 Okay, good morning or good afternoon. We will we've recessed our closed session We're going to reconvene to open session in our council chambers for a steady session item 3.1. Mr. McGlynn Item 3.1 Housing allocation plan and commercial linkage fee And I'm going to introduce the new community development director for the city of Windsor Jessica Jones But we still have her for a few more weeks You're supposed to congratulate her I've had the words with Ken already so we'll talk later Thank you, thank you very much. I appreciate that So thank you mayor Schwaatham members of the council. So the item before you is our a study session for inclusionary housing and commercial linkage fee What we're going to be going over today is some policy options for you and what we're hoping to get back from the council is Clear direction on those different policy options for both the inclusionary housing ordinance update as well as Introduction of a commercial linkage fee So before we get into that I'm going to be going over a bit of the background on why we're here and how we got here I'm going to then hand it over to Andy Gussison who is a project manager for the inclusionary housing piece of this He'll walk you through the various policy options that we're looking for direction on and we'll hand it over to Raisa de la Rosa in community or in economic development who will be going over the commercial linkage fee options So the slide before you here is gives you an idea of the project schedule and the outline of our engagement process through this so we really started this process back in late 2017 we had a project kickoff and some early stakeholder input and We started working on some of the background research for the inclusionary housing as well as a commercial linkage at that time Following that we had of course the fires that took some of our time away some other policy work that we were working on So the inclusionary and the commercial linkage fee Took a took a brief pause but now we're back and Early this year we put together all of that information that we had collected During the early or late 2017 and time frame. We prepared a white paper That was based on an economic feasibility Analysis for the inclusionary housing portion. We also have an economic feasibility analysis for the commercial linkage fee I believe those are also those are all part of your package that came before you In early August we held community stakeholder and workshop meetings We also visited the planning commission with a similar study session to what you're going to be hearing tonight to receive feedback on How we want to move forward with this process Last night or yesterday afternoon. We went to the housing authority again with the same Presentation receiving feedback from them. Andy is going to go over the results of both of the planning commission and the housing authority Authority as well as the community input that we received That brings us to today again. We're looking for feedback from the council In clear direction so we can move forward with drafting and ordinance for the Inclusionary housing and putting together resolutions for you related to housing impact and commercial linkage fees and that is scheduled for October 1st so Wanted to spend a little bit of time on this slide and remind everybody about why we're here, which is The housing action plan which was accepted by the council in October of 2016 the first program within the housing action plan was to increase inclusionary housing the council gave specific direction at that time to increase the production of affordable housing as part of market rate housing projects and With that there was a specific direction within the housing action plan to include a requirement that for sale housing projects include onsite affordable units And that that be at a 15% minimum for those for sale units and that it be at a mix of low and moderate income units It also specified additional regulatory and financial incentives and alternative compliance measures to maximize production of affordable units and To provide for innovation and achieving in achieving increased inclusionary The housing action plan also included a program to simplify the housing impact fee and update it based on current data and To increase the fee charged on rental units as part of an effort to encourage inclusionary units in market rate rental projects we also identified within the housing action plan direction to secure dedicated affordable housing funding through various other sources and that does include the introduction of a commercial linkage fee to offset housing demand on And impacts due to future employees So this slide goes over some of the other tools that we've been working on that the council is well aware of to address the housing needs here in Santa Rosa Recently we adopted the density bonus ordinance update We've also adopted development fee reductions and the accessory housing Dwelling unit section of our zoning code was updated to provide incentives for smaller units We've also been working on permit streamlining and process improvements to help get projects through the process in a more expedited manner We also have been looking at by right development for supportive housing consistent with state law and then also Assembly and offering of public land for housing development. So these are all Kind of pieces of that that greater puzzle that we need to address housing here in Santa Rosa And this is another piece of that with the inclusionary So what you're gonna be see what you're gonna see going through this presentation today is two pieces as I mentioned We're gonna be talking about the inclusionary housing And the commercial linkage fee for both of those we're gonna walk you through some policy options Where again, we're gonna be asking for some specific Input and direction on where we want to go with that ordinance update and the fees So this slide is showing our residential permit activity since 2000 as you can see we had a lot of Development in the early 2000s that all slowed down with the recession Starting in 2008. We've been slowly Going up but not at a very significant rate So again, this is all the reasons why we're working on the various policies to help to incentivize housing So this should be a familiar slide This was presented to the council when we brought you the general plan annual review earlier this year So this is looking at our regional housing needs allocation our Rina numbers, which are set by the state of, California And it shows what the city needs to produce Through 2023 and the total number is about 5,000 new units they're broken up into various categories from extremely low up to above moderate And it's the the requirement is distributed throughout that so this slide is showing what are What the city Santa Rosa's share of that is what we have issued to date As well as what our remaining need is and so as you can see we do have quite a significant amount of need that is still remaining and so again Reasons why we're we're bringing all these policies forward to you So this slide is showing the income categories that we're going to be talking about today very low low and moderate and the household incomes associated with those and this slide is we've got a chart that is outlining the outcome and implementation of inclusionary housing versus the in lieu fee so for inclusionary units you can see it's It's provided by the developers part of a market rate housing project provided on-site And it's typically done at the low-income category For the in lieu fee payments those payments are then provided to the housing authority and they use those to leverage a different additional funds To provide affordable housing throughout the city and generally it's at the very low and low-income category So this is an important slide. This chart is showing How we've done with our inclusionary policy since it was adopted in 1992 So as you can see Since that time the on-site construction of inclusionary units is about 174 units I do want to preface that with we do have projects that have been entitled that would provide additional Units to that number, but it is still a relatively low number Whereas with the in lieu fee since 1992 again Leveraging it with other Funding opportunities. We've been able to construct just over 1500 affordable housing units throughout the city So now I'm going to hand it over to Andy guffason who is going to be going through the policy considerations Thank you for that background Andy before you start just like counsel No, we're going to or they're going to stop the presentation after slide 25 and give you an opportunity for any questions And then again after slide 39 for another round of questions, then we'll open up for any comment from members of the public Thank You Andy. Thank you very much so we're going to address and turn a number of Policy issues that are listed here and for each of those will will present to you the The option or the suggested approach that is comes out of the white paper and the Special study that was prepared for the inclusionary ordinance. The main theme is that the the policies that are put before you are starting points for discussion and Hopefully, we will have an opportunity to see what the range of options are available. So we'll first talk about the Before we go into these individual issues, I'll give you a bit of background with the planning commission housing authority and what our stakeholders said the planning commission looked at the proposed inclusionary ordinance and found that a blended approach for Dealing with the inclusionary housing problem or solution is is the best way to go forward It might provide a better way to ensure equitable city-wide distribution of affordable units support mixed income projects Allow for neighborhood integration meaning that they're located in places where there would be services stores Parks infrastructure and then That it really should be a blended approach for both the for sale and for rental units The commission looked at a number of factors or or variables that go into the inclusionary ordinance and and things like What project size it should be applied to? The percentage and income mix as well as the fee those all can be adjusted and those will be reviewed with you today how they can be calibrated to accomplish the The goal of of the council Then in terms of providing flexibility to the regulation it was suggested that There ought to be a mechanism to allow for review of dispersion of units within a project but also within the city or its quadrants That there ought to be incentives for small and family units and in projects and that We should allow for the similar types of concessions that we we have allowed for density bonuses and and and that the units be for rental units be allowed to Interiors be allowed a baseline finish and while we're at the same time requiring the exteriors of these units to match the market rate finishes and finally The planning commission Agreed that it was important to take a look at downtown separately that there there should be a Structure fee or or requirement that recognizes the unique needs of downtown And not necessarily apply to a city-wide program And then the one of the issues that was is is being raised is that we need to have a deed restriction that extends to 55 years rather than 30 years the public which includes developers community members Responses that we received in both workshops and in individual meetings Raised a number of issues many of them That we heard from recently regarding Housing and and the fee From affordable developers as they felt the fee was a very important component Many of their projects that rely on tax loot income tax credits require Some flexibility in terms of it's very important. It's a very important source of funding for them to put projects together And that fee program also requires some flexibility in terms of how those units are distributed throughout the project They also had some concerns about land dedication As a way an alternative way to comply with the inclusionary requirement In that often that the value of the land dedication is not as great as Might be expected given the costs of development entitlement in the future then The the uh as we will review there's a bit of discussion about what level of our percentage of inclusionary should be required in projects and and As jessica stated 15 percent is is the standard that the council Was striving for when the housing allocation plan or our action plan was Accepted what we're finding and and what the development community Agreed is that a lower amount in the eight to ten percent range It would would be most appropriate and financially feasible That those are sort of the big ticket issue items that came out of our public comments Last earlier this summer and in the late 2017 So we have this uh Residential of nexus east study that was prepared that looked at prototype development in the city as a means to analyze What the uh affordability Needs are and and what the costs of constructions Would be and we took a look at single family detached typical 2000 square foot dwelling that in this city sells for Or county sells for a six hundred and sixty thousand dollars or about three hundred and thirty dollars a square foot And also a single family attached to town home Type development 1600 square feet and it would sell for four hundred and eighty thousand dollars Those and then as well as apartment units ease one two and three bedroom configurations there that on a Perth's month basis so you can see the rents range between 2000 and 2900 a month the These numbers in the pro forma that was prepared by the consultants uh was Establishing essentially what the the rate of return is needed by the developer in order to engage a project to consider it financially feasible and that Conversation with developers as well as market surveys Showed that for residential single family attached and detached required a 15 to 18 percent those are for sale units and A developer would require that level of return Before they would consider the the time risk Of that venture to be profitable or worthwhile for them to engage in for apartments for rental units The cash flow over time Results in a different sort of scenario or outcome and a six to seven percent return is needed These returns are important to keep in mind as we go forward because we would always want to Hope to establish policy or or regulatory requirements that would Um Not exceed this rate uh or or cause a development to fall below this rate of return or below this threshold And thus render it economically infeasible So we have these different dials or or or levers that we can um use on the inclusionary onsite unit side We have and we'll be reviewing these individually, but um, so we're looking at project sizes does In onsite unit requirement Get triggered by A larger project or a smaller project. Is it a project that exceeds five units or 10 units or 50 units? and then When it is triggered, what is the percent of uh units that Should be required to be affordable and then in what type of affordability is it low or very low all of these bear tremendously on that On the rate of return on a project. Likewise the in lieu fee, which is the second option In in the inclusionary ordinance that if they choose not to build or if the if the developer is allowed not to To build onsite units and pay a fee instead How much should that fee be and and when does that fee get triggered? Is it only for smaller projects or is it for A special combination Now again it we need to balance The the two sets of policies for onsite inclusionary versus the in lieu fee Based on those variables So as as long as if they're on parity then the developer Who has an economically feasible project will have a two Troy True choice between paying the fee or building the units So that brings us to our first and most probably significant policy point is The current ordinance regarding Whether the ordinance should be biased in one way towards requiring onsite units to be built Or allowing the fee to be collected or should it be a blend of both currently the ordinance essentially allows the developer to choose and the way the The onsite requirement is is set at 15 percent at low versus the fee which is set as a relatively low amount The developer as we've seen has chosen to pay the fee that fee has provided tremendous benefit to the city and that It is used by the housing authority to Help finance affordable housing projects Um, but the key policy decision at this point we're seeking from or direction now from the council would be Do we continue with that or Do we go with a blended option? Which is is suggested as an effective way that we can go forward with encouraging a Both onsite and affordable units Fees for affordable unit projects You will also say there that there are other you know Directions to go we can be exclusively pay a fee as or or exclusively require onsite development the the second Policy issue then that follows is what project size? Um, should be set to determine when inclusionary onsite units are required Currently our ordinance says a single single dwelling unit triggers the need for an onsite unit Um, as I mentioned the practice of most developers will be to pay the fee and really that's the only option for very small projects Um, the it's only when larger projects are Proposed that it becomes a consideration to build them onsite our current ordinance says that 70 units The developer is encouraged to consider Developing onsite, but again, it's their choice the the policy direction Is that we should pursue? Um a blended approach Um Which would allow small projects um To pay the fee and then a larger project Which would be defined to to be required to to pay or excuse me to build units onsite um this this It would it would lessen the financial burden on a developer of smaller Size projects and you know the the the project's less than five units or so or less than 10 and then It's a strategy that that would help to um spread the burden of the cost of affordability I can just interject real quick. Um, I did want to offer the option to stop at each one of these slides Or we do have these policy questions to see if the council has an interest in Asking questions or providing comments for each of those or if you'd like to move through them and then come back Let's get it all. It's my understanding especially with planning commission a lot pertains to other ones So let's get through slide 25 and then we'll open it up for that discussion and direction great. Okay um This illustrates um how uh a sliding scale fee might be configured if if uh developer proposes to build Include moderate rate units in a for sale project Then maybe the inclusionary requirement is 10 percent If if it's a for rent project For low income units at at eight percent That that might be inequitable the point here is that we can make the policy decision to vary the affordability with the with the percentage This chart I apologize in advance Uh, it has a lot of information on it, but the key thing I want you to pull away from this is that For our for sale for rent Um units here in the city that we have an existing fee structure for for sale Two and a half percent of sales price for the detached single family Currently on our prototype housing units would yield 16 500 or 12 200 dollars in fee based on that percentage, but if as recommended To switch to a per square foot fee program as is most common In the housing marketplace That a 13 dollar and 10 dollar fee for the for sale unit types would yield More fee But would still be within the economic threshold Needed for a developer to be enticed to build that product here in our city on the rental side The the fee structure gives a break for smaller units at at about 900 square feet But beyond that size the fee ramps up as the size of the unit increases there So you can see our current free restructures about 900 dollars for a It's a dollar per square foot and in our prototype a little bit over 900 dollars But for uh, if we were to increase it to the economically A supportable fee of 10 dollars a square feet That fee jumps 10 times to 9 000 The comment that we received uh from The planning commission and the housing authority is that maybe there should be a discount or a sliding scale For those lower units or other type of units that are Desired for the larger end of the apartment range the fee would increase but not as dramatically But again, it would be based on a fee that could be supported by developers according to our analysis The final row and there is important because it underscores that the downtown is a unique development setting Um these for sale and for rent units that were analyzed in in our studies Looked at housing types that were typically and likely to be built here in the city Downtown's a departure from that. It's much higher intensity different type of construction A different type of cost structure altogether and for that reason The studies would support or suggest that a fee waiver or a reduction or a different approach for the downtown area Should be in discussion This shows here how the recommended fees might compare with other jurisdictions here in the county and You can see in the red are the price leaders We would fall below that at 13 dollars a square foot for the detached single family dwelling and also below The attached and rental units at 10 dollars a square foot We're not it's it's not in the middle, but it's it's it's below the the top end The so then we're moving on to more sort of the mechanics of of the uh How the units will look? and and how they're configured the Regulate the regulation currently says that units need to be Of a similar mix mix of unit types and floor area as a market rate units We're We have the the ability to to consider changing that and and many jurisdictions are allowing Smaller affordable units to be built provided they have the same bedroom mix So that's one cost saving measure that Makes the burden of providing an onsite unit a little less For in terms of exterior experience Appearance and material finishing quality It's pretty much a uniform requirement that affordable units shall be the same as a market rate unit and indistinguishable There's a lot of good reasons for that for property management Issues as well as for equity issues, but it is often the case that when units are being built they're being built to a baseline condition and that For sale products will off developers will give the purchaser an opportunity to upgrade But they offer a baseline unit that's affordable So it's suggested that that might be an approach equitable approach to go forward And and just allow the market to determine What is needed in terms of the interior? the The other issue is is concerning flexibility within the regulation Do we give opportunities for a developer to provide the inclusionary units off-site? We currently do It's required to be within the same quadrant We we have land dedication and and we do have innovative alternatives Here are a couple more that are being suggested that Developers be allowed to convert existing market rate units to affordable units and get credit for that or Preserve an at-risk affordable housing unit that might be at the end of its Term and the developer can purchase it and extend it to preserve that affordable housing stock in the community With regard to geographic dispersion. I mentioned previously our current requirement is that A off-site unit needs to be in the same quadrant that would be And and it There was By by previous bodies that talked about this felt as important principle, but there should be possibly mechanism that allows for A project to fulfill the requirement outside the quadrant We have currently pretty good distribution Of affordable housing types throughout three of our quadrants the northeast is light by comparison So there may be an opportunity to incentivize Development in the northeast quadrant through this this off-site development approach The other is an important issue and this came up in the density bonus that was brought before you Is do we provide a mechanism to allow developers to not Fully disperse affordable units within a project so that the doors aren't completely blended Again the issue regarding financing for low-income tax credits is is a challenge and like the density bonus A provision that would allow when it was deemed to be necessary to preserve the funding feasibility of a project that These these units can be clustered on the project site not necessarily fully dispersed And then the new idea is that we allow a developer to build more affordable housing units on a project If they require if we were an ordinarily require let's say 10 percent if they built a 20 percent affordability in their project they can That would be an opportunity for a future project to borrow from that over I'll say over affordability in a project to get credit for it It's a new idea in the city and we can talk more about that Consultant here is more familiar with the program Then the final slide here on policies is one is the current inclusionary ordinance requires a 30-year term For any unit that is built for this as on site We were proposed that it be extended to 55 years Similar to the density bonus and other state law funding requirements And that we continue with our existing exemptions which include a broad range of affordable housing types as well as for The owner builder who is building off one off so Here's a list of the the topics that might prompt questions and I invite your comments. Thank you Great. Thanks for that me So for council, let's first go with a round of any questions you might have and then I think it might be Most helpful if we just ask these councilmember to answer all the questions or give feedback on the questions on slide 26 Correct. Okay. Who has some questions before we start giving policy direction Victoria Thank you, andi and jessica Great presentation. These are really complicated issues and I had the opportunity and pleasure to watch your Your presentations with the housing authority as well as the planning commission and found that really helpful I have a number of questions, and they're all over the board. So apologize for that What are the tax or fee reductions for affordable units as they are now So we're going to bring up our representative from the housing department to help with that question. Thank you So in terms of property taxes the majority of our affordable housing portfolio that we currently have loans on And provide compliance on receive welfare tax exemptions through the county assessor's office So they do not pay property taxes, but they do pay special assessments And that welfare tax exemption is a benefit to the city because we can use it as match for some of our federal grants So on an average unit an apartment unit what how much are is that per door? Is it dependent on the depth of affordability? They the developer Who needs to be a non-profit has to provide an annual certification to the assessor's office that the rents that they are charging and the households They are assisting meet those requirements And it's based on the assessed value of the property and improvements And is there a location that we can find or the public can find? fee schedule for rentals For those types of projects We have the housing and community services department maintains A table of affordable rents based on Income level and bedroom size that is on our website that the public can go to And is that