County would be required

to consummate the district. This district would be financed

by advance connection fees from property owners within the
district, $260,000.00 from the developer and a $600,000.00 EDA
grant. The City is prepared to provide existing bond money to
the project if insufficient advanced connection fees are received.
The availability of federal funds makes the district much more
feasible. Without these funds the developer or City would need
to advance more money. The City has provided funds in the present
budget to construct a bypass so that some of the sewage presently
going to the College Avenue sewage treatment plant can flow to
the Llano plant. Connection fees which will be collected as

the deve10pment progresses will be used to finance construction

of treatment plant eXpansions as needed.

mm.? 
ll -. 7

 

.w-w?nuw? 

.
am,, November 23, senate so-l~~

A correction to the previous flood control item is in order. .
Piner Creek was improved to within about a half mile of the hills
under the Central Sonoma Watershed Project. This leaves about a
half mile of inadequate channel should the surrounding and/or
upstream lands be deve10ped. The Fountain Grove proposal or
spin-off development would make it necessary to modify this reach
of channel to make it flood free and stable as to erosion hazard.
It is quite possible that some or all of this work would be funded
from Zone 1, Sonoma County Water Agency local tax revenues.

Staff members of the city of Santa Rosa have indicated that

item 1 on page 20 of the Report to the Sonoma County Local Agency
Formation Commission is in error. Street improvements as well as
certain oversizing commitments on sewer and water lines are the
only items of capital expenditures which the City will encounter.

This committee still feels that annexations which create islands
should be avoided whenever possible; however, this item is a
policy matter which should be at the discretion of the Local
Agency Formation Commission.

The following policy matters need consideration:

1. Are the additional industrial and com-
mercial zonings necessary and, if so,
do they conform to the general plan in
the proposed location?

2. Is the density, when consideration is
given to the added usage of the in-
dustrial and commercial zones, in con?
formance with the general plan? Will

the added traffic generated by the
"?deve10pment be detrimental to the res-
-, idents on the adjacent streets?

One additiOnal comment was deemed pertinent pertaining to the
figures presented in the financial effect-net cost/revenues.

The exclusion of many expenditures outside the development whe-
ther by the City, County or property owners through special
assessment districts creates fake revenue estimates. It is
difficult to determine some of these costs but nevertheless,

they are there and very real.

qeg,w 

- 
Leon E. AndefSon
Civil Engineer 

 . . .. .22nta Rosa, California -

     

Gentlemen:

Would you please provide written response to the fol
concerning the Fountain Grove development and the zoning and annexation
of,the area north of the present city limitsonly to the extent to improve
are these streets to become collectors?

lowing questions

Why are the estimated costs for improvement of off-s

ite roads not included in
the Financial Effect Statement of the Development proposal 

Is the estimate of $3,000,000 for im

provement of off-site on-site roads
a realistic estimate 

 

What will be the effect on the following streets not included in Phase I of I:
the Fountain Grove Street Requirements 

Chanate Road

Don Martin Road

Terra Linda Drive

Nielsen Road

Mark West Springs/Coughlin Pkwy

Montecito Avenue 1
Will the City or the Dave

loper participate in the cost of improving these
streets 



Why is no City participation proposed for improving Parker Hill Road 2

Why is the Developer to pay less than 20% of the cost of improving Parker Hill

-Road when it will be largely to his benefit 

What are the proposed plan lines,

width, and classification of the streets noted
in Question #3 and Parker Hill Roa

if the present development plans are adopted.
Are the property owners along the above listed streets to be asked to participate
these to residential classification, or

What controls are contem
becoming collector and a
Industrial Park 

plated to prevent any or all of the above streets from
ccess streets to the Development, and especially the

How can this development including Industrial Park

Commercial, and Shopping
be in conformance with the General Plan requiremen

ts for Hillside Residential 

Should not the General Plan Revisio

procedure be used for this development in
order to allow more study and part1

cipation by more of the public 

What is the estimated cost of the Planning Services that the City has provided
the Developer 

Will the City provide equivalent services and staff time to the opponents of
the development 

0698 the developer have the 

ption to determine what site will be provided for
schools 



What about the impact upon the other school district
such as Mark West Elementary, Santa Rosa City
School Districts 

within the development, 
Elementary, and Santa Rosa High

How does the proposed school site conform to the

California school site re?
quirements regarding environmental impact

seismic, geological, and near dams 



7?
;i continued -

 ?pg, .. 

r? . ?Mus-v?? 

. . ,vgf. A I 
17, Does the City fully intend conforn to all for property owners
regarding annexation: as set forth in the California Government Code, and

the policies of the Sonom County Local Angency For-nation Omission 7
j:

1? 13, If an annexation election were held, does each property ovner or eech

a registered voter get one vote 7

19, I, not the public Notice dated July 30 1971 for the pre-zonin hearin
for North Santa Rose #36 in error uherein it lists the parcelsges Ad?
1" 42-02-25, 30) 40! am 42 

7- 2o. Eon can other properties my be attached to A 

legal Notice nnexetion #36, without proper
.. .

"3 ..



written response to these questions at the address noted

r. or 921- would pleased to come in and discuss them with you also.

5 Loggigah

Road

09a, 95401.

3. LP. #42-02-39

Home Telephone 545-2054

Work Telephone 542-1825
cc: Sonona Corumfl.e?n

. 1 

. 
'1
?hiu ?idb? - 

3.
A
.Adl

We


. 




. :fv ms

-432

1 .

 



.. ..

 

.v?vr?

H_Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission?
2555 Mendocino Avenue
Santa Rosa, California

Dear Sirs:

It 18 my understanding the property I own at 358k Parker Hill Rd 
. . 
is being considered for possible anneXation to the city of Jta 303a,, an a osa

I wish to file a formal

rotest -
city of Santa Rosa. against annexation of my property to the

Sincerely,

aha

Ro E. Rouse
358k Parker Hill Rd.
Santa Rosa, California 95h0u



R.E. Rouse
358k Parker Hill Rd.
anta Rosa, California

   

Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission
2555 Mendocino Avenue .
Santa Rosa, California a i



.n 7-1 wet},- uni-M. 



'i





FOUNTAIN GROVE RANCH DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
STAFF REPORT FOR PUBLIC HEARING

November 3, 1971 

INTRODUCTION

It is proposed to develop the Z, 000 acre Fountain Grove Ranch into a high-
quality planned community. A variety of residential uses are supplemented
by related commercial, service and recreational facilities. A high technology
employment complex is designated, complimented by related office uses.
Regionally oriented activities including a wine fair, convention center, and
apartment hotel are contemplated. The proposal places heavy emphasis on
retaining open space, natural contours and vegetation, and careful attention
to design detail.

Since this matter was brought before the Planning Commission the property owner
and staff have worked together on numerous questions relating to land use,

traffic, utilities, design, open space and conservation. The staff report

presents facts and evaluations of all elements of the Fountain Grove develop-

ment proposal, and it sets forth a course of action that in staff's opinion
decision-makers should take.

In reviewing this report, please make reference to the proposed

policy statement at the end. 'The policy statement contains many details of
.Qaignificance.

a;

. g; l9ll .
hf PM mutt 
(JUN. I 1
id comm OF SONOMA

ll. 

