Skip to Content

Board of Supervisors Department

Mark West Citizens Advisory Council

Approved Minutes August 10 2020

  1. Call to Order: Chairman Molsberry called to order, the regular meeting of Mark West Citizens Advisory Council 6:00 pm.
  2. Roll Call: Councilmembers present: Roni Berg, Tim Preston, Brian Molsberry
    1. Approval of Minutes: A motion was made by Council Vice Chair Berg, seconded by Councilmember Preston, to approve the minutes of the regular MWCAC meeting, July 13, 2020. They were not approved.
      1. Community Member Mona:
        1. Questioned last month’s meeting being official, stating that people were not able to access it or the video.
        2. Also added that the March meeting should not have been held and should be considered not legitimate, due to the Pandemic.
        3. Stated that the Public Health Department said it was a bad idea.
      2. Jen Mendoza, District Aide Representing Supervisor Gore, reported that, in reference to July meeting, there was a quorum, open to the public, as was the video; making it an official meeting. The video is available and anyone can still comment on that meeting. Those comments can be added to that meeting minutes, delaying the approval of the minutes to next month.
      3. Council Vice Chair Berg and Jen Mendoza verified that the Public Health Department had been contacted on the day of the March meeting. The County Health Department was not canceling large gatherings at this date.
      4. Jen Mendoza:Acknowledged Mona.
        1. Suggested moving on to the current meeting. Stating that any voice can still be heard and anyone is welcome to contact her.
        2. The point of a CAC is for the public to have a place to voice their opinions. The agenda for this meeting is set up specifically for the community to speak on Wikiup Commons (WC). There will also be future meetings on the subject of Wikiup Commons.
  3. Ex Parte Communications: None
  4. Standing Updates:
    1. Utility Updates: None
    2. Wikiup Updates: None
    3. Sonoma County General Plan: None
    4. MWCAC Logo Update: This subject is postponed until further notice due to COVID-19.
  5. Public Comments On Non-Agenda Items: This time is set aside for comments from the public regarding matters of generalInterest, not on the agenda, but related to MWCAC business. Pursuant to the Brown Act, however, the MWCAC cannot consider any issues or take action on any requests during this comment period. Each person is usually granted three minutes to speak. Time limitations are at the discretion of the Chair.
    1. Community member Rick Hall: Had no trouble getting on last month’s meeting. The problem was two meetings ago. 2. Community member Susan Sloan: Had submitted a safety issue to Transportation & Public Works (TPW). All reflectors, on Los Arboles Way, Vista Grande and Wikiup Dr., indicating where fire hydrants are, are all damaged or gone. Submitted Ticket is #58843. Would appreciate assistance from Council in getting this issued addressed quickly as we are in the fire season now. She will email it to Jen Mendoza: Jen will follow up with TPW.
  6. Correspondence: None
  7. Council Member Announcements And Disclosures: Information only.
    1. Council Vice Chair Berg: Johannes Hoevertsz, TPW, said there are a lot of neighborhood issues with speed. The speed reading machines are in demand They plan to put one on Old Redwood Hwy and one on Mark West Springs Rd. (Date TBD)
    2. Council Vice Chair Berg: TPW is still working out right-of-way issues with the shopping center, for the HAWK light.
  8. Presentations, Other Than Referrals From Prmd: To proceed as follows:
    1. Presentation
    2. Questions by Councilmembers
    3. Questions and comments from the public None
  9. Referral from Sonoma CountyPRMD w/out Presentations required: None
  10. Referrals from Sonoma County PRMD with Presentations: Action Item. Consideration of proposed projects will proceed as follows:
    1. Presentation by project applicant
    2. Questions by Councilmembers
    3. Questions and comments from the public
    4. Response by applicant, if required
    5. Comments by Council members
    6. Resolution (Action) if indicated None
  11. Subcommittee Reports and Discussions: Action if indicated
    1. Neighborhood Improvement Funding Program (NIFP) Subcommittee:None
    2. Rebuild Subcommittee: None
    3. Community Services District (CSD) Subcommittee: None
  12. Other Reports: Discussion may follow: Action if indicated None
  13. Discussions: Action Items Action if indicated
    1. Wikiup Commons (WC) Discussion:
      1. Community Member Catherine Dodd:
        1. Asking that landowners not allow the pond to dry out (mosquitos).
        2. Concerned about deer accidents, at least three this year. It is a wildlife sanctuary.
        3. Make sure a fair analysis is done by an independent business. Received a very biased survey.
        4. Why build on this little place? She suggested they build on higher land.
        5. Bungalow housing will end up as extended or multi family dwellings, Covid hot spots. Was told that they will not be affordable.
        6. The community loves the open space and does not want sidewalks or more cars parked along the roads.
      2. Community Member Mark Miller:
        1. What is the Council roll with Board of Supervisors (BOS)?
        2. With regards to WC project. It looks like the BOS have received campaign contributions from the developer. Conflict of Interest.
        3. How are citizens voices heard if the supervisors don’t recuse themselves from voting?
        4. How are conflicts of interest handled in the Permit & Resource Management Department (PRMD)?
        5. You would get more input by having public meetings when the pandemic passes. Many are elderly and not computer literate.
        6. Will Tony Korman be available for questions? Disagree with his former answers (some false) and want to clarify. (open discussion)
      3. Answers/Comments from Council:
        1. Best avenue to direct information and have direct input is to attend (BOS) and (PRMD) meetings. Decision makers are there.