audited or enforced in any way? The housing and community services department as part of our regulatory compliance We have regulatory agreements on properties that we have loans on on a quarterly and annual basis They provide tenant information to us So we know that the tenants are meeting the income requirements And the rents charge on the units are in compliance with those income requirements And then additionally projects that receive tax credits through the california tax credit allocation committee And through the california debt limit allocation committee, which is bonds are required to provide compliance information to those entities as well And i apologize for all the questions Are the taxes that are For gone, especially with school districts and parks. How are those taxes made up for our community? i'm unable to answer that question, but that's something we can research and get back to you on okay Does the And you might have already answered this does the tax credit vary by the depth of affordability on a project So the tax credits that a project applies for is based on the costs of the project at time of construction Or when they are re syndicating so refinancing the project So it's based on the expenses that they are incurring for construction or acquisition And then they are required to meet certain affordability levels and depending on the project structure it will vary Member flamin i think i can add on to the question you had about what happens to those taxes So property taxes if they are not paid obviously that comes to the general fund so that would not be recouped impact fees that Developers including non-profit developers would have to pay for such parks and cff in water those would be paid as part of the project Okay, i'm just curious to know if we're undercutting our schools when we second fee is probably the ones more affected Okay, um going back to the um innovative alternative on slide 24 Can you give me an example um mr. Gustafson of um an of an innovative alternative to inclusionary housing on page 24 um Any of these would be uh In for consideration like allow conversion of the existing unit that is New we would otherwise leave that category open for the developer to propose an alternative But then have some mechanism To evaluate that typically like with the density bonus an innovative alternative comes to city council for review That would be a policy decision How that would be determined and accepted the level of decision making well i see it under existing Is it something that might be proposed rather than an existing policy? It is an existing approach, but how do we go about Authorizing it now Yeah, and if that is something that the council is interested in continuing with um, that's certainly something that can be placed into the ordinance I'm just wondering since it is existing. Are we dealing with that currently? Are there examples of that or no? Yeah, so so one example would be um when we got a request to um offer one developer offered a number of lots For to habitat for humanity for example to build units on the for a four cell project Um, so it was an art typical process But they produced what the the cost savings would be what the number of affordable units that would be built What the offset of the fees that we would lose to try to show that there was value in doing that? So that was one example of an innovative approach that that's helpful um, i'm curious to know if we were to go with something like um preservation of potentially at-risk affordable units or extensions of the terms of a Near expiring affordable unit or series of units how we would uh maintain the quality or assure the quality of those units Was not subpar and we didn't create a second lower tier of housing within our community I think if that option was to be exercised We would probably be having a developer who's accessing tax credits in order to conduct rehabilitation of the units And then they would also be subject to a regulatory agreement with the city So they would be subject to regular monitoring and compliance okay, um, and then um I heard you say yesterday mr. Gustafson and again today that The northeast quadrant of town is a little light on our affordable housing not surprising. Um, can you speak to the? The the level of lightness that that we are I think the distribution is approximately 10 percent and and the other just the other quadrants are pretty equally shared around 25 percent a little higher Well, that's fairly significant um, and then going um The last question I have and then I will see the floor and thank you for your patience. Um One of the suggestions I saw here was um a credit A potential idea would be a credit for future units. I'm having a hard time finding it on the slide might be 23 24 25 Anyway, um, if we were to adopt an approach like um future credits, how would we again? enforce the construction of them with the understanding that oftentimes Development gets stalled halfway through due to financing I would ask uh caren warner or consultant who's has experience with this form of Transfer or credits to speak to the point Thank you. Um, both the cities of novato and um ronald park have an inclusionary credit program and the um requirement is that the Additional inclusionary percentage be provided in the first project So if you had a hundred unit project and you had a 10 percent inclusionary requirement The first project may say I I want to provide 20 percent And then I'll have a 10 unit credit for a future project It's important to have a time frame for when that credit is Utilized um, it couldn't be Utilized um Or it couldn't be generated from an affordable project. So if if the city was um If there was a hundred percent affordable project, it couldn't say well, I'm providing excess inclusionary and I'm going to credit a future It has to be you know mark a rate project Okay, and uh apologies one more question. Um in the jurisdictions where there are Exemptions for smaller developments mostly infill developments to be um To be exempt from having to pay and lou fees or build affordability Have we observed or assessed for any use of that? Exemption as a loophole to building affordable housing I don't have any experience with that I'm not sure about um exemptions for infill projects. It's more Um allowing for payment of the and lou fee for projects below a certain size threshold Let me remove the infill word from the question. I'll just say where there's an exemption for projects under x amount of units Do we see um people developers deciding electing to build smaller developments in order to avoid having to pay those fees? More common and we did a survey of 11 jurisdictions is that The fee is required on the smaller projects and the onsite is then at you know, say five or more required So there still is a fee on in most of the jurisdictions one or more units um that said There is The case where developers will say i'm i'm going to build a A four-unit project instead of a five-unit project So I can pay a fee instead of having to do the onsite and have you observed any mechanisms that are available to help avoid People from maybe making that type of a decision Um not that i'm familiar with and there's always whenever you create a threshold There's going to be that issue. Sure. Thank you very much Great miss gomes any questions? Thank you. I'm afraid I have quite a few questions. So I appreciate your forbearance um First also, thank you I'm really Delighted to see this come forward and there's a lot of work here And it shows so thank you for for this level of work that you've been doing I particularly want to appreciate slide 15 uh Getting the developer feasibility threshold has been difficult And I very much appreciate that we see it um It's not always apparent where the threshold is and I I thank you for for that data Is it possible for this information to come back with projects? As they are being considered bias in the future So that if you come back and say this particular developer has offered to do x Is a community benefit Can we get this information or is it Not possible for that to come with the project? Um Right off the bat. I think the the it could be a an option for the developer to provide that if they're providing some sort of Outside the box think an innovative approach that this is how they're doing it and this is what their their threshold is I think that's definitely a conversation we could have but in terms of requiring that Every project's different as you know, and so it becomes very difficult and changes constantly all the way up until the Final until occupancy essentially as close a guess as we can get. All right. It just would be helpful To not ask too much but also not ask too little um I have an interest in I love this. I have an interest in what is often referred to as the missing middle The individuals who are making 120 to 150 or upwards of 180 percent Is there any plan for us to provide some fractional benefit or requirement for missing middle So I think that's an option that we could have a discussion about if that's of interest to the council To provide a threshold there we could look at what that percentage would look like In terms of a requirement if you were to build at that level you'd have to build a certain number of units And I'm not sure that I would want to I mean our greatest need is below 30 percent But we do have folks in the 120 to 180 percent who are being missed because we don't Special funds to them and the market might not reach them The other thing I'll offer is that just like this is kind of one piece of the puzzle that we're working on for housing We're also looking at additional policies that we can work on The state as you're probably aware has provided funding for Planning purposes for housing development through sp2 and so one of the Potential projects that we're looking at which will come before the council before we submit an application Is looking at addressing missing middle. Thank you And that term has multiple meanings. I appreciate that it can mean a foreplex as well Things like that. So I'm I'm using it to mean income levels of 120 to 150 or maybe 180 On slide 24 and excuse me for jumping around a little here I think it's slide 24. I'm looking at um I recall during the last serious downturn. I think it was o8 ish That a lot of units became available at a very And it would have been really wonderful if we had the ability to use our inlu fees To purchase outright units or to work with a partner to purchase units outright um To create affordable units that were single-family residences that we didn't have to pay $300 a square foot to build So i'm asking if we can explore the possibility of using inlu fees or creative alternatives To purchase units My understanding is there may be some drawback associated with how a bag counts affordable units When item that deputy director hartman and I were just discussing was rena numbers and If existing units that we convert to affordable could be applied so we need to explore that further But in regard or ask for a bag to change that policy and that would be at the state level as well Yes, um One thing we do with our inlu fees is once they're collected we try and program them for the following budget year So we through the housing authority are trying to move these out to projects as quickly as possible So the inability to use inlu fees to purchase single-family residences during the recession We were generating much lower fees based on development, but we had also committed a significant amount of fees to projects that had been Um constructed and were nearing completion at the time the market crashed And I think you bring up a good point about how those fees are are used Through the housing authority in terms of what are the priorities and what do you want to try to accomplish as a council And how is the housing authority helping you achieve those goals? So that's a discussion I think we can have and rather than providing them directly to builders to provide them directly to purchasers Can they be used as a? deposit for example On a home there are a number of people who are paying high monthly rents. They could pay A mortgage, but they don't have a deposit And it's very hard if you're paying a high monthly rent to save for a deposit So I'm looking at can we do a more direct aid In that in that manner and can the housing authority Explore that or can we explore that with a partner such a down payment assistance program for the right? Okay. Thank you A possible first and last deposit program also How does a homeowner benefit from an increase in equity in a property they've purchased if the unit is designated as an affordable unit So four sale units that are created through the housing allocation plan are subject to Resale restriction agreement. There's a maximum sales price that is calculated at the time of initial sale And that's based on the unit size and the interest rate at the time of sale Once the property owner provides us with notification, they'll be selling we provide them with the maximum sales price based on the current market Conditions so that'd be the interest rate and then they would have the difference between the purchase price And the maximum sales price at the time of sale I would be interested in more details on that because i'm very interested in having the unit remain At a low sales price, but not at the expense of the individual who invested in the unit So if we could explore that a little more I would be interested in that On page 21 and 23, and I'm not sure which page is more applicable How do we know how many units of different sizes that we need in our community? For example, we need some three bedroom units We need some studios How do how do we match what we're doing here so that we don't have unintended outcomes Of not getting family size units is actually what my fear is So as part of the process that the city undergoes every four years for the receipt of Community development block grant and home funding through the department of housing and urban development We are required to prepare a consolidated plan And that consolidated plan evaluates census data, which includes units by bedroom size income level and a study of Households that are rent burdened so through that review of data We identify the bedroom sizes or whether it's large family size units that we need to target in the upcoming consolidated plant cycle Can we have a square foot fee? That takes into account our need for larger units That we have some kind of table or a lottery or You know that we say this year we need this many of these different sizes. So we're giving these breaks these These benefits For building affordability based on the fact that we have these needs to be filled So one option the council has which you've exercised For example downtown is to encourage a certain type of development and that's through A resolution or a short term period of how you deal with your impact fees And so this would essentially be that that you could say on a certain for a certain time period in a certain geographic area If that's how you want to locate it you want to have this impact to the fees or take some reduction for a certain outcome And so that's definitely possible. And I think that's you've demonstrated again downtown with the fees how you've dealt with that Similar on the market rate side is as mega mentioned on the affordable side on the market rate side We're having a lot of conversations with developers to look at different types of the units even the shared living spaces the smaller One bedroom with a shared Kitchen area and common space. So those are being looked at right now because we don't have that product So there's a lot of conversation on the market Exactly. Yeah, so there's a lot of market rate developers looking at what the market needs based on what we currently have and what we're lacking And so that's another way we can get to those those numbers So if we follow your advice on page 21 And go to square footage What is the way that we make sure that we don't just get lots of little units, but that we get three bedroom units So the current fee structure that we have in place right now is geared towards trying to get smaller units If you look at the dollar per foot up to 900 square feet So once you get above 900 I think it's a 908 square feet it jumps pretty dramatically So the it's different to me if it's a two bedroom unit That's 2,000 square feet and if it's a two bedroom and it's a five bedroom unit That's 2,000 square feet. Is there any way to recognize the difference in the number of bedrooms in a unit? So I think that's a good a good question We can take that back and look at how to factor in number of Number of living living quarters or living units not just square feet but square feet plus sleeping units That would I think that might hit closer to what what I'm looking for um Got that one. I think I'm looking at page 19 I'm not sure if it's 19 or 20 some of each So I'm looking at the sliding scale project size based on inclusionary percentage of an affordability And just wanting a little more information um, and I I think page 20 is attempting maybe to answer the question about that um Can a can a developer choose to have two onsite and five in lieu One developer He said is that an available option or do you have to choose all onsite onsite or all in lieu? The way the current policy is set up is that you pick one or the other But it also does allow for innovation And so that's that's an example of where somebody would have to submit something to us to evaluate to make sure that we're We're not under Achieving what we're hoping to get. Okay, so that would be an example of innovation that would come forward Will we see some kind of a table? based on Income and percent that needs to be constructed. So, you know some cities say 25 affordable But you can't build 25 affordable at 30 percent and under income levels So if they're doing very low, I would consider 5 percent to be a really good number And I'd be delighted with a very low number if they're doing that level of affordability will we see a table Or is that not in this conversation? So that that right now what we've put up here is a talk A point in a point in the look a point in the range to start the conversation So right now we're we're saying that the studies have shown what we could feasibly do or build would be 10 percent at moderate for for sale units Or eight percent at low income for rental units Your point is Should we have a i'm looking at the what the low means here low is 80 percent below 80 percent here correct So we're not we don't have a third category of under as 30 percent the very low Right, so you're bringing up a good point that an option is to provide a scale. So this could be that the The lock-in point and you can scale up. So if you want to provide less affordability, you'd have to provide potentially more Higher percentage and lower affordability. You could provide less percentage and that's the feedback We're looking for so if that's something the council wants to see We're more than happy to take that back and come up with a scale to try to address that I would be really interested in seeing that Um We haven't heard from the public yet, but I think I'm already pretty clearly on record for having issues with having separate buildings a building be Market rate and a building be affordable that bothers me very much. I'm really looking for inclusionary to mean inclusionary uh, I think it It benefits everyone and it prevents the not in my backyard issues from arising as well when we go to build the the units So you have my opinion about that. I understand though the problem with the tax credit And would be interested in seeing language like a budding adjacent As opposed to separated I understand they have to draw a property line, but if it can be a shared property line that would be good um, I mean the buildings physically sharing that property line um I would also like to receive recommendations from staff for a council action perhaps a letter um that would Request a change in how that tax credit is implemented so that it does not require The the buildings to be separated. I think that that's an old Hangover law from segregation And we we would like to see that changed So if there's a I don't know if my colleagues have a similar interest, but if we could take an action where we notified our delegation That we're very interested in what we can do to change that I would be interested in seeing it And I have a somewhat more controversial question as we go about this Even if it were a market rate unit It might not move out of someone's affordability level If there was a voluntary option for just cause or rent stabilization And I am not suggesting that we implement just cause and rent stabilization today I am saying if a unit if a developer chose to say we would do this That keeps people who are living in that unit in that unit it provides them With something similar to affordability protection Is that an option that we can discuss Even for our market rate unit I would be interested in that That that was a question you were not anticipating and I appreciate the the hesitation That would be this is a study session to explore different options in different directions So you're free to ask That staff explore that and I'm only asking it in terms of voluntary participation Okay, okay, so we'll we'll take that note I think again part of what our goal is is to take all the feedback Try to get some consensus somewhere to move forward We do want to turn around a policy for you to act on october 1st Which essentially is I understand doing the next week or so So we're going to work very quickly, but this is these are the type of the type of feedback we want I'm hearing from folks that if it were not a mandatory program They might be interested or that they might naturally be doing something similar to this anyway So let's let's let them tell us that Thank you Mr. Sawyer any questions? I do thank you, mayor And I'm going to be jumping around as well I do have a question concern on page 24 Um Yes Could you explain the conversion of existing units to affordable and you may have done that but I missed it On the what if the top of hunt on page 24 Allow conversion of existing units to affordable and preservation of at-risk affordable So a good example that the housing authority actually acted on in this past year was the purchase of a market rate apartment complex in rink and valley By bourbon housing that was converted to an affordable complex So it was previously unrestricted market rate Brents and tenants and now it is subject to a regulatory agreement and The rents are restricted based on the income levels identified Thank you and on page 23 There is a comment about The allowing the market To if someone came in and they wanted some different interior materials That they could We unless I heard this wrong that they could actually request that But wouldn't that affect the affordability of the unit in the future if they were if they if they requested and were willing to pay for nicer fixtures or or Interiors, how would that maintain the affordability? The reading this wrong No, I Maybe I didn't explain it very well, but What we've heard and what this seeks to get at is that for rental units Often or or no, so excuse me condominium for sale attached units A developer may build All the units to a base standard And then As those units are being purchased the new owners may elect upgrades much as you purchase a car You get add-ons that increase the price If the if there are designated affordable units in that complex They would have to remain at that base level to maintain their affordability Yeah, yeah, thank you Um Is it possible and I'm just going to move it just a couple of general questions Um, oh no one more on 24 There was a question regarding clusters. I think they but it doesn't look like it's there. Maybe I got the wrong page number Where clustering The affordable units Would allow for is is Easier to maintain affordability if they're clustered. I don't understand especially if they are made affordable by materials If they're not using different plumbing or electrical Materials how to how does clustering the affordability Or the affordable units make them maintain their affordability more easily I think an example that we've experienced is there was a for sale project That was approved back in about 2005 still hasn't been constructed But as part of their on-site inclusionary requirement, they are constructing rental units And those are being constructed in the form of duplexes So clustered throughout the development of for sale product are Four duplexes so a total of eight rental units. And so that's that would be clustering throughout the development So does the so does the description of a duplex itself Calls is that a is it a cluster of two or were the duplexes all kind of Constructed in the same part of the building Or were they or they Intended to be constructed in the same part of the building I don't recall their their site location off the top of my head, but it's a detail I'm just curious how that how that was going to work So so maybe I can give an example to one thing we've heard on on a for sale product Is that if a certain number of pads say we're we're turned over to a non-profit to manage the for sale Keep that rated a certain level for the 55 year term The construction of those having them close together. That's one thing that we've heard I don't know how much that changes the actual cost of that project But we start looking at uh rental products. I mean we look at these percentages I don't think that's the type of clustering that we've heard is as really valuable To cluster the individual units throughout our apartment complex. I don't think that's the intent of what What we're providing forward forward to you So those are the questions I think we'll we'll have to look into if there's a desire to cluster or not cluster We'll look into what that means and and where there's potential issues both on the for sale side And also the rental side because I think there's a two different issues. Okay. Thank you because I've always been a fan of Disperse and disbursement wherever possible and as often as possible What I'm curious about as well because I'm really intrigued by the the long list of what ifs and it's really it's it is Allowing for a fair amount of flexibility and creativity and I'm really um in favor of those two descriptors The is it possible in In our in this flexibility that we might be looking at here that we have in place Test periods to be able to Test the various the policies that we may be coming up with Today that are a little more unusual Perhaps Untested at least in santa rosa to put a What would be the next time we would be reviewing these kinds of policies to ascertain their their success and then making adjustments or Eliminations of some of the policies that they simply were not creating the kind of housing we were looking for Yeah, we'd recommend that we review this policy. I think that's a great point Anything we do here one way the other I think we need to review this at probably at a minimum of five years So typically every five years we look at impact fees. We look at What's going on that's that's enough time to start to see some trends and the construction Time it takes a couple years to get a project through sometimes So you start to see results in a five-year period So and the economy is you start to see changing the economy as well in a five-year period