\3

 



TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. SUMMARY OF FOUNTAIN GROVE PROPOSAL . . . . 1

II. STAFF ANALYSIS: SPECIFIC ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL . . . . . 3
1. 00.00 I. 0.00.3
2. Commercial Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Apartment/Retirement Hotel Area . 6
4. High Technology Employment Complex . . . . 6
5. Open Space and Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Community Facilities and Public Improvements . . . . . 8
7. Traffic and 8
8. 13
9. Design, Geology and Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. Procedures and Enforcement . . . . . . . . . 13
FACTS, FIGURES AND OBSERVATIONS 17
1. Public Facilities and i 17
2. Cost-Benefit Analysis . . . . . . . . . 21
3. Spinoff From the Fountain Grove Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
IV. EXPLANATION OF THE COST BENEFIT TABLEENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE 2?3



EVI. THE 

VIIRECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . .. 33
APPENDIX I: Official Map and Policy Statement

APPENDIX II: Issues Res-olyed and Issues Not Completely Resolved

 

 

 

?1 

77$

SUMMARY OF FOUNTAIN GROVE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

res north of the present City limits extending generally

- 000 ac -
Location 2: 2-1/4 miles west of the Mendoc1n0 Avenue interchange

two miles north and .
with U. S. 101. See map, Figure 1.

posal Selective, high?quality development. Retention

- the Pro .
ObJethes 0 Protection of slopes and natural

of natural vegetation and open space.
waterways. Stringent architectural controls.

Proposed Land Use

Residential - approximately 6, 000 residents, housed as follows:

- 220 acres of apartments and townhouses at 3 to 15 units
per acre, totaling 1300?1500 dwelling units. 

- approximately 1100 acres of single?family residential
containing 550-750 building lots.

a ?lake complex? of approximately 100 acres containing
an apartment hotel and 3 apartment towers, totaling
approximately 450 units.

Commercial - approximately 80 acres near the Mendocino interchange
for freeway related uses, a motel and convention center,
a tourist oriented wine fair, and an office complex.
15 to 20 acres on other sites for a neighborhood shopping
center, medical offices and a restaurant.

Manufacturing - 335 acres for a high?technology, campus type employ-
ment complex for 4, 000 to 7, 000 employees.

Public Use - parkways will permit circulation through the area while
collector and local streets will provice access to indi-
vidual sites. Bike paths along the parkways will also be
provided.

- approximately 10 acres will be reserved for a school site;
20 acres for a community park. A fire/police substation
site and/or a public library site will be provided if needed.

Method of. Development 4- To be staged over a 15 year period, with increments
to be added as market conditions warrant and as funds become available for
public and private improvements, particularly streets and utilities. Cost

sharing will be in accordance with policies of City, County and State govern-
ments.

Approximately 1. 000 acres including the lake area are proposed 

to be annexed in the first phase and prezoned PC (Planned Community), adopting
a prec1se plan and policy statement.

 

 

 

A 0.9

 

  
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HOPPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

RUSSELL 12. qz2MILE

 

 

 

 

 

Urban Development Area

Apartments/Townhouses (3 to 15 dwelling units per acre)

 

uvvuvuuvuvuwu

00000000000000

00000000000000 Supplemental FaCilities 81 Services (Retail, Office, Service, 

 

 

 

 

v_ 2.7.

?gag-.0535; Highway Oriented Uses

 

 

 

 

Activity Center(Socia1, Cultural, Convention, Historical)

 

High Technology Employment Complex

Lake Complex

 

Hillside Residential Area (Less than one dwelling unit per acre)

FOUNTAHN GROVE SCHEMATIC

Figure 

 

STAFF ANALYSIS: SPECIFIC ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL

1. Housing

The proposal emphasizes development of high cost, high quality housing

of several types - single family homes on large lots, condominium townhouses,
apartments, and a retirement hotel. Overall residential density will be 1. 0
units per gross acre, or 2, 000 dwelling units on the 2, 000 acre ranch, allowing
for "transfer" of density from one area to another in response to specific
development proposals. The proposed 450 unit apartment and retirement

hotel area around the lake has such unique design potential that rather than
applying density restrictions, the total number of units could be determined

on the basis of design merit and site coverage along with height limitations
rather than dwelling unit per acre.

The overall density as proposed is within the General Plan limits, even
including the apartment hotel. The General Plan indicates an area of approxi-
mately 300 acres for urban low density development at 1 to 5 units per acre,
and 1700 acres at less than 1 unit per acre. This would indicate an allowable

maximum of 32.00 dwelling units if the area were totally developed residentially.
(See Figure 2)

Staff and the property owner agree that in the hilly areas, strict application
of grading controls is required and site plan review of all single family resi-
dences is a prerequisite because of potential grading and soils problems
combined with potential fire hazard in some areas and the need to protect
natural vegetation. The City's earthquake consultant recommends that the
property owner hire a foundation consultant because of the potential landslide
problems in steep sloping areas.

The General Plan strongly encourages distribution of a variety of housing
types - and costs - throughout the community. Staff believes that homes
priced within the reach of low and moderate income families and individuals
will be an asset to the overall development. Such housing would reduce
possible traffic congestion by diminishing reliance on the automobile and
would be convenient and desirable for future employees.

2. Commercial evelopme nt

Retail, service, medical and office facilities are proposed for the Fountain
Grove at a scale?adequate to serve the needs generated by residents and the

employment complex.
Also contemplated are a motel, private convention center, and a tourist

oriented wine fair. The purpose of the convention center is to augment the
convention center planned for downtown Santa Rosa. The wine fair is to be

-3-

 

 . the old winery which. like the old Ru.?
dove oped in oomlunction with The wine fair would 51:1?

is to be ret hite ?tural landmark.
ained as an are craft Objects. wine Rating and 

to be maintained on a Public in



smce for the creation and sale of art and

forth. While the Russian barn is Prom)? i It
five acres. the wine fair would be a commercia venture, The, 

no indication to date of acceptance of the barn site by a Public agenCy, 110:8
has an offer been made.

Freeway oriented uses are proposed along the 01d nghway ?Ont
two service stations are set back in secondary locations and possibly a his
restaurant location will be determined at a later date. Because of the Pas
history of unstable soil conditions in this area. careful analysis of 9,0118%?

be a condition of use pe rmit approval.
3. Apartmenthetirement Hotel Area

This is the area generally surrounding the lake. totaling approximately 100
acres including the lake and the proposed park and school sites. The Prom;
contemplates two or three apartment towers on benches overlooking the laks?
a golf course and driving range, a restaurant and a retirement hotel On the e.
east shore of the lake. Density of the development is discussed under the
housing sech?on above. The developer desires to achieve a vertical clusteth1
effect here with the utmost ?exibility of design; design merit would be the 
basis for review by the City at the time of use permit application. Land
coverage by buildings. parking and drives would be limited to 25% of site am
excluding the lake. Loth?ng of the lake shore is not desired by the 

or by the staff.

The question of developing the lake and the areas around it into a park has
been raised on numerous occasions, but the developer feels that. the retireme,
hotel complex is such an integral part of his proposal that it requires private
development and must be retained for the mo st part in private ownership as
both a physical and financial asset.