        2. Anyone can voice opinions at MWCAC meetings. It is another way to hear the views of the neighborhood. Sometime down the line, the Council will get an opportunity to vote as to whether, or not, the council recommends that the project goes thru.
        3. The PRMD makes the decision. At that point the public has the opportunity to file an appeal. There would be more hearings and then the project would go back to the BOS for votes.
        4. If anyone feels that there is a conflict, one should lodge a complaint with County Council. The purpose of the Mark West Council is to communicate the community input to the BOS.
        5. The County has not put a hold on permits going forward. If the Council divorces itself from this project till pandemic clears up, then the project could go ahead without any input from it or the community. Zoom is best option available now.
        6. Tony Korman was not invited to this meeting. He is willing to come to future meetings. The Council will send questions received by the community to Mr. Korman.
        7. Current WC project status: Project was recently resubmitted due to additional information needed.
        8. This project application is being reviewed by 49 CA State & Sonoma County departments. Vice Chair Berg can send a copy of the application (File Number PLP20-0007) to anyone who requests it.
      4. Community Member Peter Holberg:
        1. Agrees that the survey was biased. Feels it was designed to make a point vs gather information to make a decision.
        2. Need to get more input from people who are not techie. Some people need to get out there and reach those people.
        3. Need to gather positive input about the project. There is positive input.
        4. Lived here 26 years. Thinks it is a development in the right direction. Optimistic that problems can be resolved and housing is good.
      5. Community Member Vicki Shaw:
        1. Have 711 signed petitions against this project.
        2. Wants to protect land and history, with zoning to prevent disorderly growth, stabilizing land for fire breaks and a buffer to protect Mark West creek,
        3. Increasing housing density, proposed by the developer would increase traffic, overcrowding and create a bottleneck.
      6. Community Member Heidi:
        1. Mr. Korman does not listen to the public view, does not care. He made a comment at a former meeting that If most of the people
          there had to buy their home on the market today, they couldn’t afford it. His delivery and lack of compassion is his problem.
        2. If he would listen, maybe they could all come to an agreement. The group feels like they haven’t been heard.
        3. How do we handle Mr. Korman?
      7. Answers/Comments from Council:
        1. Anybody can still write letters to Jen, the BOS and the Council. Jen would forward all letters on to the Mark West website.
        2. All should go to planning commission meetings ( and sign up for “Email Updates.” Developers and public will all be there and its the best place for everyone to make sure they are heard. Changes are made thru that process.
      8. Community Member Mike Landon: (Not in favor of this project at this time): Bullet Points of letter he wrote after March 9th meeting re WC project:
        1. destroying esthetic beauty
        2. fire danger
        3. evacuation difficulty
        4. density not appropriate
        5. some environmental impacts
      9. New Questions/Comments from Mike Landon:
        1. What is the purpose of a zoning change to Diverse Agricultural? Creates more options for anything from factories to stables.
        2. About the wonderful park. Who’s going to establish and manage it? Developers are not taking responsibility to find an owner or create any entity to own it. It appears they just want to build their 29 homes and drop the land. Should take some responsibility for ten years or so. Perhaps create the rudimentary beginnings of a park. Give community time to create something or find a way to hand it over to someone. How is it going to work?
        3. Land is not buildable anyway as it is protected land along the creek. If they don’t have a plan, it should be Dead on Arrival. • If all the small houses get built, something should be written into the charter that they could not become rentals. Mr. Korman told him that that’s conceivable.
        4. What does the developer really want here? Why walk away from 25 open acres, and then want to build 29 small homes. Concludes that this is some sort of affordable housing component to satisfy requirements for another project.
        5. Was able to get to last month’s meeting..
      10. Community member Ren Moreno, from Vista Grande Drive:
        1. Believes that Kendal Jackson got rid of park. Maybe don’t have money to do what’s necessary.
        2. There are so many problems with the creek, flood zone, retaining the banks, etc.
        3. About the 29 homes; Should get Burbank Housing involved. They do a great job of low cost housing. They always keep them up.
  14. Future Agenda Items: Potential future projects and suggestions for the next meeting.
    1. Presentation of Special Assessments Zones
    2. Presentation of examples of proposed logo for the MWCAC, created by MWUSD students
    3. Facebook Possibilities (after Website), Ciara Frowick
    4. Continued Discussion, Wikiup Commons
    5. Update on Community Alert Sign that was presented by Eagle Scout Carl Frazee
    6. Speed limits on Mark West Springs Road and Old Redwood Highway
    7. List of “unmet needs"projects for Larkfield/Mark West/Wikiup?
    Jen Mendoza
    1. Unmet needs list went to BOS, tomorrow they will be work-shopping the PGE settlement and how it’s going to be broken up
    2. Anybody can watch and send in comments to all of the supervisors.
    3. Alert sign is going thru the permitting process, nothing till after the 14th of September.
    4. TPW is trying to work out the community warning sign, not sure what’s holding it up.
    Council Vice Chair Berg announced there were 31 attendees at the meeting, including the panelists.
  15. Adjournment:: Action ItemThere being no other Council business to discuss, on a motion by Councilmember Preston, seconded by Council Vice Chair Berg, the meeting was adjourned at 7:14 pm.