So we would highly recommend that we take a look at this At five years. Is it working? Is it not working? Do we need to make adjustments? Along with the impact fees the part fees cff fees and other fees that we have in place to make sure that The entire package works As you saw on the earlier slide in the presentation There's a number of policies that were put in place over the past year that the council did to try to encourage development So the the density bonus the fee the fee reductions downtown All those have time constraints on them specifically the downtown is going to expire in five years Which will force that conversation So I would recommend that we look at these housing policies Are we still achieving the same objective and what we're what tweaks do we need because they don't operate in isolation They all tie together for example if you did do an affordable project per the inclusionary percentage You get access to density bonus, which then gives you access to Other things so that's when you start to see the value of these policies together So we would need to look at those as a package I would just add on to that that you know If putting in a five-year time frame Is an excellent idea and it's one that we have used in the past But it would not preclude us from bringing something forward to the council sooner If we recognize issues or if issues come up through the council process You've read my mind. Thank you very much. Those are all the con or the questions that I have Be moving to comment when you're ready. Great. Mr. Alvarez any questions mr. Weiss mayor any questions? Thank you, mr. Mayor. I did want to follow up by councilmember combs brought up the rena numbers as it pertains to buying out affordability Within and I I'm glad she brought that up because that is Somewhere that I would like us to have a discussion About going I seem to remember that with rena It only counts if it's a creation of a new unit not taking a unit and shifting it within that portfolio Of your affordability to your market rate and so on and so forth So that is something that that I do think is good to include here I wanted to start on slide 11 And I want to appreciate that this is one of the most nuanced policy discussions that we've had since I've been on council Because looking at that chart 10 percent of the affordable units that we've had created since 1992 Have come from the inclusionary policy and 90 percent have come from the inlu fee And so I just want to make sure that we're keeping that in mind because we will at some point be having this discussion around Whether what is better for the community is it ultimately requiring the inclusion and getting fewer units as a result Or increasing the fee but losing that diversity that we do want throughout our community So I did want to make sure I pointed that out and just thank you for having it in there You talked about one of the options being to extend the deed restriction from 30 years to 55 years And in everything that we do that list that you showed there's a public benefit that's being given or that's adding cost What's the additional cost that would be added on the financing if you extended the affordable period? From 30 to 55 and how has that been taken into account as it pertains to making these pencil projects pencil out I can answer the first part of your question Um The 30 year restriction right now is currently just on projects that have strictly an inclusionary requirement So if it's on site inclusionary, it's a 30 year Restriction via the affordability agreement if the fees are used then it's 55 years Which is pursuant to the housing authorities policies And then also the density bonus if you recall was recently extended to 55 years pursuant to state law So this would bring it into alignment with existing practices Right and so has there been a discussion with developers about particularly from the finance side of this if they are Getting their financing based on after that 30 year period being able to take that affordable unit make it market rate Then there is an added cost Do we know what that added cost ends up being for folks if we extended that additional 25 years? Because I imagine the longer that you lock in the affordability period the higher the Interest is going to be on the return for the financing Oh, but we're gonna have sarah from strategic economics come up and give us a shot. Hi sarah graham So we conducted the development feasibility analysis. We did not look at it with the nuance grab the mic. Thanks Can you is that better? That's great. Okay. Um, we did not look at a time frame that specifically It's more the development feasibility analysis that That we conducted is more like in perpetuity the affordability is just assumed to be baked in I can tell you with different types of products market rate products. Um Rentals 10 projects entire buildings tend to sell more often Than a 30 year time period and certainly more than a 55 year time period. So I I don't know that these projects are Looking out that far In advance in it. And so it's a snapshot Analysis that was conducted that we did that looks at the the pro forma for for today's market conditions So that that would be a pretty complex Analysis to bake in that type of change. I I appreciate that and I do see that there are a couple of folks who Do development projects in the audience? Could be that it's not even a variable for them because as you said it's 30 years out But I would be interested to hear on the financing side What length of a window they're typically looking at to try to make sure that that they're they're penciling out I also wanted to appreciate slide 15 Because that has been a constant conversation and depending on where you fall Again, this being a nuanced conversation that we're having here today I think it'd be easy to say Developers don't build anything unless they get you know a greedy return on investment And this actually puts real dollars and real percentages to it. So I did want to appreciate that really fast But it also raises a question around Level of affordability within projects that at a certain point you start to see additional incentives kick in Typically if we're talking state or federal matching dollars, is that around 20 percent affordability? I'm gonna have Megan jump in here But some of the state grants that we've been talking about is is 15 percent is when is what they're looking for Other federal programs. I don't know if Megan you want to talk about the affordability level So tax credits have specific requirements based on the affordability level that is being provided to the units Same with bonds. So you would need to be in compliance with those requirements. Yeah, I'm just uh Across the board generalization It seems like once you hit a certain level of affordability the projects end up going a lot higher in terms of affordability Because once they qualify for those incentives, they might as well maximize them and really go for it Have we figured out sort of what that tipping point is between Not going to be able to build any affordable units and then can suddenly build a hundred percent, right? It's a great question. I've heard different numbers out there depending on the developer but essentially what what's What's up here in the conversation and I appreciate that that it is nuanced is That we were looking at but provided a third pathway. So right now there's uh, essentially either market rate or affordable projects that get done Now we're looking at a market rate with inclusion market rate without inclusion Or I'm gonna add a fourth one. I'm sorry A market rate with a market with an inclusionary that has more affordability that gets access to state and other funding or a developer non-profit developer that gets federal funding and other tax credits So there's different ways that a project could be worked out and we're talking to developers are all for those different options And so the tipping point to go from say our what our local local inclusionary policy is is to go into a federal program I've Again, correct me if I'm wrong maybe but I've heard numbers in the 30% range is when typically if you're going to go past 15 percent You're you're going to go you're going to go for it because you can get access to much more credit You can get access to more money. You get access to different incentives that you wouldn't have it at the local level Great, thank you Thank you. I think most of my questions have been answered. If you can go to slide 17 I'm not sure if this is the one but there was a comment about the 70 units where our current policy says we should consider Is that pertaining to slide 19? That's correct. Um, the existing requirement Is not really complete. That's written up there that um Every project with more than one unit needs to is subject to the inclusionary ordinance And that our current ordinance is at 70 units a project A developer should must come in and speak with Planning and economic development about the options for providing on-site units They still get to elect to to pay a fee. I guess that's my question Could you give a little bit of the history because I totally agree with the one but the 70 seems rather subjective And I'm not sure what does consider me where I have a stern conversation or how did that number come up there? And what's the intent behind that? I'd have to go back in research I don't have the answer to why it was put in at 70. Um, but yes, it is it it is a conversation That ever so brief Stating that this is what they want to do and as you can see we generally Have developers telling us that they want to provide the in-loop fee Okay, great. Thanks. All right. So now um for this portion What I would like to go is get the feedback from each council the member about the questions on slide 26 I also recognize that members of the public have not commented on this yet So consider this staff. This is temporary feedback Then after we hear the next portion of the presentation then from members of the public If any council person has been influenced by that or ask further questions Or this might not be the last answer to these questions. Does that make sense for you folks? That's great. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Oliver's can we start with you? Let's just go straight down slide 26 and give staff the feedback of the questions they're asking of us Well, excuse me. I'll start by saying that I was intrigued by the the bold moves that you're proposing here. I think it's timely As to the first one, uh, I'm interested in in the both Okay, from my perspective here, um the Sizes onsite requirements, I'm interested in the sliding scale piece of that With the appropriate onset percentages I'm toying with the 15 percent. I'm not sure on the next one yet But as far as the the finish I'm thinking the some of the same bedroom mix types Would be important to me as as the market rate On-site requirements allow some flexibility. Yes, I'm thinking yes allowing some flexibility on that Um I like the flat fee that you're moving to with the in lieu fees and not the percentage that we've had and Was that was that a double question on that? I should have very yes Exemptions I'm not sure about and the affordability term to be extended. Absolutely Great. That was all your comments Thank you, mayor. Well, I agree with um councilman world of eras's um attachment to flexibility And that's really what what I am looking for it every turn on these various questions I really Glammed on to the planning commission's attitude toward these to their their how they Digested the information and then came out with some recommendations and I really agree with with many if not all their recommendations I I think that the reason that I would like to see some flexibility And I would like to be known as the most flexible city in the in the state if we if we could approach that if they in my opinion And and having this conversation is so important perfect answer out there Everyone would would go to that perfect answer and there'd be tons of affordable housing being built all over california That clearly is not the case So, um, I'll go um through these um each the On-site or pay in lieu. I like I like the option Um, I although I am a fan of building on-site. I think that if we're going to do that I think we're going to have to drop the percentage Or come up with you know, you've mentioned several times the ability for a developer to come to you and say look We've got this idea Will this fly can can we make this work with these options and and come in with some um flexible and creative ways Both to get the housing and to allow to pencil and I do appreciate those those numbers necessary To get the financing and to give the developer as a reasonable return on their investment Um should project size determine the inclusionary on-site requirement I think the yes, I think there should be some flexibility there I don't think that every every project is is uh the same and I think that that having a I think that size should dictate The the requirement um on-site the percentage Not sure what that percentage would be. I'm not a subject matter expert in this area and I don't The the developers that are looking at building these putting these developments together Don't call me up and say You know, what's the we're going to tell you what the what the best percentage is So I I have to leave it to you and again flexibility is the key for me The in lieu fee I mentioned the 10% and should it vary absolutely Inclusionary unit size and finish. I think they should I think the finishes should be flexible I think to help create the affordability and the finishes inside I know that when I my first apartment did not have marble Marble kitchen and nor did it have You know special wood floors um clearly having the ability to Compromise some of the finishes and it helped create that affordability not only helps our our community but helps these these projects to pencil as well um In the inclusionary unit size and that was we just finished that would inclusionary on-site unit requirements allow flexibility um, yes, um They should and the appropriate in lieu fee Anything to incentivize Housing production. I'm just I that is I that's the mantra for me is getting the getting the production Of those homes as much as I value and appreciate our nonprofits like bourbon housing Taking doing the other side of the equation and then they are it isn't there They have been incredibly valuable in our community and will continue to be I believe But I am looking to incentivize that production On-site and should certain residential types be exempt and should the affordability term be extended You know It sounds like I mean, I'm not sure. I mean 30 years sounds like a long time 50 years. I'll be dead. So What what is it? These amounts of time mean different things to different people. I'm I I believe that to To the experts I certainly don't don't have enough knowledge to be able to pick a number between You know 30 and 50 so Or any other number above let's see 65 and 20 Just kidding of course And I think that's it. Thank you. Thank you miss columns Thank you. All right Should residential projects be required to build units on site pay and loophies or both Uh, I think this is a dial and not a switch And I would prefer to see a dial Used Allowing some of each I have a personal bias toward on-site But I would not enforce it to the exclusion of in loophies I believe that the reason you see the 90 percent built in in loophies is that our in loophies were grossly low I think it costs about a hundred thousand dollars Once you get matching To build a unit. What was our in loophie amount at the time? For from 92 to what was the rough dollar amount is something in the 50s, wasn't it? So so right now it's a percentage of the sales price and so a typical 600 family 600 thousand dollar home was in the 16,000 16 16,000 is that right that example or 16 16,000 16,000 So if I have a choice between building a hundred thousand dollar Times three because you'd have to get matching monies unit and a 16 and giving 16,000 dollars that might explain those numbers and What what concerns me isn't what that ratio is what concerns me is how many units did we not get built because 16 is a silly number I mean 16,000 dollars does not build a house It doesn't build an apartment It's a silly number And we shouldn't be that low So just I I see a dial. I'm not positive what the perfect range is but I don't want to push people to in loophies either and I think we were doing that Should project size determine inclusionary onsite? What's our current project site requirement? We have no requirement for onsite so that it's it's again The developer elects whether to build it or not. We don't have a requirement And this was this was added as an option because some some jurisdictions Set a threshold that says under a certain size you could pay pay the fee over a certain size You have to do the onsite and so again what that does is it just it sets a barrier So what we're asking is do do we want to have a system like that? Or do we want to have a allow for any size project to have options or lock in a certain size project? And really the only threshold that we currently have is that 70 units is when they are required to come in and talk to us about it I would like them to have to talk to us about it at a lower number than 70 But I will I'm willing to be flexible on what the outcome of the conversation is Assuming that we have a reasonable inclusionary in Luffy The appropriate in Luffy has to do with You know, how do we not kill a project but get enough money that we can build one? And how do we? How do I want to incentivize production and it should vary I Was expecting the onsite percentage requirements to come in the form of a table Because it matters to me what the level of affordability is that we're getting And I want to point out because sometimes people I'm I'm saying this for the press in the room Because the rest of us know this You can sound like a hero by saying you want 25 percent affordability and it sounds wonderful And you can stand up and say look i'm really supporting affordability. I want 25 percent That's a way to guarantee housing production does not happen in your community And What we may choose a number lower than heelsburg But we may build more houses than they do and we may get more affordability than they do By choosing a number that isn't a ridiculously high number So i'm really interested in making sure that the The slot was at slide 15 that had the profit on it That people get a profit they get a return on their investment And that we get affordable and preferably inclusionary And in order to do that we're not going to have heroic numbers like 25 percent We're going to have realistic numbers I just want to be clear about that Should inclusionary onsite unit requirements allow flexibility? Yes What is the appropriate inlufi and should it vary? I'm sure it should vary I would like it to vary enough that it incentivizes onsite production because it avoids As I said it avoids the problem that Someone doesn't want a whole complex in their neighborhood that they're afraid of But Are pleased to discover that in fact they're living in a fully integrated community It's not clear to me what the range of appropriate inlufi fees would be Is that the chart you showed us that had sort of the The you know 10 percent 8 percent And it's not again. I would like to see a table That was the inlufi Yeah, that one. That's a percentage. Yeah, I'd like to see that. No, it's the next one that I'm so So this is the percentage percent requirement The inlufi is this table, which is a little bit more complex But right shows a dollar per square foot for single family or on a multifamily different approach. All right. I'm I'm interested in making sure we get A Good combination and as I said, I'm interested in a dial and not a switch Let's make it fit our community And get us some affordable units too Should certain residential types be exempt this is an interesting question and I'm puzzled at why you asked it I have an odd answer Well, it is a component of this ordinance and and many that there are certain type uses in this case affordable housing types that Are being built and unless we specifically call them out and exempt them We would have to impose for instance the inlufi on them for construction So we could impose an inlufi on an affordable structure if we don't say that we wouldn't want to This mechanism provides who are out. I don't think that a fully affordable building which I'm not looking forward to having Should have an inlufi. I think that they since they're building fully affordable. That's fine And I think that's what you're asking Yeah, I think I think to be very explicit what we have on the screen here is what's current So accessory dwelling units deed restricted affordable housing units homeless shelters community care health facilities single resident occupancy And then owner builder. So your single home Or additions to the home or a placement of replacement of a home So just to be explicit about this is the types of exemption. This is the current exemption list I would be interested because we don't have in the building code single family residential percentage of universal design units So it can be really difficult for a kid in a wheelchair to visit his neighbors And for that family to find an accessible home for that child in a single family residence Single family residences are exempt from ADA requirements that apartments have So I would be interested in having A development that had a universal design component In having a break So if the full development had universal design so that kids could visit each other I would be interested in them having a break So that's that's my strange thing to throw out in addition all the other stuff. I say I like 55 years. Thank you That's flowing Thank you I'm doing my best here. Uh, let's see. So should residential projects be required to build units on site or paid in luffy I want to start by saying that my philosophy when I approach this issue is twofold one is about equity and making sure that our families and our seniors and our Typically disenfranchised population have access to high quality Residences in all parts of our neighbor in our city and it saddens me that That we have a disproportionately low amount of affordable units in in my district And that's something that I'd like to see addressed the other portion here is that I don't want the policy determinations that come out of this ordinance To be so onerous as to dissuade development We have everybody who needs housing in our community. And so to that end my my answers are kind of Based in the concept that building with some affordability in mind with inclusion as A tenant of doing that is more important than the all-out number of units and that if we can Take the number the percentage of requirements Down to a reasonable amount that we will hopefully find That we actually get the units built It's my understanding that this policy hasn't been updated in more than five years I'm not sure if that's the case, but I'd like to see that it comes back At least in five years if not sooner So Should residential projects be required to build on site or pay in luffy or both in general I'd like to see it projects be Doing on site. I understand that there will be situations in which in lieu is a good idea depending on size, but that In particular, I would rather see us Go to a low enough number of affordable units on site That we actually get the units built because what we know is that that provides better outcomes for families and children Rather than the all-out number and also I believe that it allows our developers to build the units without The Is much concern about you know, I think 15 is just really high as a percentage. I want to see a percentage that that essentially Takes away the fear that that a project won't pencil And so I defer to the subject matter experts on what that number is and I I know that I've seen that number in here somewhere Um Should project size determine inclusionary on-site unit requirements I think that there's a certain point at which you know if you're building a duplex You know, you're not going to require half of that to be affordable. So I'd like to see that That there would be a certain point at which smaller developments specifically infill developments Might be exempted, but I am very cautious to make sure that there's not a loophole and that the in-loop fees Are are fair to our developers, but significant enough to not encourage that type of Exemption wherever it's not necessary The appropriate onsite onsite percentage requirement is in my mind What I was saying before it is the highest reasonable number in which a project will pencil Um the appropriate in-loop fee is an interesting one And going back to slide 21 What I what I like about the updated what-if is that it's more equitable in terms of Or more reasonable in terms of what we need to Help our housing authority and get things built what I like about the existing 2.5 Is that it ties to the economy So if our economy were to tank significantly and our in-loop fee remains static and The council there's another fire or something happens and we're not able to update it That there is an issue there. And so what I'd like to see is perhaps a percentage of sales price that matches The the what-if in-loop fee, but that if The economy is booming it'll be a little higher if the economy is not so good It'll be a little lower. And so that in that regard we won't dissuade investment And I'm sure there's a percentage there that can get pretty close to the updated in-loop fee The other thing there would be to Figure out perhaps we collect 50 of that based on a pro forma and 50 of it after the sale occurs So that um that we end up getting the money I'm not sure what kinds of mechanism we have for currently collecting and I I want to be mindful that we do get it Can you clarify for me On-site unit requirement That is a mechanism to allow a developer for instance rather than to build the on-site units to fulfill the requirement by Dedicating land somewhere else for the purpose of affordable housing Or to build on-site units with another project or to for instance as we discussed Preserve at-risk affordable units that are terming out So I'm certainly open to that What I'd like to see is that it would meet one of our our values or goals like preserving affordable units Or perhaps the the land dedication in areas that are underserved in terms of affordable housing or that It's near transit oriented development in areas with specific plans so that we can more readily get those those units built in general though You know except in the very specific situations where we have special needs populations being served by supportive housing or that sort of thing I I'm Really interested in seeing how low we can go with the inclusionary Percentage as to make it worth our developers while within reason of course And so should certain residential types be exempt Yes, I think that we we have to exempt Those ones as I noted already Okay, thank you. Mr. Vice Mayor Thank you, mr. Mayor So with this first question, I'm kind of reminded of when you're on a plane And the flight attendant is telling you that in the event of an emergency the nearest exit might actually be behind you I'm kind of reminded of that in this idea that perhaps I mean clearly the inlufi is too low and perhaps by actually lowering the On-site requirement. We will actually end