4. High Area

Approximately 335 acres in the southwest portion of the site are proposed
for development of a "campus" type high technology employment complex
emphasizing technological research, product development and production.
Maximum land coverage by buildings and parking will be 50 percent'of the
site area; this will serve to retain the visual characteristics and natural
amenities. Recreation facilities will be provided for employees in connectioi
with major industrial developments in the area. Other design and developme?
considerations are set forth in the policy statement.

ment site sizes should be 20 acres 0r large
architecture and site planning Contro1 and ?1 \It


1 development, individual site Sizes might ha


In a campus type environ
under proper conditions 0
part of the planned industria
reduced to as little as 5 acres.

ation must be given to traffic generating CharaCteristic

onsider 
Careful irculation network to meet

the proposals so that the ability of this 
demands can be determined.

8
0

5. Open Space and Conservation

The Fountain Grove is a unique natural area that visually enriches Santa
and provides a habitat for diverse flora and fauna. So that the natural Ciu sea
of the area will not be destroyed, disruption of slopes and WateI?WayS Willahti'
kept to a minimum. The proposal emphasizes retaining natural VegetatiOn
and minimizing grading and excavation.

Most of the open space is proposed to be privately owned. Bike trails and
scenic overlooks will be provided in conjunction with the parkways, and a
20 acre lakeside park is reserved for public use. (See Figure 4) Private
riding and/or hiking trails are proposed in the residential areas.

Private open space and outdoor recreation areas are provided in the plan in
conjunction with apartment development and limited condominium townhouse
development.

Considering the ever increasing awareness of the need for parks in Santa
Rosa and the growing outdoor recreational needs of today's urban dwellers
it may be necessary for additional recreational areas to be provided at a later
date. Acquisition of the sites would be in conformance with City policy at
that time.

6. Community Facilities and Public Improvements

A school site is proposed west of the Lake (See Figure 5). The site is
located on Or near a fault line. The school district officials will have to
evaluate the adequacy of the site under these circumstances

Thae/proposal also indicates reservation of a site for a police/fire substation
an or branch library site. The site should be reserved but determination

would be made at a later date accordance with the CitY needs; a ac?lty 51.101116. be located there in

_raffic and Circulation

The Fountain Grove pro

05 1 - .
Circulation by both parkp a has been de51gned to provide adequate On? Slte

ways and local streets. (See Figure 6) Full deVelOP'



8. Utilities

The sewer trunk line for the project is to be financed jointly 50 percent 

a federal Economic Development Administration grant, and 50 percent ya
voluntary assessment district. The sewer trunk will connect to the West,
college Avenue treatment plant. Water main connections will also be
vided. (See Figure 8) pro-

Pumping stations and water storage facilities will be necessary to increase
water pressure to acceptable levels. This is eSPGCially important in light
of the fire dangers in the area. .

9. Design, Geology and Soils

The developer has specified certain design objectives including protection of
slopes, retention of natural vegetation and attainment of architectural ex-
cellence in all major buildings. Specific designs cannot be resolved at this
time; this would be appropriate at the time of use permit application,

Places of public assembly and other major buildings should be constructed to
withstand severe earthquakes in accordance with applicable City codes.

The Healdsburg fault line and several minor faults underlie the Fountain
Grove Ranch. The City?s earthquake consultant advises that the potential
for earthquake damage in'this area is perhaps no greater than in any other
part of the Santa Rosa area; however, landslide potential may pose additional
hazard. (See Figure 9)

Soil conditions vary throughout the area. It is known at this time that there
are problems in the vicinity of the Mendocino Avenue interchange but there is
little knowledge as to the landslide potentials following heavy rain in areas

of steep slope.

The portion of the Ranch between the winery and the Mendocino Avenue
interchange is on a direct line with the high damage areas plotted after the I
1969 earthquake and also the 1906 earthquake. Special care should be taken
to construct buildings, particularly foundations, above code in these areas.

Much of the hilly area has been subject to fire damage in the past. Staff
recommends that there be continued brush maintenance and clear-cutting of
flammable materials around developed areas in accordance with State Division

of Forestry standards.
10. Procedures and Enforcement

The developer proposes to annex in stages the 2000 acre ranch to the City of
Santa Rosa. The first increment consists of approximately 1100 acres
extending from Mendocino Avenue interchange along the south and west

-13-

 

tion 18 1.53 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

'36h

ease

 



   

 

 

 

 

 

     

    

 

lgf? i .91Santa Rosa Earthquakes since 1961 having a 
magnitude (Richter) greater than 2. 5. i ?Miles

1961 - 1969 October 1969

OMagnitude greater than 5 OMagnitude greater than 5 

A Magnitude between 3. 5 and 5 A Magnitude between 3. 5 and 5
Cl Magnitude less than 3.5 a Magnitude less than 3. 5

SEISMIC HAZARDS

Figure 9

 

 
b?undaries to and including the area T215 18 the urb
development portion Of the plan including the th lake mlPloynient an
complex, commercial area. apartment: area, an :nd ?1:38:51? ex, (See
Figure 1) Utilities would be extended into this alga H'll 1mPrOVeme
constructed for the Fountain Grove Parkway 82nd 3: er 1 oad. The ant?
is proposed to be zoned PC (Planned Community) a optmga Plan and Poli hea
first part of this report 3-1011 (2y

- in th

statement. The plan 18 summarize . 
tement - 

a. brief description of the proposal. The a 1 Conta?med in 

Appendix I of this report.

There are two alternative ways in which development of this magnitude a

processed by local government: amendment to the General Plan (and text)yb?

annexation and prezoning to PC (Planned Community). The General Plan}; or
the Natural Waterways Plan andas

been amended on two other occasions, ?0
for the Central District Plan. The General Plan approval was pursued by

staff initially but it became apparent that because of the time factor inVOIVed
in a General Plan amendment - numerous public hearings, extensive C?0rdi

tion with the County since it is a City-County planning area, and legal requinal
ments - that such an approach would be impractical. Also, this approach mm
be comprehensive, which would entail the review not only of the Fountain 11;

Grove proposal but of the General Plan status for the entire 115 Square mile
Finally, it would be unrealistiC?to amend the General Plan

planning area.
before prezoning and annexation were approved.

The remaining alternative, other than very piecemeal annexation and PreZOninl
is the PC approach. The PC zoning permits flexibility and comprehensive
development of large sites without being bound by bulk, area and setback

controls of precise zoning districts.

Enforcement of PC controls is dependent on the use permit and design review
?in future years for which the policy statement is a guideline. Under California
law, deed restrictions to which a City would be a party to enforcement are not
binding; However, through the planning process, community objectives and

needs will be met.



parks are required to serve recreation nee

be acquired in ace 8

. ts these woul Orda

Grove re51den a? . . . nee .

on? tthe that time. Two such parks in Staff 3 BStImat1on W111 be with
1 po 1

. of seven acres, each park Site
necessary? 000 for basic landscaping, {?ller
cost aPPrOmtma the responsibility for acquisition, Improvement an?
Willingness. :eZance of park areas w0uld, of course, be contingent upo
funds and the rate of development of the Fountain 
2:51;: 1 gill. these facilities should ultimately be developed in Order to

provide recreation serV1ces 

If additional neighborhood

1'1

0 residents.

Fire Fire protection requirements in the area indude adequate Street
hich are provided for in the plan, water distribution 8

and fire trails . .
regulated building construction and a ?re Sta-151011 as developrnent

nears completion on the Fountain Grove. The first three items can be
resolved by proper planning, design and codes. A fire station in the Vi
of the Parker Hill and Chanate Roads will be needed to serve development
in the Fountain Grove and other developments in the area, as well, The
station at this location will be needed anyway, eventually, and is not Sol
attributable to the Fountain Grove development. .

cinit
Ely

Equipment at each station would consist primarily of a pumper and brush
trucks. An aerial ladder would? only be needed if high rise development Shout,"
occur, such as that proposed around the lake. Basic fire station and equip.
ment costs is approximately $200, 000 with an annual operating cost of

approximately $120, 000.