up with more Production and so I think my colleague who mentioned that it was more of a dial than a switch I think that that's actually the the way that I'm thinking about it as well Is that there might be a way for us to play with that so that the on-site Is looking like a more attractive option Because I think the inlufi right now is too good of a deal to pass up When working on these projects Should the project size determine inclusionary on-site unit requirement I'm going to be flexible on on that conversation and listen to the public What's the appropriate on-site percentage requirement again? I think that that is Subject to conversation with the folks who are actually building it about and I think that the other components of it are What is the inlufi looking like and also Even if you want to open up a can of worms and have the conversation around What is the expected rate of return on the investment by the developer and perhaps if they can show that it is not that That high it's not exorbitant that there is a different percentage that's required I'm open to all of that. I know we don't have time to actually do that But I think it would be an interesting conversation What is the appropriate inlufi and should it vary to incentivize housing production the answer is yes I think from what we've seen from that chart it is the preferred route and it's also the route that is creating the most units at the moment and if We have this conversation about making it more Accurately reflect the total cost to produce that unit. I think we'll be able to move the needle on the affordability Assuming that we don't push people out of their Ability to have the projects pencil out. I also think that our affordable housing developers would be here Saying yes as well that they've been able to stretch those dollars and those incentives extremely far I do want to push again On the possibility of using those inlufis to buy out affordability Again, not new units. I can understand some of the hesitancy by considering what the Difference in our housing mix has been that we've been able to make pencil I think that that'd be an interesting option to see what kind of flexibility or what kind of creativity Developers could have if there was more flexibility around that as well with the housing authority Uh Yeah, and again, I would not Suspect to know what the appropriate inlu fee is Only to say that I would hope that it would be high enough to where there's an actual Moment of pause for the developer to see whether they can create the on-site unit or whether or not They'll just go with the fee again at the rate that it's at right now It doesn't even seem like it takes much thought if you're a developer on which direction you want to go I'm open to residential types being exempt and then Listening to to john talk about the the term being extended I'm reminded of that old chinese proverb about planting a tree where you'll never see be able to sit in the shade I think 55 years means that I might not see it either But but that certainly doesn't mean that I shouldn't push for it Don't sell yourself short now First I'll thank you for this presentation It's kind of crazy that we're only about halfway through this presentation But I appreciate the patience and this is a lot of information It was interesting for me as I was reading not only the presentation, but then the three attachments and conversations with many of your staff I started reflecting back on almost like the Wizard of Oz You know behind the screen you're doing all these dials and bells and whistles to try to get this product you know we need more housing more affordable housing and It's it's an art form more than an exact science And so for me with that kind of image of the wizard back there, we need to do the right things to make this More more houses being built in Santa Rosa. So flexibility is a big key for me here I do think you know when we talk about it in general sense of our inlufi We've been incentivizing inlufi not incentivizing housing and building So I think we need to find that perfect sweet spot where incentivizing housing and not just paying the inlufi So with that the first question I think it needs to be a blended approach and again one of the things that you know I have the utmost confidence in our staff even with Jessica Leven. I know we have a deep bench But it's got to make sense. It's again. It's not a black and white So that kind of that blended approach is what I believe you heard from the planning commission Project size determining the unit requirement. I think there is a number whether it be 70 50 I would like to have some more discussion. You have more than one that should apply to it But I think at a certain point and again, I'm not the submatter expert But yeah, if you go above this amount it is going to be on site Appropriate on site percentage I was intrigued with the eight to ten percent like some of my colleagues had mentioned There are some communities in california say, you know, we have 35 inclusion air housing That sounds great looks good on paper may look good to you know run for your reelection But if nothing gets built, what's the whole point? So I'm intrigued by that eight to ten percent whatever it's going to take to get more housing Affordable housing being built because zero from zero, you know zero percentage of zero is not, you know Proper in lieu fee. Absolutely. I mean it almost sounds like a no brainer What is the appropriate in lieu fee and should it vary to incentivize housing production? Yeah Have that flexibility and incentivize housing production They should inclusionary inclusionary unit size and finish be the same as the market units On the surface absolutely But again, it can't be a deal breaker saying it has to be this way So again using creativity and being having developers open to the conversation with staff Let's have some flexibility on that. Obviously, uh, the unit requires a lot some flexibility. Yes Um, the same thing the appropriate in lieu fee. I like what staff had proposed there Some of those dollar figures that makes complete sense to me. So moving forward in that direction I'm good with the residential types being exempt and For affordability term be extended my comfort level is 55 years, you know going in that direction So With that did you get what you needed from this part of the presentation from council? Go ahead and mr. Vice mayor and if I could I apologize. I missed one about the Unit size and finish being the same for inclusionary and for the market Uh, I want the outside finish for sure to be the same Inside i'm flexible. I'm actually I did not have a dishwasher until I turned 31 and moved into a new unit So i'm very familiar with the concept of Sometimes you find what you can afford and it'd be great if we could incentivize them to be the same But i'm i'm not going to hold it to it because I'd rather have the affordable unit So did you get enough? Oh Go ahead miss one Thank you. Um, I am in favor of extending to 55 years and um, I liked what the housing authority Talked about yesterday in terms of finishes being like base cars that you know on the inside, you know, the houses are Are all the same and people can choose to upgrade when and if their finances make make it available to for them to do so So did you get your feedback from this portion of the presentation that you're looking for? We did but I want to be clear There was a certain couple items where there weren't there wasn't a consensus that we could gather from some of these items So what we're going to do is try to take our best shot at taking the consensus on multiple items So for example, uh, how the the in lieu fee there was a recommendation of going back The percent approach versus paying the fee the per square foot fee So I only heard that once so I need to just make sure is we're clear that we're going to come back with A scenario of what we heard the most of but we can also give you back after the public speaks from the council Um, the other thing we didn't hear much about was downtown. Do we want to treat downtown in any differently? We weren't very explicit about that up here But I think that's something that the council has made a priority over the number of years That do we want to make sure we carve out downtown and try to provide some continued incentive there And then also we heard the only other exception was the universal design that we don't hear from from one council member But just to be clear that we're going to try to take as much as we can from a consensus in the public in your Your final comments and incorporate that into this policy. That's I guess what I would react And I guess might take away from the downtown We've done a lot of work with that and I think this council is comfortable with the direction that we're going there So maybe the absence of comments might be we like the road that we're traveling. Okay, great. Thank you Okay, so are we ready to go on to slide 27? Yeah, we'll move on We'll be asked we'll have a public comment like I mentioned earlier at the end of the entire presentation and again I appreciate that Dwayne, but that's when we're going to have their comments So the next we're going to have righty said earlier Rosa come up and talk about the commercial linkage fee And again, we brought these two together because they do both Support the development of affordable housing in our community. This is a new fee and Ray says gonna Well, um, good afternoon, you'll be happy to know that you're more than halfway finished. This is more straightforward in that as Assistant city manager Gouin mentioned we do not have currently a commercial linkage fee at all So to start with the purpose of a commercial linkage fee is to mitigate the demand for affordable housing resulting from new market rate commercial development And as noted on this slide, it is a tool to provide an additional funding source for workforce housing So in addition to quantifying the connection between development A new commercial development and their demand for affordable housing the Study that we're going to be talking about also considers all other fees And policies that could affect the feasibility of a of a project So feasibility of a fee is I should note a requirement by law in nexus study As is showing the affordable housing and development Relationship as well as figuring out what the threshold is so again like the inclusion or policy that you just Went through they need to find the threshold for a given product type to this end The study analyzed the most common commercial development types occurring in santa rosa By estimating the number Or ash is it and they estimated the number of workers that would work in the new commercial spaces What the estimated worker household income would be? And what the affordability gap would be for new lower income households So based on recent trends and activities in santa rosa Hotels retail restaurant services And business park light industrial worthy prototypes that were selected to That represent again typical commercial development in in santa rosa. And so that's what was studied Though the assumption is that The fee would apply to any new commercial development so The questions that we're going to be asking you and that we're asking to just consider as we power through these slides are You know should the city adopt a commercial linkage fee at all And as jessica mentioned earlier the fee was identified in the housing action plan But we can still ask how that fee fits into or you know should fit into santa rosa's general housing strategy If the city does adopt a fee, what's the appropriate level? And to what degree should our neighboring or comparator cities be considered when we're looking at what the fee Could be and then lastly are there ways to innovate or be flexible In the implementation of these of these fees okay, so We did take these questions to as mentioned before the planning commission and the housing authority And just to summarize the planning commission comments On the whole the commission was in favor of a fee And though they do want to see a regular review of the fee You know perhaps they they mentioned perhaps more than Sooner than five years, but we had mentioned five years just to gauge the effectiveness and to ensure continued feasibility Uh question did come up as to whether or not a change Excuse me a change and A change and intensification. Thank you Of use would also trigger The fee or would it only be new commercial development? And lastly they were either fine with the study finding that three dollars per square foot is A reasonable fee or at least having that three dollars per square foot be a starting point for The conversation to decide what the fee could be okay And then at yesterday's housing authority opinions were a little bit more varied. So We had You know half of the folks there were in favor of a fee You know implementing it and then the other half were I'm really questioning particularly when it came to retail development whether or not a fee would be feasible Or would be a deterrent to development Though they were less concerned that they focused their concern based on their understanding of the current retail market less concerned when it came to hotels and restaurants I'm sorry Hotels and business parks We also received feedback from The public and I guess I would couch this as um, you know More on they're sort of non-plus by the idea of a commercial linkage fee They like the idea that um, or they considered three dollars to be sort of a modest entry point to an active fee and like the idea of having affordable housing responsibilities shared by commercial developers, um, you know to To address the the housing needs of their employees But only so long as the fees do not actually discourage any development, which you know again the study proves out So we do have a series of slides that Reiterate the policy options, which I just reviewed earlier. I'm gonna because this is fairly straightforward kind of Skipped through those but just again to reiterate. We have no commercial linkage fee in place to compare it to so that makes it Perhaps a little easier So looking again at the prototypes that were studied What these charts show are the pro forma analysis that tested the financial impact of the maximum Justified fee, which is the bar in each of these charts on the left Um of each graph and the reduced fee scenarios that were identified as is actually feasible In each of these prototypes. So based on based on the current economic conditions So the black line represents the yield needed to make the project Feasible and the red bars represent the total stack of the fees by scenario with six dollars in the middle and three dollars on the right any Red above the black line shows that there is financial capacity in these three models So looking at hotels Clearly there's even if you looked at the maximum justified rate There is capacity In hotel developments, but you go You're more marginal in that capacity when you're looking at retail restaurant and business park light industrial a little less so But again, we focused on the three dollars per square foot because in all scenarios That was what the studies show to be as um as allowing a project to pencil out This chart shows just sort of it really rates that The relation between the maximum justified fee and the fee option Again focusing on the three dollars per square foot so When we decided to sort of see what this could look like in terms of A development that we've actually seen in the last few years we pulled Sort of a quick survey of what we thought would would have been eligible commercial development since 2016 And we came up with about 256,000 square feet of commercial development, which would have equated to about 770 thousand dollars in Fees that would go to the housing trust In 2019 alone. There was about 115,000 Which would have been about 350 thousand dollars of Of revenue generated So that's what we're kind of looking at as it relates to the history of what we've seen produced here in the last few years The study also looked at fees in other select cities and found that three dollars per square foot is within the range of average um Though I would note on this slide that um, you can see that most cities Really from what's shown here with the exception of pleasant in do vary by by product type so They range and of course freemont is the highest In doubling what the study is showing as feasible for us in run a park, of course, is the lowest And that brings us right back to the policy consideration. So looking at the questions of whether or not we should in fact Adopt a commercial linkage fee. Um, what that should what that fee should be What are the other considerations of flexibility options that we might be able to see? if we do Move forward with this All right. Thank you for that presentation. So again, what we'll do here is we'll get any questions That might have we'll then Have comments from the public and then we'll answer these policy questions. Mr. Vice mayor. You have a question Thank you, mr. Mayor Just sort of as a fundamental question I I understand that you did an analysis of what everybody else is doing But why is the commercial linkage fee Tied to the square footage of the business and not towards the wages that they pay And the reason that I ask that is for a business like medtronic Who they have a big square footage, but they also have a high pay for their workers They don't require the same amount of affordable units as something like a walmart that is also high square footage But very low wages that then end up public dollars having to subsidize housing for the workers that live there So serogram is the author of the studies. Hi So the way that the commercial linkage fee is Calculated the maximum justified fee is based on land use categories in this case in santa rosa We we looked at three categories that are sort of the most prevalent types of commercial land use happening and the jobs Associated job categories associated with those land uses are considered and the wages Tied to those job categories are classified by land use so income and then Based on those income categories. It's very technical It the analysis determines the impact The measured impact by land use on the need for affordable housing So that's why the maximum justified fee Varies based on the type of use. It's not on a specific business Forcing to occupy the building but on the type of building it is Yeah, so it's it's less nuanced if a if a business that would typically fall into sort of the lower wage side came in with Higher wages. They wouldn't be able to get a waiver because it's a one-time Development impact fee based on the land use based on the you know the building built It can't it doesn't anticipate the business that will occupy that specifically. Okay. Thank you Okay, so any questions We'll hear from the public and then we'll make those recommendations. Sorry. You want to start this round Because well, I just have a question first the um on the deferral How would the deferral work and what is the genesis of that? So, uh feed deferral We have an impact feed deferral program currently now for for all impact fees So from a deferral standpoint if i'm understanding your question correctly, we would roll this into that same deferral package to um at Occupancy when the person is occupied when the building is occupied The other thing that we've looked at and we've tested in the downtown is a another deferral mechanism Which is either six months out or to occupancy, but then we need to get into Discussions of what that means in terms of can we collect that fee once they're up and operational? So typically we like to collect that fee at occupancy because that's really the last The last uh control we have over um collecting that fee before they're up and running Thank you Any other questions Ms. Colms you have a question Thank you, and thank you for bringing this forward. I appreciate the work you've done Looking at slide 35 first It looks as if hotels have some wiggle room At 11.5 percent that's correct and businesses business parks are Not too far off What is that six six to seven percent correct? But retail restaurant and services have some difficulty reaching the mark Of the 6.5 there where the band is shown um, is that fairly consistent that Well, let me go to i'm noting that and then taking you to slide 38 Because it looks like in this slide other communities vary the amounts based on use And they hit retail restaurant personal services pretty hard And so I would like i'm can you help me understand why You wouldn't always have a higher fee for example at hotels that have the cushion Rather than at retail restaurant personal services Yeah, I think sarah can go a little bit more in depth into this but there's two considerations This is one it's sometimes it has to do with you know incentivizing something but most likely it has to do with the The product of the study that they actually did so I'll let sarah go again into details on the technicality of the study Sure, so um the the slide that you referred to I think you said number 35 show that that considers the development feasibility Again, which is one of the considerations when implementing a new fee and our recommendation was because this is a new program And it's untested in this market to start with a with one Uniform fee for all the land uses that is at the lower ends and to to revisit it again So we recommended that low amount which is which does meet the minimum feasibility threshold for retail But it's it's a little bit marginal And meets it for the other two and then in answer to your question on this As I tried to explain before but it's very complicated and hard to explain in just a few moments, but um retail often has measured the highest impacts on the need for affordable housing because of the types of jobs that are associated with retail because More of the jobs are lower income In this type of analysis, it is typically measured as having a higher impact on the need for affordable housing for the employees Oh, go ahead. Is it So I think of restaurants and retail as being related to the hotel industry A hotel hotels often have a restaurant or have restaurants provide services to make the hotel And I typically don't go to a hotel where there's no restaurant anywhere near it. Um, so I'm I'm wondering if it makes sense for there to be a shared responsibility So hotels have a range of Jobs associated with them from the lower paying jobs to more management Jobs, so it's a it's a mix and so the the impacts are measured Overall as a lower Number that may tell I guess I'm asking is do you look at the industry? separately or do you look at it in an ecosystem because Business park and light industrial also have People who want to go to restaurants and do other things. So I'm just trying to sort out Is it an ecosystem or do you look at the industry in a silo? This is not you personally The system Well, so I think from the study that that was done it looked at each individual It's silo. So it's not it's not it's not taking into account cross cross I don't we call it pollination or sharing of Of services So I think what we had to do is look at that with the specific landings because it is an impact fee at that one point required To look at this information By silos in this manner or can we look Across industries and say wait a minute. This is an ecosystem and there should be maybe some sharing of responsibility Yeah, I mean you can are we allowed you are allowed to do that. You can take that into consideration um We follow the standard processes foreign access study and they do look at it by Sector like that. Okay, and I appreciate that there's a standard for how to do this. I am not holding you personally accountable Yes, and and and if I may If we turned back to slide 36 Which sets out the maximum justified fee so The that analysis was done By looking at the work categories of each of those Right each of those sectors So although you are free to Set the op the fee Using different criteria you cannot go above those Maximum justified fees. I wasn't actually planning to go above three hundred and twenty dollars for I figured that you you would not be going that high But I just want to point out that yes, you have flexibility, but within limitations. And so you have to Based on the way the nexus study was done, which is Industry Standard You need to consider that and consider it with an industry standard, right? I am not asking you to have done something Not that though. I might So I would be interested since we're about to receive public comment in particularly hearing comment about whether Three dollars across the board make sense or whether it makes sense perhaps to do A slightly lower number like two dollars for retail restaurants and personal services Even though They're a high share They're more They may have a little more trouble reaching for example a six dollar threshold And whether or not even though a hotel maximum justified fee is seventy five dollars if we should consider six dollars For a hotel separating out the three different categories I would be interested in hearing comment from the public Based on slide 35 that Uh hotels could take a little more and retail might take a little less So i'm just asking the public if you make comments if you could also add What your opinion is there that will influence my vote. Thank you Okay, miss lemming Thank you. Um, I'm curious to know in your methodology if um higher-end employers Are identified as uh as creating housing needs that are unmet as well as lower-end employers I'm not sure that I understand the question, but it sounds like Maybe let me rephrase it. So is this a similar question to the Are we considering the types of the Businesses that are occupying the land use What i'm trying to get at let me see if I can ask the question in different way is that We typically understand, you know, big box stores and restaurants to you know Employee people at such a rate as to um have them not be able to afford housing And that seems to me to be the reason we're having this discussion But i'm wondering if the employment of people at the other end of the keizers and metronics and Agilents and so forth of our area Add to the problem in a different way by paying people high enough wages that you get inflation in the market that prices out people on the lower end Is that something that was assessed? Okay. Now. I understand the question. Thank you This the this particular nexus methodology did not look at that second question that you described so in in that nuance it a range of Employment categories assigned to each of those land uses or building types Which includes a range of incomes, but it did this a nexus study Does not look at the specific impacts of employers You know new jobs of a specific type coming in to a community and the need for affordable housing So in addition to the legal Boundaries around what we can charge for impact fees or commercial linkage fees. Is there In other jurisdictions where they have a variation depending on industry type Is that based on trying to attract a certain type of industry or is that Based on trying to ameliorate a problem that that comes with that industry in particular So and I can't speak to you know all the specifics but For any particular city, but jurisdictions do set Sometimes their fees To incentivize or disincentivize certain Types of land uses they may Decide to give retail a break, you know, even if retail could justify the highest fee They