M- For 24?hour police protection, assuming full development, equip?
ment costs recurring every three to four years would be approximately
$20, 000. Annual personnel costs would be, conservatively, in the neigh-
borhood of $135, 000. Of course, during intervening years prior to full
development, police service could be scaled to the actual level needed.

Whether a police substation would eventually be required in conjunction
with a fire station on the site is not known at this time.

14M - Although the possibility of a branch library site has been taken
into account in the plan, there is no indication that one would be necessary
to serve the area. Therefore, no cost estimates or projections have been
developed.

Schools There are presently three elementary school districts extending
into the Fountain Grove property: Santa Rosa, Rincon Valley and Mark West-
The Rincon Valley district contains the Hewlett?Packard site and ?Web Of
the other proposed high value development while the Mark West district
contains only residential areas (See Figure 5).

-20_

 

 

9

sewage treatment needs resulting from the development and has approved
the use of the Llano treatment plant as well as the West College plant to
handle sewage from the Fountain Grove area.

While the air and water quality impact of the development itself can be
determined and dealt with, the impact of other development outside the
Fountain Grove, which will occur as a direct result of employment 
tunities on the Fountain Grove (see discussion following) will also have an
appreciable impact on treatment plant caPaCitY: requiring expansion of
treatment facilities. It is estimated that by the time expansion iS necessary,
tax revenues generated from the Fountain Grove projeCt W111 the

costs. 

Effect on the natural landscape This subject has so many variables and so
many different points of view that it is difficult to differentiate them.
However, if we correctly perceive natural amenity, we can make comment
in that context. 

First, even partial development of the site would alter the area's natural
appearance. The degree of alteration, of course, will depend on scale

and siting of buildings and on other design considerations. 'The full visual
impact of development cannot be precisely determined until specific plans are
presented for use permit approval; the Planning Commission will have the
opportunity to assess the impact at this time.

One aspect of the proposal is that major buildings be sited on hilltops

and that they be architectural landmarks. Opinion varies on whether or.
not prominent display of buildings is in good taste as 'opposed to a more
subdued approach of siting structures to unobtrusively blend with the land-
scape. On the site itself, practically every ridge, bench or hilltop in the
urban development portion of the Fountain Grove is designated for a major
structure, particularly around the lake, except where hilltops are crowned
with trees. Siting of buildings on hilltops also suggests substantial grading
to create building sites, and the question arises as to where the excavated
soil and rock would be deposited. Careful design review-will be required
to protect against "obtrusive" development that would detract from the
natural beauty and rolling contours of the site. With the adoption of the
schematic plan as the official Fountain Grove proposal, the City will not

be giving commitment to specific sites. The Planning Commission will
have an opportunity to assess these factors at the time of specific plan sub-
mission. i

In accordance with City policy and ordinances, cutting of trees would be

kept to an absolute minimum. While there will no doubt be some effect from
development on the habitats of wild animals and birds, these habitats will be
Preserved to the degree possible, and special emphasis is to be placed on
Protection of migratory birds frequenting the lake.

-24-

 



THE ISSUE
During the months of study of the Fountain Grove proposal, impertant 
and analysed with respect to the Over all effect ofltzaue!

on the Fountain Grove it8e1f

of the following:

have been discusse
proposal on the entire City
The plan was analysed in 1i
1. Overall issues of growth, employment and develoPment.

pecific land uses,

2. General and enVironmental conditions and a
63th
et
1i
I

3. Potential risks.

4. Circulation.

5. Public facilities.

6. Utilities and Urban services.

7. Legal and procedural Implications.

I Evaluation of the plan

a) Objectives ?Whether the main objectives of the General Plan and

the City's ordinances were adhered to.

b) Cost Benefit - Efforts were made to determine whether or not the
community would incur expenses in excess of what is customary
for the City to become involved with in a project of this nature

(1) Environment That the development not only preserve but enhance
the natural assets of the ranch. 

II Important issues raised during the process of evaluation.

a) Overall issues of economic growth, employment and develo ment
The General Plan Specifically states that the expansion of vparious
sectors of the local economy is a prime goal. It is expected that
the largest pr0portion of the employment created will be from
unemployed residents and graduates who are leaving local high

schools and colleges.
b) Land use, environment and asthetics.

1. Planned Community with Diverse uses versus Single?Use 
If an area the size of the Fountain Grove is deve10ped with one
particular use, it would probably constitute a saturation 0f the
market of the entire area. At the same time economic prOblerns
can be generated by such action. variety of land uses proper)?
located complimenting each other is more desirable.

-25-

c) Potential Risks .
or five earthquake faults und
Br 

9 four .
1. Earthquakes There ar amount of damage during the a
Rat
a

city of Santa Rosa.
two major tremors occurre
soils at the base of the hills.

was asked to submit his Views
the Fountain Grove area. The consu

winer 

ween the freeway and the 01 is ?net

nt should be doubled in this :Ele
Ea.

larges
The in the downtown area and in the

The City's earthquakes consult
on the potential PrOblems in ream
Rant had two 

10%

a) The area bet .
and building code requireme

b) A foundation consultant should be hired by the developer in
to insure against potential landslide damage. 0mg

Fire Hazards Development on dry hillsides increases the ris
fire. On the other hand if the recommendations of the DePthek0
Forestry are followed,namely cutting of within thirty feet nt?
of dwellings and that buildings be constructed in such a, manner a
. to be resistant to fire danger, the threat of fire damage Will be 
reduced (See section on Fact s, Figures and Observations for 
a

considerations relative to fire protection).

3. Police Protection -- One potential problem in police protectionm
exist in the Lake area by having public and private open areas nexta:
another. The Police Chief of the City of Santa Rosa has advised th:
in areas such as this it is very difficult to prevent the public a
(especially children) utilizing adjacent private Open areas.

d) Circulation

1. Highways and Bikeways -- The main circulation system has been
designed to serve not. only the Fountain Grove DeV610pment but to
form part of the major street network of the City. The rights--of?Wi
W.11.1 include a 10 foot bicycle path which can also
been avgrelede Also turnabollts for scenic overlooks hav
major road' th developer. The General Plan designates the

rough the Fountain Grove area as scenic highways. 

-27?

hopooed 
'c on?
Ne .

 

HiIISide Residential 
. 
f~ . ?nd1t1?ns): -
I 1- This area is considered
type of settlement to Pr t0 be suitable
?11? overcrowdin meet the only f01' 
t' or OVergrading steeper h1118.d Parse
ro ec 1011 1nst flre hazel-?, Pr0v1de better In
Minimum lot siz .

s? 2. areas will follovfkyo .acl?e. The devel
:?Df lty develo OPment of these
?1111 Pment Standards.
"of
?558

It!?
.050:
um.

fairly
My



f?

1? 

 

 

ropercv 

   
 

 

 


UNTAIN GROVE - 
?men 
Hindu-?can" mu?: Hum
0-0 an" alto ?than 

 

.. RESOLUTION OF THE SONOMA COUNTY ASSOCIATION

ENDORSING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OF THE FOUNTAIN GROVE

PROPERTIES. INCLUDING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT BY THE
CORPORMIW



We The County of. Sonoma has one of the very lowest "per capita"
assessed valuations in the State. resulting in inordinately high rates of
taxation. which situation is largely due to the lack of a desirable in-
dustrial tax base, and

WHEREAS: ?Ihe Planned Development of the Fountain Grove Ranch. in
conjunction with the proposed development by the Hewlett-Packard Corporation.
would provide arch of the sorely - needed tax base. and

WHEREAS: The proposed development would preserve. and actually en-
hance the natural beauty of the property through architectural and envir-
onmental controls at no cost to the taxpayers, and requiring a minimum
of public services in return, now, therefore be it

RESOLVED: That the Board of Directors of the Sonoma County Taxpayers'
Association does hereby urge all public agencies and advisory bodies involved
in the consideration of the Planned Development of the Fountain Grove pro- 2
perties and the proposals of the Hewlett-Packard Corporation give their
approval to said proposals and take all steps necessary to expedite this

important addition to the economy of Sonoma County.

The foregoing Resolution was introduced by Oscar B. Petersen. and
seconded by Walter P. Tischer, and adopted by vote of the Board of Directors

on the 1st day of Noverber, 1971.

an 8 President m-Wecretary

7
HASKELL E. MRS. BESSIE M. CONNELL

surmount! -sunnes
MAIMCAUMNMMI
WNW

 

 

 

 

 

-.

a

BACKGROUND OF PROPOSAL
.. .. . .. 



In September 1971. a proposal was submitted to the Sonoma County Local Agency
Formation Commission for the annexation of a portion (approximately 1. 000 acres)

of the Fountain Grove Ranch. The submission of this proposal was predicated upon
the development of the Fountain Grove Ranch. The total ranch area contains approxi-
mately 2.000 acres. However, the first increment of annexation corresponds to the
first increment of development proposed for the ranch.

At the October 7. 1971. meeting of the Sonoma County Local Agency Formation
Commission. the proposal was considered by the Commission. It was indicated that
further information was needed for decision-making purposes. This report, together
with the Flaming Department staff report on the Fountain Grove Development Plan.

is presented in an attempt to provide the Commission with the information necessary.
At the October 7. 1971, meeting Commission members requested information con-
cerning the following aspects of the development plan and annexation:

1. Alternative boundaries together with an analysis of the annexability of each.

2. An economic evaluation of the proposal including ?costs and revenues for the pro-
vision of municipal services.

3. The relationship of the annexation and development plan to the Santa Rosa Area
General Plan. 

4. The content of the total development plan and the relationship of the currently
proposed annexation. .

5. The relationship of the proposal to the open space element of the Santa Rosa Area
General Plan.

6. Requirements regarding amendment to the General Plan and timing thereof.

7. Traf?c circulation information for the development proposal.

It is believed that the reports submitted herewith contain the above information plus
additional information regarding the proposed development. The first part of this report
considers boundary alternatives. The second part considers the relationship?of the
annexation to the General Plan and open space elements. The third part con31ders the
factors relating to costs and revenues for the provision of services to the area. The
Planning Department report and analysis concerning the development plan is included

following Part hoped that the information submitted herein provides answers to those questions
raised by Commission members.

 

 

?RELATIONSHIP OF FOUNTAIN GROVE ANNEXATION TO
SANTA ROSA AREA GENERAL PLAN 

The urban planning process was initiated in the Santa Rosa area in 1959
with the hiring of a consultant to prepare an area-wide general plan. Two years'
study resulted in the submission of a recommended general plan covering approxi-
mately 80 square miles to the respective city and county planning commissions
and legislative bodies. Following numerous hearings at both the city and county
level, the plan was adopted during the Fall of 1961 and Winter of 1962. The
Fountain Grove Ranch was included in this original General Plan and designated

for low density residential purposes.

In 1966 the Santa Rosa Area General Plan was updated to reflect numerous
changes which had occurred during the previous five years and was expanded to
include an area of approximately 120 square miles. Again the Fountain Grove Ranch
area was included within the General Plan and in addition to being designated as hill-
side, low density residential, and freeway oriented commercial, the approximate
location of the now designated Fountain Grove Parkway was fixed. Although the
previous General Plan indicated a major collector street running between the
Mendocino Avenue intersection and Rincon Valley, the updated General Plan desig-
nated a more precise alignment. in adopting the updated General Plan in 1967, a
resolution endorsed by both the city and county was included as part of the General
Plan. This resolution defined the purpose and function of the General Plan and
established proper guidelines for its administration. The guidelines adopted by both
the Santa Rosa Planning Commission and the Sonoma County Planning Commission are

as follows:

The General Plan is a policy document intended to be used as a guide by
plans, provision of public facilities,

and by citizens in the development of land.
justice and its own general

1.
public officials in the preparation of precis
adoption of pertinent laws and ordinances,
The General Plan should be followed as closely as reason,

character make practical and possible.

2. The General Plan is not a precise plan nor a zoning ordinance and does
not show or intend to show the exact outline of zone districts or the exact location
of streets or public facilities. It shows rather the general location, character, and

extent of such land use patterns, and public streets; precise determinations will be

made by ordinance, resolution, or other action from time to time according to

established procedure.
take any land for public
ire that any property be

and development and
land for public

3. The General Plan is not intended to and does not
title to any property or requ
It is rather a guide to land use
ly and necessary vauisition 

purposes or place a cloud on the
sold or dedicated to the public.

should be used to compliment the order
purposes through normal land acquisition procedures.

.?4_Mn 

a? 
- ., .7 J. . 

4. The General Plan will require continual review and analysis and should
receive an annual appraisal by the City and County Planning staffs for report to the
City of Santa Rosa Flaming Commission and City Council; the Plan should be amended
when such amendment is found necessary and desirable but only as often as required
to keep the Plan in harmony with the major growth and development needs of the
community.

5. The General Plan should be used by all agencies and individuals having
duties, responsibilities, or activities related to matters covered by the Plan; the
Plan has value only through use and the rapid and complicated'community growth
patterns can be correlated only by reference to a comprehensive plan.

6. The General Plan should be reviewed regularly with the public to encourage
understanding and support for the principles of orderly growth and to insure the future
amendment and enlargement of the Plan in harmony with the public convenience,
necessity and general welfare.

Following the adoption of the updated General Plan, extensive review was
given by the Santa Rosa Metropolitan Committee to the General Plan updating process.
Careful note was given to the fact that the updating of the entire General Plan and all
its elements usually required one to two years of staff study to be followed by approxi-
mately six months of hearings before the City and County Planning bodies and legis-
lative bodies. As a means of shortening the amendment procedure, the Metropolitan
Committee endorsed the submission of individual elements for the General Plan rather
than amending the entire Plan on a five-year basis. Particular concern was voiced
that planning be viewed as a continuing process and not something of concern every
five years. Accordingly, two major amendments to the General Plan have been made
sinCe adoption of the updated General Plan. The first element was the Natural Water-
ways Study adopted by both the City and County Planning and Legislative bodies. A
second element was the Santa Rosa Central District Development Plan. In both instances
these major planning works were reviewed, modified, and adopted prior to initiation
of the General Plan amendment procedure. Since both of these planning studies have
been adopted, additional major changes in the General Plan have occurred including
the designation of Annadel Farms as a possible State Park, the termination of Codding-
town Airport, and the adoption of ?ood plain zoning for the Laguna de Santa Rosa. It
is anticipated that following final legislative action on all such major changes, amend-
ments to the General Plan will be initiated.