may give retail a lower fee because they do not want to dissuade it Very commonly industrial Uses have a lower fee to not Disincentivize that whereas some communities will put the highest fee on office Because of a whole host of reasons because of traffic, you know, not even related to affordable housing. They may try and Put fees in as long as it is below the the maximum They have the ability to set the fee at any Amount that's below that maximum for lots of reasons and so long as it requires it meets the feasibility requirements right And then do we see in any other jurisdictions them tying this to a percentage of Either land value or something else that has the flexibility to go up and down with the economy so as to to not dissuade The creation of new jobs during more difficult times and to recoup that amount during you know more bullish times Well, that's um comes to the point of Reviewing it like every five years or even sooner as desired It's to be able to be flexible with the market right well I'm curious to know if we were to take a percentage approach I mean in addition to the review the that percentage approach would Seems like it might be uh have the advantage of Being more reactive to market forces than a very every five year approach I I don't know if other areas do that. I'm not aware of any jurisdiction that has tied their Um commercial linkage fee to land values. I am only I'm familiar with per square foot So do you know if it's possible to do that so long as there's a ceiling on it that doesn't exceed the feasibility limit yeah We don't have a study that allows us to test the Tying it to land values That being said we do have a study that has given us maximum fees so As we both have discussed before as long as you're staying under that fee If you want to use some flexibility in in setting the actual Fee that the city will impose You can have some flexibility in that Again, I I'm not sure of the math of how we make sure that The percentage value Uh is below the maximum justified fee again the the maximum justified fee At this point are so high that it's Unlikely that you'd be getting Above that and would it be possible just to say you know a percentage of x But not to exceed Yes, you could okay, um, and then um, it's my understanding and um, this is a question about That the housing authority would collect and disperse the moneys that are That are taken in as a result of this program if the council were to adopt it. That's correct Okay, um, and Is there a mechanism or do other municipalities have Programs or policy in place that helps the housing authority to direct the moneys to Meet the the challenges that are created as a result of the particular types of employment and the actual cause for the policy Implementation in the first place I'm not sure I got that question. Yeah, that wasn't very clear on my part That wasn't you what I'm trying to say is how are we going to be certain that the moneys collected are used to address the problem identified so so again the money would be um Issued through the jurisdiction of the housing authority the discussion about how the housing authority prioritizes the type of Projects, um, is it is another discussion? So once that funding is in place I think that conversation could happen about how we want to prioritize how we want to fund What type of NOFA's do we put out and what type of Uh solution are we trying to solve for? And is it typical that we would assess or a jurisdiction would assess this type of A fee without um without having had that question answered to start with So currently the the If I understand your question correctly The need for the fee and the way the fee was calculated was based on the the the The impacts of the Employees that are paid at a certain level that is the uh the type of product that the housing authority is currently building at low and very low type of Units and so those are the mark that those that funding would go into that program to try to push those units There are potentially other types of Products that could be developed out of that But this study did look at the various income level needed for the different type of land use areas All right I would just add to that um in my review of municipalities in california Most typically the monies from a commercial leakage fee are joined in the housing trust fund with the other Fee revenues and the stipulation that I understand is That they that money is expected to be used for um workforce housing, which is a very general term it basically means In practice that it is not used for senior housing Which you could argue It's probably not true. Um that those aren't folks in the workforce And or you know, you know very specific types of special needs housing And but other than that is most typically joined with other Fee revenues and thank you for all the work and research you did on this It does seem like there's a number of factors that uh, aren't legally required to be involved in this that do impact Our residents ability to pay for housing in in our in our jurisdiction, but um, I'll I'll let it go there So thank you very much Council any additional questions? See none. We have a couple cards on this This entire item first up Dwayne do it followed by ann cealy Dwayne in the house Don't see him. All right, ann cealy followed by peter stanley Good afternoon council ann cealy speaking for concerned citizens for santa osa I want to relate a just a short bit of history. It was in 1992 The concerned citizens representative sat down with city council members to create the the housing allocation plan It was created in concert as as a companion to the growth management policy Which sounds crazy to us now that we would want to make sure we limited to growth But at that time our wastewater Problem had not been solved. There were problems with schools and and a lot of infrastructure questions So it was necessary to address growth But we wanted to make sure that An adequate amount of the 100 units per year that was within the growth management policy went to low income households Over the years I watched as the Requirements of this policy got Loosened and loosened and loosened We Are in a state here that i'm not surprised about though. We don't have enough affordable housing It's it's happened over many years that the requirement for on-site development got spread from Developments of seven acres or more up to An undetermined amount One thing I want to make sure you know is that the requirement of for Affordable units within a development to have The same appearance has always been exterior apparent appearance not interior and the unit did not have to be Um There was no requirement for it to be different just that it would make it a uniform look throughout the development There's something happening here in this room that I just want to comment on that I'm grateful that mr. Gulen and others have spoken of our Development community and what we can make do to make things work I don't know that community and I'm sure most people don't Most people have no idea that there would be a development of 70 units or more I didn't think that happened at all It would be wonderful if that were made more evident to the public And mr. Gulen I have a great Confidence in you, but I know that we need a city policy that makes things work for everybody Thank you, and I think that was three Thank you. Thank you. Peter Stanley followed by rich wallach Thank you, mayor schwedhelm members of the council and thank you for going through this today I'm going to read through my notes very quickly because I got a lot to say And um, I want to make sure I get through most of it So my name is peter stanland with argologics. We're planning Architects are in development consulting firm in santa rosa been downtown for 17 years Finding a solution to affordable housing is clearly a community problem that needs solving And we would like to continue to be an active partner with the city to implement solutions to the goals stated here today My comments today and our current projects are focused in the downtown and are clearly the most compromised in their feasibility And complications in getting built the development data used in the inclusionary fee nexus report admittedly is not relevant to downtown I'm currently running proformas for our projects for both market rate and percent of affordability projects to see if we can make these projects work Providing affordable units on site. That's our preference Right now the 10% affordability on site has about a million and a half dollar negative hit on the initial feasibility outcomes for our Midsize projects without other forms of grant funding. So In in honesty, we haven't looked beyond market rate Conditions in response to councilman roger's questions We run our performers out 10 years with npv or net present value and equity investor return at five seven in 10 years Our best opportunity to get some traction is to reduce the barriers to entry as much as possible Not by eliminating affordable requirements, but by accepting that we need to get a momentum going Right now every perform I'm working on in the downtown is razor thin in the viability Which means any hiccup in the development costs or the economy can have pretty negative impact of feasibility There are only two ways to make non performing projects work better raise rents or reduce project costs both limited mechanisms There are other courses. There are of course other tweaks and long-term financing that help as well Six to seven percent return on capital is a baseline requirement that we have This is to incentivize projects that can easily cost which is risk 40 to 50 million dollars and more what I can say is that simply by designing more efficient units We can have both positive impacts on the market affordability and project costs Just an example by reducing average unit size from 950 square feet to 850 on 100 unit projects You can both make the units more market affordable as well as reduce construction costs by two and a half to three million dollars This is a trend in development supported by market studies. We have done and is a missing middle strategy There are great creative downtown planning examples around the country that have been successful in getting targeted community benefits included in projects Community benefits not only being affordable housing But also daycare grocery stores entertainment venues direct service providers and other elements We need in our downtown in order to make our overall community plans be successful I would encourage council support looking at downtown separately and keeping the lower inclusionary requirements and planning flexibility for projects and tod development sites for the time being Remembering that commercial uses are part of a mixed-use downtown project I would add that we also include the northwest station planning area in that strategy as well Since that is also an excellent targeted area for intensified development. Once we get the rock moving We can review the HAP again and adjust as needed to revise targets. Thank you. Thanks, Peter Rich wallach followed by doing to it Hi rich wallach with the burbank housing Here to give the affordable housing nonprofit developer perspective First like to say that we do like and value partnerships and see The model of inclusionary zoning zoning onsite But I think as miss combs suggested something where they were possibly adjacent to each other May make a lot of sense Affordable housing development is very different than market rate development. It has a lot of different rules and requirements which makes Inclusionary onsite mixed in with other units difficult There's a separate ownership. There's there would be multiple legal complications that make that a challenge Which takes away a significant subsidy source to create affordable housing Another reason that we like the the The partnership model is that it's one entitlement So rather than taking that fee and making it available to another development at some future date that would require a new site new negotiations new You know zoning entitlement work that could take an extended period of time to take advantage of that Existing site and be able to develop on that as a partnership makes a lot of sense Possibly using a density bonus for example For the market rate developer to take advantage and not lose units necessarily but but still have that affordable site Larger land sites not the downtown sites make more sense because they do have that ability to build separately downtown sites inherently Are much more expensive to build not just because of land values But because of the type of construction which makes the affordable units much more difficult to pencil We appreciate the flat dollar per square foot because we do want to encourage larger unit sizes Not only because there's a need for family housing, but also It benefits from the nine percent tax credit model to develop larger unit sizes We would say absolutely no to the idea of Differentiating units with interiors being of a lower Quality or lower amenities. I mean there's a hard to distinguish between amenities and quality But it's it's important. I think the difference is For sale products where you can have a base model for sale and somebody can go in and option their unit up But that would attract that would be attractive and wouldn't be discriminatory to affordable units Finally, we are seeing more inclusionary housing opportunities Developers are coming to us and looking for that for a for a desirable model and we embrace that and look forward to doing more So, thank you. Great. Thank you Dwayne do it The question is In 26 years How many affordable housing units got built? Dwayne there's your opportunity to give comments to the council when it's not going to be a q&a Well, that's sad because part of the process of having a true study session is a discussion With the public to understand what we the taxpayers are helping to pay for Now with that in mind, I belong to the Sonoma county housing advocacy group Which came together 22 full years ago because we've been in a crisis for housing ever since Four of the leaders of that group talked today about the situation at hand, which is it appears This is an effort to get the housing allocation plan with the disaster capitalism model Saying, oh, we must do this now because things aren't working Well, many of us believe things aren't working because some developers don't want to play fair an example is Bellevue ranch subdivision in southwest santa rosa Where the affordable housing component of 61 housing units was shifted over onto the taxpayers the developer Moved it over and burbank picked it up Burbank does a nice job in helping on some things What we would like to see myself and other members of the housing advocacy group Who in the past have actually had to file suit against the city to make sure that its housing element would comply with state law Is that there be required on-site inclusionary housing? That's how you get it In loophies allow people to get away from it We would think that also having duplexes Triplexes and foreplexes being part of the mix of unit types will help and you could use project based vouchers From the housing and urban development to finance those rather than having to go out for bonds So that's something that needs to be talked about at the housing authority But unfortunately, we can't get the planning commission the housing authority and you folks to talk with the public and actually have that Conversation with the community that I often hear the staff down here say. Oh, that's what we're going to have These types of sessions don't do that. They just essentially say this is what we may want to do I believe it's very important that you have to build those inclusionary units at the same time Is in the other units? Otherwise, it won't get done That's what happened out at belview ranch and guess what at belview ranch just by a slight of paperwork It turns out they didn't put in a deed restriction Requiring that there be that affordability Long into the future so people got their houses and got to sell them when the market was up So there's a bigger discussion that needs to be held I'd like to ask you folks to have that discussion with the public Not just your stakeholders and your special interests, but have it with the taxpayers. Thank you Thank you, dine. All right bring it back to council any Additional questions based on any of those comments here so far before we go in and answer these questions Seeing that mr. Sorry, would you like to start with uh providing feedback? I was just gonna go There was a question asked and I wondered if staff is Did you have a question you wanted to ask? I would ask the queen's question The question Slide number 16 that showed the number of affordable units built all of those have been constructed It does note Projects that were approved or entitled and have not constructed the inclusionary units The inclusionary units are typically required to be constructed concurrent with the market rate units So is it typical to just add the 174 to the 1510? And that's the total number that we're that's correct. Thank you But to add on to that comment the I believe mr. DeWitt wanted a number of total affordable units And we would have to get back to you on the portfolio. It's in its entirety This just reflects units that benefited from the inclusionary housing fee or were constructed on site We certainly have other funding sources and mechanisms to generate affordable housing. Thank you Thank you Mr. Sorry if we can go back to slide 40 with the feedback that you want on the commercial linkage fee Thank you, mayor. And can I um before I move to that Can I ask a quick question about the prior presentation that mr. Stanley brought up about downtown Can I assume that that is part of the conversation that staff is going to be having you mentioned to yourself mr Ewan about the downtown? Exceptions and exclusions Um, can I assume that because it's part of my concern as well that these will be discussed and Brought back to the council for for more clarification and at our next the next time we meet about this Yes, my takeaway from the council was that you do want to look at downtown differently and to bring forward something that will support the Production of housing units in the downtown and not discourage that so we will address that when we bring this forward That was my assumption. I appreciate that and thank you for your consideration mayor Should the city adopt a commercial linkage fee? Um Given how low it appears that it is My discomfort level has lessened somewhat I think of this as a nickel and diming of our of the development community I wish there was some other way to get the funds into into the coffers without adding another fee Even though it's only three dollars a square foot and I am pleased that it's that it is that low and why do the calculations? Um, I know the building that we used to occupy at serves news. Had they built it in today Um, would have cost 12 000 more than than it did Then I would have without the fee. So I'm pleased where the money is going I think we need as much money as we can gather for affordable housing, but it does feel Like it's nickel and diming and that makes me feel a little uncomfortable. It's just another fee Um, how much of the fee increased total development or how much should the fee increase total development cost? It it's minimal In regardless of my discomfort with it It's I'm not going to I don't think that anyone is going to not build in Santa Rosa because we have a three dollars a square foot commercial linkage fee How should the fee compare with neighboring or other comparable jurisdictions? I think we should be the same or lower Um Just so because I am concerned with competition and I'm going to be asking Rice a quick question put her on the spot in a second before I finish What options exist for fee payment alternatives? Whatever seems reasonable was currently being embraced by other communities Those whatever alternatives some not everyone can absorb certain fees as well as easily as others So if there are alternatives or ways to cushion that in some way I would be in favor of that especially In our downtown where we are trying to encourage people to To develop and to build even though the the entire Spirit and the reality of the downtown is in its infancy and is is growing You know, but it's still slow and I and so there's even though it's easy to say well It's only $12,000 to some people. That's a lot of money when they're when they're opening a new business or trying to To build a building etc. So Um, I look for as much flexibility as possible I am um, I will ask um rice in your in your uh research in commercial linkage fees Um, would you say that the the impact generally across the board is that especially at this rate That it does not dissuade people that it would not dissuade people from coming uh to santa rosa to do business Right based on the feedback that I've received that is correct the again On the whole when I've talked to uh people both individually and plus the feedback we receive They're sort of non-plus by it if they're familiar with proformas and development Okay, thank you very much Mr. Always From the top. Yes, uh three bucks And I think we do need to be competitive. I and I think looking at County jurisdictions, I think we are with that three dollars. I'm I'm comfortable with that and as far as uh Fee payment alternatives, I'm not sure we touched on this before but I think this could have to do with occupancy And I would be okay with that the type of occupancy is that if that's if that's the question Great miss combs So I'm looking at slide 38 which shows that kotadi has this fee Petaluma has this fee run at park has this fee the county has this fee I'm if It surprises me that we are So alone in not having this fee Three dollars is certainly an affordable amount If my colleagues would go to six for a hotel, I would go there Because the hotels have such a high Cushion In their hotel material and the others Fremont and appa have six I noticed that folks are hitting retail restaurant personal services pretty hard and I would have chosen not to hit them so hard They're having enough trouble But we've got a lot of hotels that are interested in us and interested in coming in here And I'm not sure that six dollars would throw them off three certainly wouldn't So I'm good. I'm good with three Wish we could talk about more For hotels. Thanks Miss lemme Yeah, I have one additional question before I give my comments Which is do other jurisdictions tied these number these fixed numbers to cpi or cola or any other economic indicators? No Not to my Oh, they can be tied to a construction cost index Okay. Um, well, so, uh, I'll start there by saying that That because I didn't hear from any of my, uh, colleagues that they'd be interested in figuring these out figuring out these fees based on a percentage That would rise or fall with economic indicators. I would like to see that whatever We do fall on whatever number we do fall on that we tie it to some indicator I am not in favor of having a uniform fee because I don't believe that that reflects The best practices in terms of what each industry can withstand and what types of challenges each industry creates And I'd be interested to hear more about having a fee that is fair to the various types of industries But also where those industries cause more poverty or more Inequality in terms of their employees Increasing those and on the other end where the industries have such high rates of pay That uh, that their workers drive up the the market costs to enter for housing And that we consider assessing those in a in a higher rate rate as well I think that we ought to have a discussion about what types of businesses and services we want to attract to our Area and use that as a third determinant in terms of how we do that that Doesn't sound I haven't heard that from any of my other colleagues, but if there would be support for that I think that that would be A fair and reasonable approach to making sure that we're collecting a fee and using it in a way that's consistent with The reason that we're collecting it and to address the problems That come up with it I think that our fee should be somewhere in the middle of our neighboring jurisdictions with the mind With an eye toward the fact that we are the county seat and we house a third of the county's population and that There are some ways in which san aroza Is just more able to withstand um These fees but also we bear the burden of homelessness and services and other road and infrastructure things that other parts of our county just Don't have and we need to be mindful of not debilitating any potential development But also recognizing that we we have an outsized responsibility And then the options for fee payment alternatives This is something that I'd have to see Specific examples brought forward But if an employer were to provide a significantly unmet need such as a child care or More to provide on-site Housing that was affordable to their workforce in comparison A reasonable comparison to the amount of new jobs created by their enterprise I would be open to considering that as well And I'd like to see an opportunity for perhaps mixed use In order to reduce greenhouse gases and vehicle miles traveled So those are some of the ways that I would like to see alternative options Okay, thank you, mr. Vice mayor Thank you, mr. Mayor, and I guess I kind of want to ask a fundamental question How much are we expecting this to actually At the three dollars per square foot so again, we looked at from 2016 to july 2019 at What we estimated to be eligible Projects and came up with about 200 and almost 60,000 square feet, which would have been from 2016 till now About seven hundred seventy thousand dollars. So looking only at january to july 2019 We saw about 115,000 Square feet of commercial development that would have been eligible just this year and that's about 350 thousand dollars And how many jobs created? You know, um I don't know that off the top of my head. I'd have to look back at the Indicators for those those sites but looking at 2019 alone. I can tell you it would be like The kaiser medical offices As well as like a starbucks In a shell so it varies in what they are and what their impact by That site would be But I could see if I could I could figure that out based on models Yeah, we can we can talk offline about it. I'm just it was Thrown a little bit by john's calculation on you know, so we're in news. Was it 12,000 16,000? As a one-time fee For one or two employees Eight But so I I think that this can be a component that helps move the needle But it's it's certainly not going to solve the problem So I I mean, I'll say yes. I also want to add in there We've had a previous conversation about Doesn't actually apply right now when you have a uniform amount But in the event that the land use changes and shifts into a category that would have been at a higher rate I think it is appropriate for us to reevaluate at that point and ask at least for the difference So that we're being consistent And I would also When we talk about fee payment alternatives I I do personally believe that if you had a business that was coming in that could show That the average wage for their workers Was going to be above what it actually Costs to afford an apartment in Sonoma county or in santa rosa specifically That there could be an option for deferral on that if the the intent is to make sure that you have Housing units being created relative to the jobs and that's what the nexus is there Then I think that there should be an exemption that's in there for jobs that are higher paying jobs that can actually afford that Ms. Gomes you have a comment Yes, I want to support my colleague councilmember Fleming's comments so that You have the ability to come back with additional resources with regard to how to step it up in With a Some kind of percentage so that we don't have to revisit a set number every so many years An escalator clause or a Descalator clause Depending upon what the economy is doing. I would support that I would paying jobs bring with them A sort of trickle down of employment So they also create another layer of jobs teachers Housekeepers gardeners There's there's another layer of jobs under high paying jobs that often don't get included in calculations like this So I would I would not necessarily support the idea that just because the employer pays a certain amount My understanding it's based on land use and that land use can change over time. So it's better to just stick Where we are with the land use than to to vary it Okay, thanks, and I don't want to get comment on the comments to the comment We could be here till midnight So my feedback again, this is just a study session taking all the conversations that you've heard. I appreciate this information coming forward um, you know historically This didn't make sense to me what we're trying to incentivize businesses coming here But I appreciate the educations you've given me and I'm comfortable with yes I think we do need the commercial linkage fee and because this is a pilot program I'm look. I know you didn't call it a pilot program, but let's start out with three bucks You know across the board. I give you the flexibility again That's the key like with the first part of the presentation the flexibility for deferred payment and then again, I would anticipate and expect Staff to come back to council after the you know, whether it be a year and a half two years three years five whatever That is to see how is this working and what adjustments do we need to make is has it been restrictive or actually is it incentivizing additional employers to come to santa rosa So you've got your feedback. I think is there one more slide that you wanted to give us an update on This is just the project schedule that we had at the beginning of the slide that shows where we've been and where we're headed So the idea is that we will take these comments back Put together draft ordinances and resolutions for your consideration at the october 1st meeting Great Okay, with that we are going to take a brief recess about 10 minute recess council has been here since at least 12 30 Let's you reset the desk and we'll rejoin. Let's go at 5 15. We'll go back come back I'm sorry Okay, we'll call this meeting to order Madam city clerk, can we get an announcement of the roll call? I think he is in the house Let the record show that all council members are present with the exception of council member tidbits and council member combs Great, and I would also like to introduce as I mentioned several weeks ago We invite members of the public if they're interested to do a council sit-along To contact either myself or any other council member and today we have brian flores Who is a recent graduate of rosalina university prep and current student of the jc? brian and I first met when he was in the fifth grade at rosalina elementary And I was with the police department and he is very interested in public service and seeing how the council meeting is run So welcome brian, and hopefully you'll enjoy the rest of the evening So with that Madam city clerk any report on a closed session i'll answer that Yes the council met in closed session on items 2.1 and 2.2 and each of those items gave direction to staff And mr. McGlynn in the study session Nothing additional to add. Okay. We have no proclamations staff briefing 7.1 7.1 We're going to provide an update on the rebuilding that'll be coming via email to city council and we're going to go right to 7.2 Which is a community development block grant disaster recovery cdbg dr status update And i have dave guine and megan bassinger here to present Great welcome Thank you dean Megan bassinger housing and community services manager So i want to give you a quick overview of where we have been with cdbg dr In april 2018 hud announced that california would receive a total of 212 million to support long-term recovery for the disaster events of 2017 which included the october fires here As well as the december fires in southern california and the mudslides that were a result of the fires The 212 million is comprised of 124 million of cdbg dr Which is community development block grant disaster recovery funds As well as 88 million in disaster mitigation funds, which is a new funding stream for disaster assistance In june 2018 the city solicited A consultant to assist in preparing the city for recovery funding That contract was awarded by council on august 7th 2018 to haggardy consulting also in august 2018 The federal government appropriated 124 million dollars to california for the unmet recovery needs And started the timeline for the preparation of the state action plan for the cdbg dr funds That process was led by the california department of housing and community development And locally we were assisted by haggardy consulting in preparing our unmet needs analysis, which identified the level of need that santa rosa will need to restore our city to prefire Hcd conducted several public meetings in santa rosa to solicit input on the plan Among the items discussed in those meetings were the cdbg dr requirements That's 70 percent of the funds need to assist households that are considered low mod, which is 80 percent or less of area median income The action plan which was released in november and subsequently submitted to HUD in december of 2018 identified 38.5 million dollars to santa rosa that would flow from hcd to be used for multifamily housing recovery And in march 2019 hcd received approval that um from hud they would be Proceeding with the funding process i'm going to turn it over to dav to let you know where we are to date So the next steps between hud the federal agency and the state hcd housing and community development is for them to enter into a contract Once they have done that we are told we will then be getting our standard agreement Which is our contract with hcd to administer the multifamily program As those members of the ad hoc committee rebuild rebuild. No, we've been very frustrated with the pace of this work And so effective tomorrow Megan and i don't have a phone call with the deputy director disaster recovery at hcd To try and nail down certainty in program delivery Certainty in the amount of administrative costs that we've incurred through the dr process through the hagarty Contract will be reimbursed and also going forward And to talk to them about having a more flexible approach as this community Recovers from the disaster it seems that the messages so far have been very much Form fitted into what the state has seen statewide to move forward on that Once we have that agenda set we want to immediately set a meeting for our leadership team to meet with ben matkeff the director and Hcds leaders to point these things out and leave that meeting with a clear sense on our administrative costs Program delivery and what we mean by flexibility for our residents Part of this would include us Amending the hagarty contract to be more specific in other focus areas such as the new mitigation funding that was just Announced this week the federal register And so we're returning to council. I think september 24th to amend that contract to allow more general fund resources rather than just block grant reimbursement To prepare for that work Once we have our agreement with the state of california You'll be part of the process of knowing how we're going to solicit proposals for development We plan to offer Assistance hcd to help with the owner occupant program especially the survey and just messaging to our residents because as you know They're going to run that program themselves and then also part of our meeting when we when we get in front of ben is to provide The the language in the document for the mitigation action plan that Embeds the need for fire station five rather than you're requesting that funding later. Those are the goals of the program So I I could stop there and maybe ask members of the build rebuild ad hoc If you'd like to add anything to the status of the dr program. Otherwise we can take questions I just actually have have some some questions just with the the buckets of money that you have the cdb dr and the mitigation funds I know when we're in washington those figures were the same those have been released So we don't need further action by congress or the senate to release those funds to california. That is correct What we are going to need some more clarity though and is what exactly the midst is as director guine said the mitigation dollars are new territory There is still probably some work that needs to be done to better understand What action plan the state is going to be submitting to the federal government and have that approval process will work Based on the federal register notice. It is it looks like it's going to be a very complicated process On fund delivery and the earliest that we've been able to assess those fund delivery would be mid next 2020 for mitigation dollars Okay, then you also mentioned the direct housing assistance that hcd is going to manage you're going to be doing the survey Did I also hear at one of our earlier meetings where it disappears though? That would be reimbursable dollars or that would be an option not just moving forward That's another thing we want to confirm in our meeting. That's what we we're told but we don't have anything in writing of that effect Okay, great Victoria do you have anything you want to share from the subcommittee meeting or does anyone have questions? Mr. Vice mayor Yeah, and I apologize that the numbers are starting to fall out of my head a little bit as as we go through this I'm sure you're the same way I just wanted to make sure as to 35 million was for the multifamily program that we would be running That's correct, right We are the sub grantee for that program and the amount is 38.5 million dollars Okay, and that is a subset of the 124 Million for the cdbg dr funds and doesn't and it doesn't mean that we're only getting the 38.5 On that front, correct For the first trancha funding We are to receive the 38.5 But based on our unmet needs that hagerty consulting helped us document We want to go in for another ask and another round of funding and look at statewide If if other communities in the state aren't able to expend this money be stand ready to receive it if they can't go forward And so that's go back into that hundred and I'm sorry to be specific But go back into that 124 million not going back to congress and asking them to allocate additional funds, right? Well that that may be a continuing conversation at some point as we better understand the need and the and you know there have been There are plenty of opportunities to re ask on these fronts It's going to be a question of how those the monies are going to be applied and what the community needs are So I won't I wouldn't rule out additional requests To to the federal government, but at this point there there there's a 38 38.5 million dollar allocation thing one of the critical questions around that allocation is Is administrative overhead and cost of running said program It's great to deliver a program, but if the state is going to take their administrative overhead That really defeats passing through to the local jurisdiction to deliver the program So that's one of the very pointed conversations. We have to have it with the state Especially in a period of time when the state is faking facing rectored surpluses Why aren't they allowed if you're going to administer a program give us a program to administer? Why aren't you also passing through the The administrative overhead related to that program, right? And I apologize. I seem to I had remembered or thought that there was the multifamily Trunch and then also some single family Is that that is correct. So of the 124 million 47.6 of it is for owner occupied rehab and that is being administered by the state of california So homeowners within santa rosa could access that money if they're eligible through the state's program. Great. Okay. Thank you Um, and then is the intent still with a 38.5 to do essentially a super NOFA? I think that's how we had talked about it before We can still have that discussion, but that would that would be the intent is we Make this money available to developers to build affordable housing Review those proposals under the new subcommittee structure that has housing authority members and council members come forward with the recommendation Great. Thank you Any other questions? Did you have more presentation? Great. Thank you Next is 7.3 streets to creek multi county campaign launch nix sedano senior environmental specialists presenting Good evening mayor and members of the council. I'm here today to present a unique approach to educating residents About their relationships with local creeks and how simple actions can protect our watershed The streets to creek outreach campaign was developed in compliance with the outreach objectives Set forth in the national pollutant discharge elimination system or mpds permit We also refer to this as the ms4 permit or the storm water permit Storm drains are an extension of our local creeks and streams In our streets to creeks outreach campaign has been developed to create awareness About the effect everyday activities at home have on our water quality in our local waterways Coalition of 10 cities and Counties and towns that share the russian river watershed have partnered to raise awareness about neighborhood storm drains and their connection to the Vitality of our local creeks The regional partnership extends south to ronard park in sonoma county and as far north as ukia and menesino county The russian river watershed is a rich and diverse region of nearly 1500 square miles and is home to approximately 360 000 people 238 streams and creeks and 63 species of fish three of which are listed as threatened or endangered Working with a local creative team along with valuable insight from our regional partners We have created a robust campaign plan with the following three objectives We want to build brand awareness and this is more than just creating a logo. It's about creating a caring and connected community The intent is to promote behavioral changes in our communities as a first line of defense to mitigate potential impacts to creeks And focus on positive actions which model simple changes and have big impacts And finally our crescendo is getting to people to finally take action We started this campaign by focusing on four simple actions that can have immediate impacts This includes trash pet waste car wash and yard care Santa rosa has over 100 miles of creeks that provide habitat for fish and wildlife Making creeks a great place for the community to explore And is home to a wide variety of birds river otters and steelhead which still spawn in santa rosa creek Protecting our waterways starts at home and is important for residents to make the connection that any yard Any trash yard waste land landscape material pet waste or common household chemicals or surfactants can be carried away by wind rain Or even watering uh over watering to the nearest storm drain if not properly contained The goal of streets to creeks is to create a connection with the community to those local creeks And empower them to towards simple changes at home to prevent impacts to the creeks and ultimately the russian river watershed We wanted to make an emotional connection with the community by creating a positive experience This is accomplished through thoughtful design elements Such as the streets to creeks logo which incorporates the egret the fish and the hours to protect We use creek specific photos featuring local creeks And added the zip code to give a sense of familiarity and a connection to a geographic area And finally we listed the creek names to encourage community members to find and explore creeks Streets to creeks promotes simple actions at home that will ensure only rain goes down the storm drain A common misconception is that storm water is treated The simple fact is that storm water flows untreated from the street A parking lot or even in some instances a backyard drain Into a storm drain system and into a nearby creek The initial campaign kicked off august 1st and will run through november of this year And residents throughout the region will see and hear the multimedia campaign in both english and spanish on social media billboards radios video digital advertisement and in print Santa Rosa will also be connecting with community members At our creek events including creek stewardship days community events and our annual creek week activities in september A website landing page streets to creeks.org Was created to expand messaging and to provide additional information about protecting our waterways More content and information is intended to be added to this site as we move further into this campaign As part of the messaging we created the following short video that I'd like to play for you now Which is intended to be played at movie theaters Streamed from our website in smaller snippets of it played on social media A beautiful clean river doesn't start here It starts here What we put down our storm drains goes straight from our streets into our local creeks that flow into the russian river Simple changes can make a big impact Like when you wash your car The best solution is washing on a professional car wash But if you wash it home never wash water to an area where it can soak into the ground like a planter strip Also empty your bucket of dirty wash water in the sink The wash water will make its way to the treatment plant where it is clean You probably know how to pick up your pet's poo when you're out on a walk After all it's the neighborly thing to do. But what about the pet waste in your backyard? Pick it up regularly and especially before rain or irrigation water washes any of it into a backyard drain Your pet's poo is full of bacteria and nutrients that can contaminate our creeks Scoop the poo Bag it and put it in your garbage When tending to your yard or garden, check the weather and prevent over irrigation Run off of fertilizer, herbicides, landscape materials, compost piles and leaf debris pollute our creeks Remember timing is everything Pick up any litter or trash that may get into the streets If you grab it before water or wind arrives, it doesn't have a chance of ending up in our creeks It's up to each of us to take care of our creeks and rivers They're ours to protect Find out more at streets to creeks.org We'll be closely monitoring and adapting and adapting this campaign Some of the metrics that we're using to measure success are listed up here on the screen In the short three weeks of this initial campaign launch, we are off to a strong start We have over 1.3 million impressions and social media posts have an average weekly reach of 12,757 unique visitors And you can get involved by sharing our campaign and liking us on facebook. Thank you for your time Okay, thanks for the presentation at council any questions Thank you so much. Look forward to I like the video All right, mr. City manager. Let's see it for staff briefings. Oh, you're right. Dwayne. I'm my bad Dwayne do it Dwayne do it i'm from roseland And I wanted to thank the staff for that excellent marketing And I also wanted to have a shout out to the young man who went to roseland school, bro And hopefully you got a chance to get on to roseland creek Roseland creek is a wonderful spot and it should be brought into the mix on this Specifically for 20 years We've been doing creek cleanups because we understand that pollution ends up going out to the lagooner de santa rosa from roseland creek So on october the 27th, which is a sunday at 10 a.m. In the morning We'll be out there doing to make a difference day another creek cleanup on roseland creek at burbank avenue Where the city happens to have some land it's been set up along that creek and the hope is that in the future It will be a spot will it be education and outreach techniques for the young people at roseland university prep Which is just two blocks away now from that creek in that site So this is a wonderful opportunity if you folks on staff Would reach out and involve the community more and maybe bring that video camera of yours to our make a difference day out there We've been doing it for 20 years People care about this they know about it, but unfortunately it's not getting interpreted enough into spanish And we need to have spanish translation to help the folks out there understand Because you know what the number one thing we find in the neighborhood is cigarette butts And those cigarette butts go out into the creek and then go deeper out into the laguna, etc And they're toxic they're problematic Plus people shouldn't even be smoking out in that land which is owned by the city And supposedly will be a park in the future So how about some nice big no smoking signs in both english and spanish? There on the boundaries of the park near the creek It's a wonderful spot macmin avenue To burbank avenue that's in the city of santa rosa with a small portion on the sonoma county water agency Right there macmin you could work with them They've said they'd be willing to bring in funding and help make things happen more We just need to have a little coordination and i thought what a wonderful opportunity with this marketing money that's come forward Pull that into the mix. We'll all get together and we'll have the cleanest the cleanest creek possible It'll be just wonderful. I can see the videos now. I'm looking forward to them sometime in the future down here Thank you for your time Thank you doing Mr. City Manager, do you have a report for us today? Yes, uh, the city of santa rosa will host three public Greenings of last october a new 50 minute documentary that captures the experience during the funds sonoma complex fires from the perspective of several current and former city employees and officials Who served as first responders disaster service workers and community leaders? Two of the three screenings will take place in conjunction with the temporary art exhibits that also reflect the 2017 disaster The public film screenings are free to attend and are scheduled as follows september 5th At 6 30 finley community center september 12th at 6 p.m. Third street cinema september 17th at 6 p.m City council chamber chamber for more information go to srcity.org backslash last october Also on september 5th the partnerships violence prevention seminar tipping the scale Managing trauma to build a resilient community launches the second annual gang prevention awareness month A series of community engagement events to raise awareness on violence prevention strategies While highlighting partner organization The seminar will open with a three-hour workshop identifying strategies to build resilience For youth and families that have experienced trauma the seminar delivers breakout sessions in partnership with santa rosa police santa rosa city schools and the Child parent institute covering topics such as local emerging trends and law enforcement supporting students and collaborating with school districts And self-care for direct service providers Okay, thank you. Madam city attorney. Do you have a report? I'm nothing to report this afternoon Moving to statements of abstention by council members i'll start that i will be abstaining from item 11.1 council meeting minutes from august 6th any others May i'll be abstaining from 11.2 august 13th meeting as i was absent Any others keeping our quorum there good all right mayor's council members reports Who would like to start miss fliming I want to thank the city of santa rosa for taking the effort to acknowledge the 99th anniversary of the 19th amendment that was yesterday by lighting up courthouse square in purple and gold and And white it meant something to me its commemorates A date in which 26 million women were enfranchised I think it's really important to note though that on that date 99 years ago women of color African-american women asian-american women latina and native american women Were not granted that right and that in the state of california similarly we passed Suffrage a few years before that but again continue to discriminate against Women of color it should be noted as well that women like sojona truth did what white women were unwilling to do and stood up to men And spoke out in ways that were really quite remarkable I get emotional talking about it because we can see that On the eve of the centennial that things have not changed Enough and I brought my affordable childcare. Um, this is the first board. I got appointed to The sonoma county commission on the status of women And I noticed that on a board of 15 women Not a single one of them had a child under 18 at home except for myself And I became impassioned really passionate about the reasons why though we had suffrage and we had college degrees Why it is the case that women don't participate in government and democracy at the rates of men and One of the biggest things I think that we can do is not only support each other But also look for the ways the subtle ways like access to childcare and Wage discrimination that affect women and women of color in an outsize manner So I challenge all of us to be mindful of that. I don't look forward to explaining to my daughter Next year on the centennial what it means that we have had suffrage for only a hundred years And that's the lucky ones of us Any other report mr. Vice mayor? Thank you, mr. Mayor. Uh, just to piggyback on my colleagues comments as well A little interesting factoid is that when uh, women's suffrage came up for a vote in california Out of the sonoma county cities santa rosa was actually the only one who supported it by a 14 point margin. So, uh Not hilsburg not pedaluma and in fact windsor didn't even show up to vote for it They weren't a city yet Still That's true running through with a little bit Congratulations to staff for a successful completion of neighbor fest It was out there on saturday and got to see the conclusion at ridgeway Really well attended and that neighborhood is definitely moving when it comes to emergency preparedness They actually have broken themselves down into block captains that have started to categorize what types of emergency Equipment they have and resources that they have in the event of an emergency. It's pretty incredible to see so thank you to staff for that I wanted to say a quick congratulations to the early learning institute It's a nonprofit based out of runner park by throughout all of sonoma county that does developmental services for children under the age of five They had their 20 year anniversary over the weekend Wanted to report back to the council that I had a chance to go to the coffee strong meeting last night One of the conversations that is ongoing that i'll throw out there to the public as well as to my fellow council members Is how we as a city and as a region are going