Should the Fountain Grove annexation proposal be approved and subsequently
the Fountain Grove Development Plan adopted by the respective Planning and legislative
bodies, it is anticipated that the General Plan amendment procedure will be initiated.

It is estimated that between 60 and 90 days will be required to complete the amendment
of the Santa Rosa Area General Plan. In terms of overall compliance with the currently
adopted General Plan, the densities proposed and the major street network proposed is
in basic conformance with the General Plan. R1rthermore, the General Plan text
specifically recognized the potential use of the Fountain Grove Ranch for high generating



 

 w, .. .. .- --., .. 

DATE Sept. 20, 197l - North Santa Rosa #37
NAME OF PROPOSAL

ISONOMA COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
APPLICATION AND JUSTIFICATION 0F PROPOSAL -



(Answer each question completely. Use additional pages as
required.) -

A. General
l. Type and designation of proposal.
Uninhabited annexation: North Santa Rosa #37.
2. Statutory provisions governing proceedings. 
California Govet. Code Sections 35000-350l5 and 35300-35326.
3. Principal City or district.
City of Santa Rosa

4. Names of all other districts or cities which will be affected
by this proposal.

a. None'

8. Physical Features

 

1. Land area: square miles l.6433 acres 105l.77 .

2. State general description of topography: Hillside

C. Population and Related Matters
l. Population in subject area: 0 28 persons.

2. Population density per square miles, per acre):
17.5 persons p/sq. miles

3. Number of registered voters: 9
4. Number of dwelling units: l0
5. Proximity to other populated areas: City residential to the

South Rural residential on the southeast; vacant to North,
East and WestM~Fhr~r

9 3?11 be 14mm? 01
.tnct
0,3 tobu- 29. 1970 $9123: Finance-Auditing 
1-.
10 11 NO- 70/651 from the Cont
sea. We mm co
51



?at"Der ?Minors

m. in the Matter of Endorsing Propo-
INT.


:14 distribution of the funds of Old

utes from the Huh
8 COPY ?f "in county Tunlit: District In?
9 nut
0110} 111; hu" 00*? 6v 1970
rom Rich .
cap! of letter I ar Day, Attorngy It Law In.
re
640?? Kath ?Vi-r
. Co. Ad. said th
he t'vould bGen addressed 32!. 00.60.
ad" "me? until hi". and 
- ?P1n1on h? referred to
{art copy of CALINRNIA July/August 1970 received. County Counsel
10'
GI
of Supervisors recessed to 2:00 pm. m, TABLE
11:20 3 Board of Supervisors reconvened.

2?00 We Nichols. 00- Min intr?du??d Le?t? 3?
ser. Veterans Service Officer.

0181M Theiller absent for the afternoon
9

being poll bearer at funeral

2- 308 rd of supervisors reconvened. Asa".

5?08 De . Co. 60. int
T?Liirw?rdrai?age, to cm. 1108 which ro
??ea and any violations. The amendment would the manner in Which Vid? for the control of water
?ondtie?? firm tops of banks,and structures built giggthen enforcement ofezhgaZrEI altered, and provides for
P8 inc eferred to many subdivision lots wh 100' 0f the to me' am ?15? expend 


95 ich are 0111 .
ii. ?toll; issued for every lot. He said they review, a 100 deer and said this would mean spam1t

the permit would
w, an suggested this amendment exclude those deVelopmenIt?: 9:211:28 time, these lots in subdivisions for flood
ro

only to non?subdivismn type structures. Following action takezg-h their normal subdivision process

0
N0. 1300 amdning 0rd. No. 1108


nor on AGEND
A ADOPTED
AYES: 14 ABSENT: 
0 KENNON GILBERT LAND USE POLICIES:
5:1 

Hr- Gilbert introduced resolution which outlines
. . . uid
?hushed by the gear-d in {aggro de?ezmination of land use in the and possibly
actors. 30. Co. axpayers am, a taken action favorably as they are conce 1? Board or
on some tentative maps prior to their approva me with the tme the Baird h?

recen 10 He said It 
spent 0 . 69 it would also apply to zoning such a th . a hough this does involve the Subdivi-
aio?fd?? guidelines: 5 9 PC (Planned Community). He then reviewed the following
rec

1. Design shall take precedence over sole consideratio .
{economics shall be rejected as premature. of economics, developments ?315?? because
a

2

Estelegiged for conformance with existing-general plans and its elements.
Although a genera .p . een completed, the Planning Commssion should be asked to
prepare 0f :eveto?:nt in different areas.

3. opose nves lga advance of an tential
developer may be apprised and confident he can meet the county standards {chairmay be ?32231? 

u. Hillside Development should be controlled. and the subdivider should be given early knowledge of this
5. Innovative clustering and densities should be encouraged for better visual result from the standpoint.
,f the public interest, a decrease in required public improvements and open space program provided,
6. Mixed commercial usages to be permitted in PC developments. He said we want to assure that a major
mpping center is not going to be established for the general public in these areas. but rather the convenience
of shopping facilities for the people in the area.
7. Provision for open space maintenance shall be set up in such a way so the people in the tract
notified of their responsibility retain this. He said their concern is that it may eventually become a respon-
Fibility of the taxpayer, and still have deed restrictions to private use only.
8. Land use proposals shall be evaluated in relation to a good pattern of development for the entire
me. and thought given to proper balance. 
9- Restriction shall be established so it doesn't create entirely different aspect to the community and
not be harmonious with the rest of the area.
10. Land use design to minimize reduction of wildlife. 
11. Road Dept. shall be consulted on the development of street patterns so as to limit as much as possible
use of vehicles in these Planned Community.

Su ervisor Vel as th rd reed to the above in concept, and Supv. DeLong said he felt some?
thing like t?e above waslzalecegzzrif Sip?Nor:?ke also agreed. Supv. Ruonavaara said these things are provided
mush out our planning process and Supv. Ruonavaara said these things are provided throughout our planning

?85 and 0?1? Zoning ordinances, but a resolution like this would concentrate them in one location. He recom-
"m'kd it be studied carefully by Board and Staff for any problems that may exist and be worked out and rescheduled
ml?- He referred to Board authorization two years ago for the codification of all of our ordinances. and asked

 

7' 
a?T from the Golden Gate Bride. .
H1 1?0 so 
MW "?13an In? ?mm" 4.952": 3' Mob..- 19. 1970 31M


 

 

n?c?n .

"ma 

 

 

{3:35; 7 - chob.r 1

(emu)

Int. "Mi
Hardin: actual and 90"??1 "won?. n? "More Pro

ADOPTED 

re 
0'19?? Letter regarding Board Authority 5? 
HELD '10 m1. Um
Is
11:30 sol. Board or supervieors recessed to 2:00 P-
2'00 Pm. Board or Superviecrs reconvened.
ZEQEHIEQIN- Nicholson. Asst. Plann. Dir.. present. 230 1.t1n 
NoOBiAtx-icts. and settins tin: am.? of 
1 5t tions in and 0'3 Place pub 51?
hearing thereon ADO I
Press Democra 
Date: Nov. 3. 1970 Publication! AYza; 5 N035, 0

Tim" ti DENYING Pr

Commission recommen a 0? r.
time .nd p1.o. for public hearing therggn zoning, 014
.
ADOPTED

Hum-burs Trim" Arts: 5 NOES: 0

Date: Nov. 17. 1970 Publication:
Time: 2:30 p.m.
or hearing on Use Permit Appeal made by "111

setting time and place I oility to Jacqus . Piers. at 252 1am 3111.
- Granting of a Use Permit for a Group 0-1" 5 wut my tn.
Road. Healdsburg ADOPTED 'k
Date: Nov. 1970 H??1d?b'r3 Tribune A183: 5 "033' 0
Time: 4:00 p.m.
Use Permit for Mob
acknowledging Plannins thereon 110 Home Park of 
Schramm. and setting time and place for Publ 
ADOPTED
Date: Nov. 9' 197? carat AYES: 5 NOEs.
Time: 23k5 p.m. Publication: Press Dem 0

0-10-97 Letter from Mrs. J.S. Lane and from Clark Nattkempter commending Board for their Retion It
Jenner FILE
0-19-98 Letter from the Resources Agency of California re returning the mouth ?f th? Russian River to

its natural state in perpetuity

I

COPIES surv. neL
CHAIRMAN mum?? 8.

PLANNING:

 

setting time and place for hearing on Jenner Bay Use Permit (Yards, etc.)

NOT ON AGENDA ADOPTED
70 AYES: 5 nors: 0
Date: Nov. 9 19
Time: 2:00 pzm. Publication: Sebastopol Times

At this time. the following resolution was introduced by Mr. Nichols, co. Ad:

lifting outdoor burning(with permit) as of Oct. 21, 1970

nor on AGENDA ADOPTED
AYES: 1; Nom: 1

2:20 p.m. Board of Supervisors recessed to 3:00 p.m.
3?00 P-mo Board of Supervisors reconvened. . .

Hearing scheduled for 2:30 p.m. had been noted by Chairman Theiller at that time today re
Torviok/Bowen and Barbara Hagedorn Rezoning. and is being continued to Nov. 17, 1970 at 3:00 p.m.

BID OPENING: PAULIN CREQK LANDSCAPING:

LEISER Austin Way. Santa Rosa, Calif. - Bid Bond 810.570.00

 

BIDS REF. CO. AD.

3:05 pom. LAND USE DISCUSSION:

 


Chairman Theiller said he had listened to the tape on yesterday's discussion, and had many

questions on this. He said he felt theimplications are long range and did not feel hasty action should be taken
He said he objected to it being brought to the Board in the form of a resolution, which requires no public
hearing and that it should be referred back to the Planning Commission, as well as such organizations as the
Farm Bureau. Granges, Board of Realtors. the Environmental Council and organizations of developers as well.

He referred to hillside design and limiting of visual intrusion and asked what percentage? Supv. Ruonavaara
replied it is flexible. Chairman Theiller said one of the problems is with interpretation that will be given

 

   

0d) 
(0Ont 8mm - Octoher 20. 1970 339
pol}: inwl"d? He also referred to No. 6 in

ca - the
I5: ?on ch.? ?imd7whlit-Kriz' eth sh". ?mm? mount?. and asked if the small shop.

?5138 13 that if 1? VII carried out to the extreme this
concept SIIQW Store With A .Cl'os or,? wouldn't IlInt to like a. cane: of th! PC with
said felt wt: 3 mm 
9 en a

$31 ?r?l?ibgh at the outset h. ?33:13:??m in lti

in; to grant to on BOtice th
on 0 y. so one can? at h. inlg 1 I

W33: ?3m? to ?5332" ?mm of others-
n5 for 69?? in the P0 com.? ?min: racmuoo will be located. but

   

for de?ation Iron a BM 

on
"31? this in 0m '1 ?Elation and not .mi?cc?um Pertaining to their particular
:4 bug v. "11. said there are two me u, ?much
51" Sup in 1959 to set 1M: Split Ordinancg. these PPObele-g. He referred to former Supervisor

'5 ,Fte?pt; in for content. andoonseqnmuy it was no?. that tine. he

no took the tact of inviting

or ?and mend adopting this as - ver conpleted.
uld rec . Pohcy today He said in the light ofthia
:3 sup? ?11? and ?fins his Ch: ?a 1? ?We? are required they can be completed

is.- i

r131,? 103?:th 1n the we be was recommending 1:0 1955- he had re-introduced the Lot Split Ordi-
0d Md ?52 .nachanses Dede that were felt mcoasm. Bed?; He said it was passed. and eventually

a? re he?! of operation the Lot Split Ordinance has bed at out ?f this Co-itteo. and

. 15$ yurS? of acti?n by former Supt. ?ne-eke: w? Standard Operating Procedure. He said if

:f th? cor th? next 2. Chairman 'Iheiller asked if the 11mm: never going to adopt a land use policy dur-

Jadof; your 0? to Gilbert replied the land use in moral c: ?f this resolution is to apply to the PC

at no .1510? is so hastily. and that other organinations ahould?tmn ?lemon~ sud again In did not think we

5" adapt. 3. 539110163 could Off?rt ?d Chairman ?Killer 1 conhc?ed' Supt. 3914938 M. to

uldg .tht thoshould hear from them. as well as the So. Co. Tangpeople ?0

,?Pl'ind ,nd ?cpl. of the county should be heard. Supv. Deh 581d 1% has far-reaching
1? He went on to say that if we ask for the as said an, "?11 5' Mush ?1011?

. Chaimn Theiller said he was an
3:2? and km" what the people think that he repreaenta.
. Region? to No. 5 re innovatiVe clustering
,felt this was sou 0 it he said he agreed with and other.

5?1 t. 3? gent ?hing like the ??3138 Authority question, and a do-ittee

fficj-al' and it is important that he unde

rned' 
c. 5110 had an opportunity to make any communic

10"tad p? ve 11?


. no to research this whole thing with a 00 
103d be 5"t upd with their recomendations. 8 cm? representation ?f the conunity. ?d than 
5? the.
?ck
Debi-15135:: each listed in the resolution. and made recommendation for
es- A final the Ian: every officer and department having land use regulatory powers ?nd
"'Sumlintgonday's minutes. and are not listed here. ions for i-proveaents. The other points were

Discussion was held to take up the following:
m, w: Paul Skanchy. Plann. Dept? present,
)3 ..
Kr- rezoning request from A to A-Hobile Home District. Appli- 
desires to use the 1" residence purposes. Staff felt this would establish a precedence and 1
ant zoniDSv and also referred to the Board resolution passed placing a stay on mobile homes in January of 3
yeah ?mey 815? ecommended denial until the present tax structure is changed to the satisfaction of the 1

"?15 rvisors. Petition had been submitted with signatures ob' -
nt of Stexpgl issio dii do it. necting to the application. and subse 1
1? 

Chairman ?meillenasked when the application was filed. and Mr. Skanchy said originally in August I
of this year. and there was no ?11138 01? negotiation Prior to this time. Chairman Theiller called forproponents. 
and Mr. Peden explained he had bought the property because of his interest in grapes and prunes. and wanted the
?11119 home for a placsto stay during the weekend. Supv.?Ruonavaara asked how long he had owned the property.