to mark the two-year anniversary of the fire And we started having that conversation last night with coffee strong to really see what fire survivors Are feeling and how they would like to commemorate that So if you have any ideas, please feel free to email me on that as well Wanted to say congratulations to the american institute of architects who had a really cool display in the square end of last week where they created shade in and spaces to sit down that Encouraged community. They didn't get a chance to see it. Definitely check out the photos. It's pretty incredible And then i'll i'll finish by mentioning two different Regional bodies that i serve on and what they're working on the first is smart the snowman marin area rail transit Which as though as many of you have read in the paper Is potentially seeking an extension of their tax measure in march of 2020 The point of the extension is not to increase additional funds But actually would allow operations to extend out the debt payments that they have that free up about 700 thousand dollars a year For operations Happy to go into more detail with any of my colleagues if you want to talk offline about that or with anybody in the public The last one and perhaps most important to santa rosa is snowman county transportation authority is in the process of determining What measure m's reauthorization will look like as you'll remember It is a quarter cent sales tax that has typically been used to leverage additional funds from state and federal sources Usually about a five to one match ratio They're looking at november for 2020 to discuss Reauthorization of that measure and one of the things that we are going through right now is a scoping of what types of projects We want to put in the work plan ultimately when we go to the public So in the last one 40 of the measure went to widening highway 101 That no longer needs to happen because it's fully funded not because they didn't build it But because it's actually fully funded that means that 40 percent of the measure is uh up for grabs so to speak So staff has given the preliminary information To scta. It'll be fluid But i wanted to make sure that the council was aware that the top projects are downtown connectivity to support housing density climate adaptation highway 101 corridor interchange Uh, and there's three of them east west bicycle and pedestrian connections south east greenway multi-use path and crossings south east santa rosa multimodal resiliency corridor enhancements uh shinate road resiliency corridor Fulton road interchange and bicycle and pedestrian projects and as is fitting for santa rosa We are expecting to get about 164 million dollars out of this over the course of the measure And we are submitting 326 million dollars worth of projects So we're really hoping that that five to one match ratio happens Happy to go into it in more detail with folks offline as well But just be aware that that conversation is moving. We'll know more about it in september Any other reports mr. Alvarez Thank you, mayor. I just wanted to report that making an immediate appointment of kirk roniga to the cultural heritage board Great, thank you. I have several items on report out on Every time we have this two-week gap between council meetings like you start realizing how many different events councilmen We're just go to um, so I attended our senator was a violence prevention partnership meeting And I know councilmember alvarez and fleming were there and I neglected to bring along the probation Slide show handout that I will get to the other members of the council But it's very impressive the reduction in youth violence and probation arrests in sinoma county and what we heard from chief david cook and the Vanessa a deputy Yeah, a few her titles. She's deputy director, I think Anyway, but it's very impressive the reduction in youth violence and youth probation In light of the fact that um the county had just invested in rehab in the facilities The juvenile hall facility and it's a wonderful situation and being where you have all this capacity But not enough kids to send them there It's a wonderful thing that they've been using evidence-based models in the city san rosa has been an integral Partner that and that is somewhat consistent throughout the state But I think sinoma county is doing an excellent job With a lot of their youth violence prevention efforts Also attended along with councilmember fleming the sinoma wildfires cottages Dedication and I was up at metronics with many things to metronic and habitat for humanity Uh to put this project together But the big thing that I shared during some of my comments that it couldn't have been done without actually the city council Passing the resilient city ordinances because that's exactly what those type of emergency ordinance benefit because those of us you know have ever been up to Metronic property that's not designed for housing but in this emergency unique situation They're now nine families. I think that are going to be housed there temporarily Until we can find some additional Housing options for them. But again, it's a great joint effort by metronic habitat for humanity in the city of san rosa We also had a homesonoma county leadership council meeting I think that was a week and a half ago Length of meeting but a couple of items action items that we did take There have some some of you on council may have heard that there are some nonprofits who received front funding from the leadership council And they're not able to meet the obligations that's set by the cdc and the leadership council So some of that money will be going back to be evaluated by our Evaluation technical advisory committee. There was one specific direction that Approximately $60,000 was to go towards a project where they lost their fiscal sponsor So homeless action and their nonprofit saves will be receiving some of that initial funding with additional evaluation becoming further on that one another Key bore item that the six technical advisory committees Identified by the leadership council had been ad hoc meetings, which meant they didn't have to be subject to the brown act They were given direction to make all of those brown act meetings and I share that with you because we're not exactly sure The staff capacity to meet those six technical advisory committee meetings But that is the direction that the leadership council gave them So i'm hoping it will not grind the progress to a halt so all those requirements get met I'll be meeting with the director of the cdc in the very near future to see how we can manage that But those are two large Decisions made at our leadership council meeting Also this weekend. We have the hopper wall project dedication Ceremony many thanks to coffee strong rebuild north bay aspirate and many others for getting the project Completed it was very nice to see so many city employees out there in addition to myself But we had our fire chief there the police chief and some other members of planning economic development It really was a great example of neighbors helping neighbors and those of you that Visit the northwest santa rosa that hopper wall is a great improvement more work to be done Additionally Sunday we had the santa rosa marathon and I think city staff in the entire community had a wonderful event there I was fortunate enough to ride my bike and lead the lead marathoner Who was smoking the course average probably close to what you did with your 10k five minutes 22 seconds per mile Start to finish winter there, but to see Downtown transform for running events on both saturday and sunday. I actually heard positive comments from Businesses downtown and some of the runners sent comments about how friendly all the arrest stations were and the staff Whether it be santa rosa police planning economic development and other volunteers, but it was just a great community event Then on monday, we had the joint council board of public utilities joint meeting and that one we discussed some of the Composting options and our subcommittee gave some direction to staff for next steps there There'll be plenty of additional public opportunities for comment as we start rolling out that program and I did want to give a Reminder to everyone that our mirror awards are still open I think the deadline to submit nominations for other community members is september 3rd So if you're interested, you know some of the work that's being done Please submit some names. I think october 21st is when we'll have that meeting here in this chamber And it's always a wonderful packed house where everyone's smiling. So it's wonderful, but you haven't till september 3rd to get those names there And with that we do have one card on some comments that have been made. So pat mitchell you want to make comment? Okay I just wanted to give you a heads up. Um, I met with uh, city council and um, scwma Individuals at the utilities council some of you were there most of you Today were not And so we had two speakers from the neighborhood And uh regarding the compost facility that's proposed on lana road Our neighbor greg raised the issue of cancer risk now. This is what i'm giving the heads up about okay I want you to be aware of this he talked he did a lot of research And he found that there are toxins in the air that come out of any compost facility And it's recommended environmentally that it not be put near residential homes. We have 37 residences on On lano on walker avenue in lano. I haven't counted yet, but there's a whole lot of people there And uh, this is uh scientifically proved that it increases cancer risk So, um This uh is something you need to be very much aware of that a compost facility there Would increase cancer risk for everyone even if you attempt to filter the air Cancer risks are still increased whenever and it is recommended that a compost facility not be put in an area Where there are residential homes. Thank you Thank you All right on to item 10.2.1 personnel board term assignments So council we had made the decision as to which members of the community would be serving on the board What we didn't do is assign uh each of the terms and I think mr. Vice mayor Are you interested in making a motion on those terms? Yeah, I could do that Just want to pull up and make sure I don't uh butcher the names so I'm going to So we have uh two Full terms is that correct mr. Mayor? So we have two terms for the labor reps three terms for the at-large um Yeah, so i'm going to uh Make a domination for curts to have one of the positions that ends in 2022 same with Paluso Stevens And deris excuse me floris deris Could you do it first with the at-large because I know paluso is a labor rep paluso modern? Yeah, we'll do it first and foremost with the uh the at-larges So the the motion is for curts to have the position that ends in 2022 second Okay, so then by default the other two would have the other dates Correct. Yep, correct. Okay Any comments? mayor, uh, I need to uh Make a note that there are there is one at-large appointee that needs to fill an unscheduled vacancy with the term ending in december 2020 and by default assign the remaining two at-large appointees to the vacancies with the term ending of december 31st 2022 so all right. I'll flip my motion and I'll say Stevens for the to fill the remainder of the term that ends in 2020 Just procedurally madam city attorney. Do we need to I know there's a motion in a second Do we need to rescind that before we take this new one? You can either rescind and and redo or amend your yeah I will rescind the previous motion and my new motion will be to assign Stevens To the position that ends in 2020 second We're good. Okay And then can we have our votes? And that passes unanimously And I will make a motion to have paluso fill the term for the labor representative that ends in 2022 We have a motion in a second your votes And that also passes unanimously. Thank you, mr. Vice mayor. All right Item 11.1. I'll be abstaining from this Were there any other adjustments from any of the other four council members? Seeing none, we'll accept those item 11 to mr. Sawyer. I think you're abstaining from this one Does anyone have any adjustments to those minutes of august 13th? Seeing none, we'll accept that Mr. McGlynn consent items Yes 12.1 motion contract award accessibility alterations at howarth park 630 summer field road Item 12.2 resolution fourth amendment to professional services agreement number f 000 6 000 with ik consulting llc item 12.3 resolution second amendment to professional services agreement number f 01622 a with bureau veritas north america incorporated Item 12.4 resolution first amendment to general services agreement with nick barbarary trucking llc dba red coast fuels item 12.5 resolution approval of the second amendment to professional service agreement number f 001748 with hrod incorporated dba mmo partners Item 12.6 resolution moving the classification of chief assistant city attorney from unit 11 Men manage it confidential to unit 10 executive management item 12.7 ordinance adoption second reading ordinance of the city the council of the city of santa rosa adding chapter 11 dash 26 To the santa rosa city code authorizing preferential parking in designated areas of santa rosa and resolution of the council of the city of santa rosa adopting a revised schedule for parking user fees adding a permit rate for preferential parking in designated areas of the west end of santa rosa effective october 1 2019 Thank you council any questions on the consent calendar? Do we have any cards? Mr. Vice mayor this is your item Thank you, mr. Mayor, and I I did Forget to report out and I I will tell you because it's relevant to one of these I did have a chance to go to the west end discussion about neighborhood parking permits and this item is going item 12.7 is definitely a dry run for us So we've got more of them coming I will move items 12.1 through 12.7 and wait for the reading of the text Second We have a motion and a second your votes, please And that passes unanimously. Thank you Do we have any speaker cards for items not on the agenda? First up duane duit followed by pat michael Thank you, sir. My name is duane duit. I'm from roseland and I wanted to thank the city for making the efforts to put in a new street crossing and crosswalk signal At burbank avenue on herne where the southwest community park is Many of you may never go out there, but it was originally put together In 1988 30 something years ago the county making the park But it's always been a bit of a dangerous spot Especially once herne avenue was widened and turned into an arterial with traffic just barreling down there now So having that crosswalk is a wonderful thing And we're glad that it's coming forward and we hope that perhaps it will also Lead the city to put in an actual stoplight Traffic is really backed up now and we really need an accurate current traffic count One that shows what's really happening on both those streets burbank avenue and herne avenue At many times of the day it's backed up and it's just really Imperative we get some accurate numbers So that when the traffic engineer says well, it has to be warranted We can show there's a warrant We don't want to wait for it to be like with patrick scott who was killed by a car 20 years ago Along belview avenue when the school was built out there ahead of any of the infrastructure So it's really important to us and I hope that law enforcement also could be bolstered out there A lot of folks don't seem to understand that The beat is too big Beat seven is what it is and there's thousands upon thousands of people in that beat And from what we hear there's just a few officers at any given time within that multi-mile range area Also, it appears sometimes the officers don't want to get out of the car So maybe if you would put a second officer in those cars that are on that beat And have them start coming into southwest community park In the park when it's dark It's supposed to be emptied out You've got laws you've got signs up that say there's not supposed to be drinking in there People start drinking first thing in the morning and drink all day long in there Also, it's supposed to be You can't come in until dawn and then you're out by dusk But if there's no enforcement of the law, it's worthless and I've heard that said by various law enforcement officers in the past So we're actually asking for more police More law enforcement help us out the problems are worsening. It's almost as if it's an outlaw park Vendors are everywhere people do whatever they want Well, one positive thing though if we could get this sustainable stormwater solutions effort working on the roseland creek We could have that bike way and greenway in place and people wouldn't have to be down there on herna avenue Using their bikes to get through roseland They've been talking about it since before that young man down there was even born Imagine that thank you Pat Mitchell followed by adrian lobby Hi, I'm here about two different items and and uh, I really need three three minutes for each one of them But I handed these out. Okay. They should be on your desk in front of you I'm going to start with the The grass hazard. Okay, uh, launa road. Do you do you have a picture? Launa the launa road right there when you pull out on meadow lane onto launa Or you're trying to there's this tall grass and as you can see Oh, if you look to the right the tall grass blocks your view People go 60 miles an hour or faster down that road You have to pull out into the road as you see my car as I pulled out Now I'm getting into the The lane here and their car might be coming in the other direction I I'm not really sure until I get my nose out there. It's very dangerous I don't want somebody die to die from this the laguna plant refuses to cut the grass Um, because they say it's not there There's to do sonoma county roads refuses to cut the grass because they say, uh That uh fish and wildlife tells them they can't do it So, uh, so we have a conflict here that is you know Beyond common sense and is potentially life threatening. Someone needs to do something. That's why I'm here tonight Hoping someone will take an action on this the other item is my house. This is a picture of my house Okay, my neighbor max grab he lived next door That's on the right hand side of the photo max graph is a good neighbor for a lot of years Promised to cut down those cypress trees never did those cypress trees are bigger Then the redwood trees we planted in our backyard 40 years ago These cypress trees are not native. They're a huge hazard Do you see what they do to my house in the wintertime? This cost me one thing I didn't write down increased costs to heat my house We have no sun all winter long. It's Bizarre and it's a fire hazard. There's a tree one of these cypress trees is leaning my way The city of sanarosa owns the max graphs house and that property I want the city please To cut those trees down if they ever caught on fire and you're thinking about burning max's house down And if those trees ever got on fire for any reason or fell over It would be right on top of my house and i'm paying more every winter to heat my house. This is just really Please This is my third request. I asked the Dream of plant to do it I asked another worker who was on max's property I didn't get her name But she's promised it. She says oh, I'll take care of that. Well, it's never happened This is my third request. Please cut these trees down. Thank you Thank you adrian lobby followed by margie brunel Hi, my name is adrian lobby. I'm here as a Excuse me member of homeless action and as president of the board of sonoma applied village services Um, first of all, I want to highlight The letter that you all got from my colleague margie talking about the need for a bench at The bus stop near sam jones as you know with housing first We have more vulnerable people in the shelter now and that includes people with disabilities and seniors So it just makes sense that there should be a bench there at that Bus stop a lot of these people of course don't have cars The second thing I want to talk about is uh, it's kind of the juggling of my hats because homeless action is long Asked for more transparency in homeless decisions. That's been kind of one of our Our marching orders plans here And so when we went to the leadership council and Heard a discussion about rather the brown act applied to the leadership council's committee system We're all in favor of having it be open. We think that especially in that situation We want a lot of homeless people to be in those committee meetings Keeping people on track so that you know, it's really easy for those of us in houses to go off Off in some la la land about what's useful and what's helpful and it just really helps to have homeless people in the room So uh, as a homeless action person I'm for open government as a non-profit Service provider you might think well, I'm for good government and when the staff says we don't have enough staff for these brown act meetings That that impacts how they can do their work to help us get our Contracts settled up But of course, we don't really think That there is any real Tension actually between good government and open government We think good government is open government and the key is good management So we heard the staff say many many times over a couple of different meetings in the last week That they don't really think they have enough staff to staff all of these meetings according to the brown act They are in a transition as a lot of you know, they've had lost some staff They're hiring new staff. Maybe it's just a matter of getting hired up But I would encourage you to encourage your representatives mr. Schwedhelm and miss combs to support the cdc to have really good strong excellent management staff and Enough staff to do the work that they need to do. Thank you very much Thank you margie brunel followed by jason kishineff Good evening santa rosa city council. Thank you for your public service I'm a citizen of santa rosa and have been for quite some time as well as 70 percent of the homeless people in this town have been citizens of santa rosa for greater than 10 years So these are our neighbors and veterans and local People I did send the letter to the city clerk about the bench At the sam jones temporary shelter where Our veterans and neighbors with mobility and access issues Often especially on the weekend would have to wait for an hour and a half for the bus without a place to sit down You should take a drive out there there's people on with walkers and Sitting on the ground some have fallen in the ditch waiting for the bus I witnessed that myself personally having been spending some time at sam jones myself I think that the city has dedicated services for our veterans as far as free bus passes and and many Veterans villages, so we are moving in the right direction, but a simple thing like a bench at The sam jones, I know my father who was a veteran would not have been able to stand there and wait for a bus And I think it behooves us to look at these people as our friends neighbors and family And would you want them standing out there for hours and now we have our weather changing With no place to sit waiting for a bus to get to town so they could go to the housing authority Or health and human services for food stamps or to the dining hall Or to any of the services that are located in the city center that they can't access at sam jones because several miles out So please review my letter and On behalf of the residents at sam jones who need a place to sit down. Thank you very much Thank you jason kishineff followed by carol vellutini Good evening My name is jason kishineff. I'm the progressive democrat that is running for congress here in district five Santa rose. I'm sorry to tell you that your Representative my opponent voted for yet another enormous military spending bill a few weeks ago This one is truly Amazing our federal government is spending hundreds of billions of dollars to upgrade our nuclear weapons Not because they are degrading and need to be updated But because our government likes shiny things We need to be reducing our nuclear stockpile not upgrading it and not building more Once you have enough weapons to destroy the entire planet What good are more nuclear weapons the truth is that our government subsidizes weapons manufacturers in this way And it absolutely is why our government says that it cannot afford to expand social security veterans programs food stamps Fix the homeless problem or pay for medicare for all It also bears mentioning that the u.s. Military Is the number one producer of greenhouse gases in the world ranking over two thirds of the world's countries Do you think this is why the top eight weapon manufacturers donate so much money? To officials like my opponent I'd be willing to bet that not one military spending bill in the last 20 years has a recorded no vote from mike tomson We need to be slashing our military budget not expanding it our country outspends the next 10 countries combined We have 600 to a thousand military bases all over the world in places. We have no business being Like niger molly columbia Saudi arabia bulgaria 35 bases in germany And a small island base called diego garcia that has tighter security than guantanamo bay Doing internet search of diego garcia base. It is a truly frightening story None of the countries that we are making war with have attacked the united states or threatened the united states in Any way and our troops our children Voluntarily risk their lives to protect our freedoms They deserve better than to be deployed to these countries based on the profits of billionaires. Thank you Are you carol valutini? Thank you. You pronounced my name reasonably correct I'm here to speak on a subject that I am It's affecting my health now and that's the only reason i'm here. I haven't been here to discuss anything for years but I want to talk about illegal side shows and How it's affecting hundreds of people throughout san rosa And I know that We don't have enough Help in our neighborhood. I live in jacob's park west And that is in the hood to the west of north dotten And side shows have happened before on a smaller scale And they happened down by hoan. I believe about a year ago or maybe earlier this year And as I walked down link lane to my west I see at every intersection there are rubber tire marks Well on this one day I had come back from a memorial And I just wanted to rest and I heard around six This hum hum hum, you know someone revving up their motor And then all the squealing From doing the donuts burning rubber and then there's a cloud it's just cloud of burnt rubber in the air Finally called the police they had received many many phone calls Called neighbors went outside people are watching and saying where is that coming from you know? Why is this even allowed so then found out it's behind locked gates So the two police cars that responded were just sitting outside the lock gates And watching and then I think the fire truck came to respond to the smoke So it's wasting our tax dollars And I think it's only going to get worse. And so I don't know what the answer is Maybe you could help out. I don't know how because we've had so many issues between You know the fires proposed earthquakes Traffic homeless You name it. We have it, but I love our city and I don't want to waste tax money To respond to something that Whoever owns the property is responsible for so. Thank you very much Thank