?d Hr- Peden replied Slime March. Ruonavaara explained we do not allow anymore mobilehome parks or indivi-
ml mobile homes eacept in the Zone. or for agricultural use. He said the problem with Mr. Peden

is the 1.6 acres which doesn't claSSify it as agricultural use. With a modular home there would be no problem.

In peden asked if there is a regulation against parking a mobile home on a piece of property if it isn't lived

in. Mr. Botz, Dep. Co. Co., said apparently there is not. Chairman 'Iheiller asked if. there were any more
proponents. and there were not. He called for opponents. and also none present.

The following action taken:

 

 

 

concluding hearing and upholding Planning Commission denying rezoning of property of
Robert L. Peden. located at 2159 West Dry Creek Road, Healdsburg





1



i



I NOT ON AGENDA ADOPT-1

AYES: 5 NOES: 0 a
3:55 pm.

HEARING: USE APPEAL BY IRVING KESLER: Paul Skanchy, Planning Dept.; John Fitzgerald. Attorney represent-

1



in; Irving Kesler; Stanley E. Grate, 1023 Jennings Ave.. Santa Rosa, Opponent and Richard Finali. 1060 Jennings
hen Santa Rosa, Opponent, present. a

It Hr. Skanchy made presentation regarding request for use permit for a junkyard and sale of used

11 onobile part3. Surrounding development; is M-1 and M-2, and;located both in the city and county. Other uses

l?mt?he?area are industrial. Santa Rosa General Plan designates this as wholesale and light industrial. Staff

1 that junkyards are necessary, but location is a prime factor and there is possibility of incompati-

from 1n the area. Staff outlined several conditions in the event the permit is approved. Letter received

rants hosa Planning Comm. stating they considered this. and the question arose of appropriateness in this

Vould gr this use. In view of pending action by the County on Westcoast Welders they felt a determination

senerale necessary as to general appropriateness of this use. If the Hestcoast facility is allowed to continue,
use would be established and then this present application would fit in. Letter also indicated that the

cit -
v: and county should establish criteria for the establishment of these uses. but at the present time they 
no recommendation. 

 

 



 

 

 

 

3 - October 20, 1970 
40 W)

HEARING: USE PERMIT APPEAL - IRVING KESLER 

More. and Mr. Skanchy said the 
"accent V. th 0 t1 3' has 
the statue 01' to continue pe a on. Mr. b.
Chairman main? ?kid? ?minions if the: violations or objections to thisk?nchy an 5? 0L 3
in for revocation and will be 505390 Fire District stat ng 

I app and 0?1
letter also received from the Roselend 11?lt10n.
In conclusion, BZA denied the penit- Mr Fitzgo?ld said there 15 no queen

roponenl" ff outlined conditions inc
Chairman manor-2631:: {grpgoper for thisu?zinsftio burning and certain mining:

zoning 0f the area forH-l and every restrictedizigogniwce should be made of that fact?tement 
no :tockgil?ing 0f J?n?ghi?nm?i?u uses there. Mid?; "ou1d be a benefit to the people there go He 311.1%?
men a. senses and 5a ter 1andsceping and ot

applicant has no objection to the how it would 102283;?, were no eonditiona
area. He handed out a sketch of the Fire Commissioner 58! 1ence in this type of I) Mr. Real
met. He also referred to letter from the ussed his 911"? ?3111083. 

this and d1?
0 ration of the we Deal. Fri? t?
De ?1 permit! and the trends in the area Vhich a

ction t0 the the need for this 1? Era

ooddie He and h: had left it in a: it shun??

changing since the Keel?. previous operat . ponsible for present condit ions in

had moved outoise factor. are. Mr. an 

also spoke of his objection?My
her persons present to 5998?? the 0 ng on was taken: I
A 931 made by Irving Kesler from the

gonclugigkg 33:13.10; at 11er Briggs Avenue. Santa $2231 of In

Use Perm or a

Mr. Grate spoke of his obj

Since there were no furt

NOT ON AGENDA ADOPTED
AYES: 5 0

ustments action denying a Use Permit to

"Ar

Adj I
- 1 the Board 01' Zoning to sales "1
:8 Use Permit for a junk yard and use au pa at 1143 Briggs 253:1?
Santa Rosa - 7 NOT 0N AGENDA ADOPTED 
AYES: 1+ Moms: 1
Chairman Theiller voted No.

. - on Russian River Region, Inc. and their 1.
Pom. Chairman 'Iheiller referred to the letter fguidotti and a meeting is to be held With agent to

said he had talked with Mr. Th
:gpiglsbigif tgagzaihenazcheduled a time at 10:11.5 am. on Oct. 26, 1970 to appear before the Board, ?u?Bda,

l?#6 p.m. LAND USE 

. . ert on 

Supm Del-one continued review-?8 the ?In? prea??egazyagdedGEZt th: digs? :1 prepared 
lution, and made recommendations for certain changes. In NO- 1f the Planning staff presentatgooposals ar
reviewed by EAC, with their recommendations beiDB made a part or No 2 remained th sama
ning Commission, Board Of Zoning Adjustments or Egard ogtggizignsizsareas.of geological Here

- - . inve
On hillside development it was added that design i? n?
visual intrusion of manmade structures and to eliminate substantial t? road or building construc.
tion, with burden of proof to rest with the applicant. No. Innovative 2111s eri-nghwa? acceptable as Stated
on Monday. 6: Regarding mixed commercial uses, Supv. 136120138 111531559? e?lre 0 11? outSIde lighting f0
advertising purposes, as well as only small owner?operated establishments. airman raised questions I
about the provision for no outside lighting. and said some will have to be allowed. Squ. Belong said then it
should be subject to good taste. Discussion on the small shops. and sup? V9393 this be left in a
general term rather than defined at this time, and that lighting shall be rev1ewed by the Planning Direct?.
Board concurred. No. 7 re provisions 'for open space maintenance was approved 3? presented Monday. 8; Land use
proposals shall be evaluated in relation to existing public facilities, and 1f imbalances cannot be corrected
with dedication and/or improvements, the proposal shall be rejected 5?5 premature. 9: This referred to appropri_
ate restrictions being imposed to prevent importation of non?native plantings, shrubbery, etc. Chairman Theill i
asked if it ever applies to an individual, and referred to Jenner Bay. Mr. Botz, Dep. Co. 00., said at Jenner 
Bay there are deed restrictions. Mr. Gilbert said the EAC will review the overall prOPOsal. and certain restric
tions could be placed on the proposal. He said that this applies to the coast and planned communities, and if -
it is expanded into other matters of land use then the Board will have to make a detailed review to determine
whether it falls within the category of a new concept or is the "checkerboard" subdivision. No. 10 was briefl
discussed, with no objection as presented Monday. No. 11 was discussed, and concurred in. No. la was added 
that every officer and department having land use regulatOry powers and responsibilities shall re-examine the
land use ordinances and policies of this county in the light of the foregoing and submit to this Board via
Planning Director recommendations for improvements.


he to the play?

Following action taken:

Resolution establishing an Interim Land Use Policy pending the adoption of an updated General
Plan (In concept as presented)

ADOPTED 
AYES: 1+ NOFS: 1
Chairman Theiller voted No.

5:20 pm. Board of Supervisors adjourned to 9:00 Oct. 21, 1970 as Board of Equalization.

Respectfully submitted,

Caz-line Poliakoff
Deputy County Clerk

 

 

 

.1.