you. Mr. Marguerite and item 14.1 Item 14.1 report Delegation of signature authority for environmental permits steve brady senior environmental specialist presenting All right, uh mayor and members of the council the item before this evening is for a delegation of signature authority for environmental Permits, all right. So why we are here this evening implementation of routine maintenance activities and capital improvement project projects often require permits from In in or often requires environmental permits permits and this can be from state local and federal agencies Currently the authority to submit and execute environmental permits Uh resides with the council So obtaining signature authority for each and every per permit and each and every project can really extend the design and The livery time for projects So looking at what these permits are we have a number of them Brief overview here the california department of fish and wildlife has a lake or stream but alteration agreement or Permits for endangered species The county of sonoma actually has what's called a roiling permit permit for working within a creek or other waterway The water resources control board has permits outlined in the us clean water act and the california water Water quality control act and the california water code And the us army corps of engineers and the us epa also has permits outlined in the clean water act and the rivers and harbors act of 1899 So looking at what some of these projects would be that we need environmental permits capital improvement projects This can be working on bridge bridges You know retrofits of course a new bridge over a creek road widening culverts pipelines watering sewer And also routine maintenance activities. This can be annual creek maintenance or culvert outfalls within our creeks So looking at this, uh, we really need the deli delegation of authority for environmental permits to help Uh, you know speed up the time to deliver these project projects and Also for to also provide routine maintenance activities and these projects the Re the requested authority would mirror authority that's already been Delegated from the council for local encroachment Perm permits with state and local agencies Also in 2014 the bpu adopted a Resolution that deli delegated authority to the water department, but this was limited to one Permit, this was the lake and stream of alteration agreement So this item before you this evening would expand to different types of projects and of course all of the agencies outlined above And of course all the permits would be subject to review by the city attorney's office So with that it is Uh, it is recommended by the transportation public works and water department that the council buy resolution and delegate authority to the assistant city manager and the director of the water department or their designese to submit applications approve and execute environmental Permits with the california department efficient wildlife county of sonoma regional water quality control boards state water resources control board us army corps of engineers us environmental protection agencies for routine operations and maintenance and for capital improvement program projects And with that i would be happy to answer any questions you might have Great see thanks for the presentation council any questions on this item Seeing none any cards dina Mr. Sory you have this item Thank you, mayor So i introduce the resolution the council the city senator rosa delegating approval and signature authority for environmental permits and applications away further reading Second We have a motion and second by mr. Oliver's your votes, please And that passes unanimously. Thank you Item 15.1 Item 15.1 public hearing placement of annual storm water enterprise charges on the sonoma county property tax roll Sean mcneill deputy director and vital most environmental services presenting Good afternoon, mayor schwaedhelm members of the Council Today i'm here to talk about the public hearing on placement of annual storm water enterprise charges on the sonoma county property tax roll The storm water enterprise was created by council in accordance with title 16 of the city code in 1996 it provides funding for the implementation of the city's national pollution pollutant discharge elimination system or we call the npds permit for short Also known as the storm water permit, which nick shared with you today Some of the parts that this funding has supported the streets creeks campaign Supports our creek restoration stewardship flood protection the public education storm drain maintenance and storm water quality testing The calculated assessment is based on equivalent residential units Which we call an eru and considers the size of the parcel in the amount of impervious surface on that Individual parcel as well as the land use The current eru rate is 34 dollars and 97 cents which was approved by council during the 2019 2020 budget process In order to simplify the payment process for property owners and minimize collection expenses It is requested that these charges be collected on the sonoma county property tax roll on the city's behalf The charges have been collected annually on the tax rolls since they were established in september of 1996 It is in the best interests of the city that those parcels not billed by the county Due to the charges not meeting the county's ten dollar minimum bill And or parcels with known incorrect ownership Contact information shall not be separately billed by the city as that cost of separately billing exceeds the potential revenue Any charges not collected will not affect other parcel charges Today's public hearing in accordance with title 16 of the city code will adopt the storm water enterprise charge report Approved placing the charges on the county tax roll for collection and allow the public the opportunity to protest the method of collecting the charges It is recommended by the water department that the council by resolution adopt By a two-thirds vote the storm water enterprise charge report and approve placement of the storm water enterprise charges On sonoma county property tax roll to be collected by the sonoma county auditor controller treasurer tax collector At the same time and in the same manner as sonoma county property taxes are collected Unless those charges do not meet the county minimum of ten dollars and or parcel owner contact information is known to be incorrect Great thanks for the presentation council any questions Seeing none since this is a public hearing I'll open the public hearing. Do we have any cards on this? You do not have to fill out a card if you would like to address the council on this. Would anyone like to address the council? Going once twice seeing none. We'll close the public hearing Ms. Fleming you have this item. Thank you, and it is my honor to bring forward this item I'm especially grateful for the work that the russian waiver watershed Association did and I want to congratulate nick sudano on that really cool coverage and the price democrat above the fold and everything in color That was really great. Thank you so much for bringing this forward and thank you to our community for our support For our natural resources so I move a resolution of the council of the city of santa rosa approving and adopting report for proposal to place storm water and drainage Charges on sonoma county property tax roll for collection with county property taxes fiscal year 2019 2020 In ordering that city's annual storm water enterprise charges be collected on the sonoma county property tax roll Unless those charges do not meet the county minimum And of ten dollars and or parcel owner contact information is known to be incorrect and waive further reading of the text second We have a motion second any other comments or questions mr. Weiss mayor Yeah, just a comment for staff Over the weekend the link was working To the report into the list it appears that we now have a dead link So if we could just fix that for the public as well that'd be great We'll do that. Thank you Okay, your votes, please And that passes unanimously. Thank you All right, mr. Moulin 15.2 item 15.2 public hearing resolution Authorizing filing a grant application for federal transit administration section 5 3 1 0 funds for purchase of a replacement ADA Prayer transit and community senior community vehicles a sean sosa administrative analyst presenting Thank you, mary mr. Shredham and the members of council. My name is sean sosa My administrative analyst and with me is urie coslin transit planner We're bringing forth here today is a federal transit administration 5310 program with funds that are available to improve mobility for seniors and persons with disabilities And cal transit the recipient of this funding and responsible for administering the funds to everyone else There are two project types through this. It's the traditional program and the expanded program We're going city bus is going to be applying for the traditional program, which will be sorry City bus is going to be applying for the traditional program, which is going to be Allows us to purchase either ADA accessible vehicles equipment other capital equipment like radios We do know that sonoma county human services is applying primarily for the expanded program With some funding that they're going for in the traditional program Now the traditional program the application process requires a public agency to certify There are no other nonprofit agencies that are readily available to provide this proposed service And i'll just read that that it's readily available is willing interested and capable of providing the proposed service at a comparable cost to the identified clientele In the same service area with the same hours of frequency and at the same level of service Our service center was a pair of transit Covers within three quarters of a mile from our city bus fixed flea routes And also the oakmont route which uses city owned vehicles and city contracted operations Now there are the ability for other nonprofits to competitively apply for this traditional program funding Even if they're not intending to replace our paratransit service When city bus did apply in 2017 we asked for funding for five vehicles And we were only awarded enough for four vehicles Currently the innovative clean transit rule. This is with regard to electrification of public transit fleets Speaks about paratransit vehicles that will be required starting after 2026 so right now there is no need or numbers required through this rule Through our application of this 5310 program We are not going to be requesting electric vehicles as one of the biggest factors in it is that Electric charging infrastructure is not in place and they are requiring us to submit Justification if we want to go for an alternative fuel vehicle than gasoline And one of the other points to mention is that no electronic vehicles are available in the state contracts Which we are going to be using to purchase these Now if awarded funds are based on estimated costs for gasoline vehicles so anything over this cost would be on the applicant less So we intend to hold this public hearing to see if there's any readily available nonprofit agencies that are Intending to provide paratransit services in the city And to authorize a city manager or designee to execute the grants to the 5310 program The benefit through this grants will be it will enhance community-supported services Modernize our fleet including ADA paratransit and oakmont senior community services And that based on estimated costs, they would be funding the vehicle 100 percent And then it will also invest and sustain our infrastructure and transportation So the recommendation is for the By the transportation and public works department that the council Hold this public meeting to determine whether any private nonprofit is readily available to provide paratransit services in the city And to by resolution authorize a city manager or his designee to execute and file a grant application with the department Transportation caltrans under the fta section 5310 program to purchase six replacement ADA paratransit vehicles And one oakmont senior community vehicle All right. Thank you show for the presentation council any questions Seeing none. This is a public hearing. So I'll open the public hearing. Do we have any cards on this? You don't have to fill out a card. Is anyone Interested in making comments on this item Please If you please just state your name My name is margie brunel. Is this one on can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you I am interested in The fact that people with electric wheelchairs have no place to plug it in at the transit mall If they should come into town on the bus from say sam jones I'm thinking of a gentleman. He had to carry a second battery with him on his Electric wheelchair because when he got to town He had no place to plug it in and if you run out of juice He had no way of getting around being a double amputee And so I was thinking that along with transit vehicles that are good for People with disabilities having a place for them to plug in their electric wheelchairs would also be beneficial Thank you for your Concern on that matter. Great. Thank you. Anyone else like to make comments on this item See no movement. I'll close the public hearing Mr. Rogers, would you take this item? Yeah, I will introduce a resolution of the council of the city of santa rosa authorizing a grant application for federal funding under federal transit act section 5310 49 u.s.c. Section 5310 with the california department of transportation and waive further reading of the text second We have a motion in second your votes, please And that passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Sean very Mr. City Manager 15.3 item 15.3 public hearing transit advertising program and rates Julia not Sean Gonzales presenting There we go Good evening Mayor Schwedhelm and members of the council. I'm Julia Gonzalez communications coordinator for the transit division and tonight in front of you Is an update on the advertising program for City but city bus and paratransit and also the rates the proposed rates that we Have arrived at to begin an advertising program for for transit In december of 2018 the council Thank you, jason Thank you in december of 2018 the council approved an advertising policy and guidelines and At that time a lot of other city departments had expressed interest in Advertising on city facilities and the plan was to begin with an advertising program with transit advertising only on the exterior of transit vehicles and then Letting transit kind of work out the kinks figure out the the necessary framework And then roll that out to other other departments who might be interested in in launching an advertising program So we're at that point now where we're ready to to launch one for for transit and what we've done in preparation for this Is that we've looked at? Rates advertising rates that that are used in by regional agencies And we also have done a kind of a deep dive really into the materials that are available for advertising displaying graphics on the exterior of vehicles so Did I break it? Thank you I think I went I went too far maybe one back One more. Thank you so, um, we conducted a lot of conversations also with our our A transit field operations team and what we arrived at is that the There's a metal framework that is an ideal technology for us to use really the display of Graphics on the exterior of a vehicle fall into two categories There's a decal type which is affixed to a vehicle it requires Good lighting it requires a space that's somewhat removed from the elements Surface has to be prepared an existing decal if there's one there before it has to be peeled off And then and it requires when you're talking about decals of this size It requires a technician who you know has that level of expertise Currently we don't have facilities like that. It also requires taking a vehicle out of service for several hours at a time So the other Technology which is a framework. It's it's a metal framework that has a slot On the side. It's affixed to the vehicle It it's a simple one-time installation a one-time purchase of the of the framework and then You know removal changing in adds in and out is as simple as taking one You know taking one out of a slot putting another one in and it's also compatible with the machinery that we used To wash the exterior of our vehicles So um for all those reasons we zeroed in on on a metal framework and it also I want to add that This is the technology that's preferred by centima county transit and petaluma transit This is what they have currently on their vehicles for advertising So we've also part of our our deep research involved looking at The the current advertising market and we looked at Uh What it cost to put put an ad in the local newspaper at newsprint what radio advertising is going for what billboards are going for We looked at what other regional transit agencies are are charging for something similar And and then analyze the number of impressions that we could Justify to say to say to an advertiser when you advertise with city bus This is what kind of visibility your ad is going to generate So our buses travel about 150 miles a day And they're traveling on arterials and commercial corridors Throughout the city and that equates to hundreds of thousands of impressions on uh per week So that's that's a good visibility uh on an ad and so based on on that information and based on What other agencies have done we've arrived at a at a rate and that's coming up in this In this next slide here We We decided to go with what was the largest ad that we could put on the rear of one of our buses and said that's going to be our base Rate our base ad and we're going to charge uh 500 per month for that and we worked backwards from that We figured okay. Well, that's that's a 12.44 square feet And it equates to 40 dollars and 19 cents per square foot So that's our base rate and what we're using that rate for then is is as we're looking at Other vehicles in our fleet who might not be able to accommodate that larger size ad We can then take whatever the square footage is and apply that same Rate to them and so in this following slide here, you can get a sense of What we think is going to be our inventory and one one Section of inventory it isn't there is our paratransit vehicles. There's 13 in total and That that ad for paratransit vehicles. I think is about 300 $300 in total If we were to based on these rates if we were to have the The good fortune of being able to sell every single ad We would be generating about 200 000 a year in advertising revenue Which we hope we hope it works out that way. This is our first time trying something like this We're going to be planning on publishing our rates and then if Depending on what the market bears if we need to make modifications We will and then we don't bring them back to council But based on what what we looked at and what other agencies are charging. We think we're right in the ballpark This is a an example of what the rear of the Buses the the current fleet would look like In this illustration. It's showing decals But the frames that we are interested in purchasing are very similar in size so I just want to give you just a brief recap to on what we discussed back in december when the Advertising policy was brought before you We talked about Positioning and branding this program as an asset for local businesses So that's still something that we're we're hoping to to shape into Into this program We also want to have a good variety of ads and so we want to control The volume and the frequency so that not one individual advertiser is purchasing all of the inventory The plan is to Set in place A limit of about 20 percent if to any one particular Invin Advertiser that equates to about eight buses So no one individual advertiser could purchase more than eight at a time And we want to maintain the policy that that We currently have in place which is to Allow advertising on the inside of the buses for free and that's two non-profit agencies anyone who has a public service announcement Can advertise inside of our vehicles for free? And then also we're going to be building into this program We're going to retain about five percent of the ad space for the promotion of city programs and services and that equates to about two vehicles So in front of you is The materials the the resolution and the recommendation to approve our advertising rates and So that we can begin the next steps which are to Identify a software program so that we can track our inventory begin purchasing The the frameworks that we're going to need the the frames for the exterior of the buses and Start promoting this and advertising it Great. Thank you council any questions mr. Vice mayor Thank you. So is that 500 per bus? Yes per ad Yes per month per month. Yeah, do they get to select which bus? No, no and and and and no individual bus has the Has a dedicated route so and that's one of the benefits too is that your ad Will travel the entire city In a given month Yeah, i'm just curious because the the way that advertising is going it's all about targeting right So i'm curious to see whether or not you get more of those questions from folks who are putting on putting ads on if They have their business in a particular area of town and want the bus to be circling there So i just thought i'd ask. Thank you. Yeah, thank you Any other questions? I had one just about the net you had mentioned if all the ad space gets sold 200k What about the staff time? So what would be our net? Oh That's that's unknown. We're i feel like we're navigating into some interesting territory. Um, right now Uh, so i'm the person i'm the point person for this and i i'm overseeing the Development of the whole program. I'm still trying to figure out what the software program is going to be that's gonna Make our life easy I would like to come back at about the six month marker At during the budget conversations to give you guys an update and then i can give you a better sense of You know, what what was our investment in terms of staff time and any other? Um incidentals that we didn't factor in or we didn't we weren't aware of and and see how we're doing Okay, and then what is the limitations if any of the revenue generated from this? Does it have to stay in an enterprise fund? Is it general fund? I'm gonna defer to jason So the intent of the advertising program is to infuse additional funds back into the transit system. Um That that's that's where we've got our revenue where our revenue account is It's it's really up to council to make that decision As to where it goes and during the policy it was it was suggested that that transit be the recipient I get the big bottom line. It's the city council decision is to where that funding stream goes. Yeah, this isn't Even though it's an enterprise fund. There's no restriction on how the revenue from that gets Redistributed great This one did you have a question? Okay Alrighty, this is a public hearing. So we will open the public hearing. I have one card on the item so far judy kennedy Good evening Mayors went helm and council I'm definitely in favor of ads on the backs of buses And um, I'm here to make a suggestion Um, and I think my timing is really good because you heard so much earlier today about the um streets to creeks Program campaign that um, you are starting to educate the public about gutters and and um storm drains So, um In new york, they also have um Advertisement on buses on subways and in the subway stations and some of those ads are public service announcements and I would suggest okay, and and the public service announcements in new york are Are um Designed by local artists um Fine artists that so it ends up that when you look at a sign about let's say the health of the Of this storm drains and how to approach that you would have um your Your public service announcement on the back of buses. It would be designed by local artists So you're kind of doing two really cool things She says that these buses would be you know going all over town And what better way to advertise Your campaign for storm drains and gutter staying clean So I think you could use the the idea of um paying artists to do um public service announcements I think that the one about storm creeks to streets would be a great way to start and um When you're on a bus when you're behind a bus in the car you're kind of a um a captive audience and I mean, I just toots around town Every day doing errands, and I'm always behind a bus at some point or another So I think that you would really reach a lot of people with this kind of idea And you would also be using the talents of your local artists um Which is another one of your Um goals is to make santa rosa a more art friendly artist friendly town I talked to tara thompson yesterday about this and she said that she would be delighted to work with council or with the agency involved um to Coordinate this effort Using artists to do public service announcements. Thank you very much. Great. Thank you g All right, you didn't have to fill out a card anyone else like to make a comment on this during this public hearing Seeing no one rise. We'll close the public hearing Mr. Oliver is you have this item I think I'll move resolution of the council city of santa rosa adopting transit advertising rates for santa rosa city bus And paracransit fleets and we're further into the text second Okay, who do we have seconded it just for the record victoria fleming did you Can I just confirm that you've seconded it? Okay, good your votes, please Oh Go ahead if you have some comments. Thank you so much. I'll keep it brief I just want to say that I would love to have a conversation about how we can use the money That is generated once we have a sense of how much it is to promote our public transit And do other things with it that would make it easier for our community to access our great transit system Thanks for your work Thank you for that. I would ask to mayor that we do check when we brought this to council before I think we did have a discussion about helping meet some gaps transit and this wasn't really just like a Way of making money for the city might correct Yeah, the part of the rationale for this was part of our fiscal sustainability effort as far as the division goes To ensure that transit is a healthy operating system. Thank you any other comments Mr. Weiss mayor Just as a quick one it was mentioned in places like new york and la One of the things that if this is successful, I'd be interested in exploring Is some form of an advertisement on the side of the bus stop Which then might also help plug that gap that we've talked about about Not having the funds to actually construct an overhang or a bench or whatever have you So hopefully this is successful and we can talk about that a little bit more in the future Yeah, vice mayor I will say that policy allows us to pretty much use To put advertising on any facility owned and operated by transit I would expect that while this is where Julia is starting with we will be experimenting with other options utilizing the same same Financing a mechanism Any other comments? Okay your votes, please So let's try that one more time your votes, please And that passes unanimously. Thank you All right item 16. We have no written communications. Do we have any additional cards for item 17? public comment Seeing none with that motion or meeting adjourned