 Good afternoon. Welcome to the September 25th meeting of the city council. Ms. Gomez if you would please call the roll. Let the record show that all council members are present with the exception of Mayor Corsi. Ms. Gallier. We did hold the council held closed session on item 2.1 and gave direction to staff. Thank you. We have no proclamations tonight, no staff, no closed session updates, staff fire recovery and rebuild update. Okay thank you Adam 7.1 we do have a couple updates for you tonight. Paul Lowenthal will start off with an update on debris and while he's coming up I wanted to give an update on some information on a recovery act bill that went that we found out information over the weekend. The Federal Aviation Administration Disaster Recovery Reform Act bill was released and the bill includes provisions sponsored by representative Mike Thompson and Senator Kamala Harris. The provisions sponsored by Thompson authorizes FEMA with the ability to use hazard mitigation funding for the removal of standing burn trees and disaster areas. So this is an issue that we've been wanting to deal with for some time so this is good news. The city needs to remove and grind the stumps approximately 1200 of these burned or dying in the public areas at the cost of about $1,200 per tree. The project wasn't was not eligible for reimbursement through FEMA. The public process however this provision could be reimbursed by 75 percent through FEMA hazard mitigation funds. Additionally Senator Harris's provision was included which authorizes FEMA to update its public assistance policies using the city center was a fountain groove water system technical report. So we're hopeful that that report in this provision will open up the door for discussion with FEMA headquarters for public assistance policies related to surface and subsurface infrastructure such as benzene and contaminated pipes and road damage in the future. So that is good news. We are the city is currently appealing our denial from FEMA for public assistance for road damage caused by the fire and the mayor will be sending a thanks on behalf of the City Council to both Senator Harris and Congressman Thompson for the efforts on these issues and so with that I'm going to turn it over to Paul for an update on debris. Oh really fast Mr. Gowan if you could if that bill does not pass is that one of the issues that the city is looking at for unmet need in FEMA funding? We will we'll be working with our consultants that Haggerty who we've brought on board to evaluate this and what that means but we'll keep track of that including the road damage and anything else that isn't included in a reimbursement. Great thank you so much. Good evening Vice Mayor and Council members a couple quick items we discussed several weeks ago the meeting took place in Sacramento we finally got word in the last couple days that they will now be finally scheduling the meetings between City County State and Federal they were able to get the calendars to sync and that will those meetings will occur the week of the 8th we understand that one of the days is going to be one that will bring forth some of the electeds as well to bring everybody up to speed of where we're at so we can move forward on that path as you know this last Friday was the final deadline for over excavation kind of in the final hours 95 parcels contacted the county's hot line that operates on behalf of the county in the city bringing the total reported sites over 700 300 plus of which have been eligible and continue to move forward with a backfill to make them build ready currently Cal OES reports that we're at about 72 and estimating upwards of 80 that are what we're being referred to as overly complex sites meaning the state cannot fix the parcels FEMA is here to evaluate each one of those parcels the state is going to be providing a geotechnical report regarding those parcels and their inability to currently fix them under their current contracts they intend to provide that information back to the federal level which the goal will be to see what the federal government and FEMA plan to do with those upwards of 80 sites hopefully regarding what they any evaluations or discussions that occur with that will also be brought forward to our attention during the week of the 8th when those meetings occur with how to move forward with the issue resolution process and those are kind of the two primary highlights right now councilor any questions mr. Sawyer thank you vice mayor could you elaborate and I may have missed it on what the nature of some of the fixes are some of these unique sites as was it the over excavation or what other issues as well so the majority of what make up the upwards now of 80 sites are going to be those that occur in our hillside communities found grove where it will take a substantial engineering design to figure out how to support maintain and and make those properties essentially build ready so there is the potential from what they're seeing right now and that's part of what's going to come out of the geotechnical report is that those the properties the way that they are potentially excavated to get both the ash and then potentially any excess soil that was removed that may have not should not have potentially been removed build ready and the current state contract cannot fill those with the mechanisms they have in place right now to make them build ready thank you so I have two quick questions on this the 72 to 80 overly complex sites that you said do we know if the liability is going to fall on the homeowner to fix that or is that what we're trying to determine with FEMA that's what we're trying to term with FEMA so states providing the documentation that says under their current contract they can't do anything they recognize the site does not build ready the goal is that through FEMA's evaluation of the state's documentation that FEMA will figure out a path forward and that's part of what we're advocating on behalf of them kind of what goes back to the meetings that took place in Sacramento where we brought in you know McGuire's office city manager McGlynn and other elected officials into the room to discuss these issues with not only Army Corps but FEMA and Cal OES okay mr. you and I'm particularly concerned that the clock is running on how long these 72 to 80 homes are going to have to actually settle with their insurance companies we've heard issues from folks who don't have an overly complex can we reach out to our state partners and see if there's anything that we can do legislatively in the beginning of next year to try to address the ticking clock for these folks who can't rebuild and then also that leaves about 220 who are eligible who are not in the overly complex sites does that mean that they're going to be backfilled with soil and get billed ready yeah the other sites that are able to comply we have a full breakdown that I can I know Councilmember Combs has asked for on the past I can provide an update of where we're at with those current numbers so that you can see what the world looks like between city and county but yeah so the those that can be backfilled or being backfilled there's multiple crews that are moving through those as quickly as efficiently as possible I will tell you that by opting in those additional 70 to 90 parcels that came in last minute that does believe they're not slow down other parcels ability other properties ability to move forward the state only has so much staff so the staff that were wrapping up geotechnical reports to once those sites were completed in backfilled is the same staff that has to go out and do those evaluations so it's good that we got some of those part of the new eligible sites into the program but it does slow down some of the overall process regardless the state's committed to wrapping this up as quickly as they can and they feel like within the next week or so was well some of the information they share with myself and building official Oswald this morning that they feel like they'll have an idea of how long it'll take to complete the program within the city limits within the next week or so on top of that we do still have those several hundred parcels that are part of the issue resolution process the state did take finally the did get the files from the federal level their intention is to review those files with the federal level and then bring in the city and county to review those files with us as well we're hopeful that all those meetings will take place that we could a great thank you so much any additional council questions great thank you the next update we have is on a fire damaged parks in a recovery of those parks and Jen Santos from our parks department is here to present good evening vice-member Rogers council members I'm Jen Santos recreation parks deputy director and I wanted to give a brief update today on fire damaged parks so as an as an overview we have about ten we have ten parks that were fire damaged and I've grouped them into the type of parks here to kind of give you an overview community parks we had about nine point three five acres totaling on over a hundred twenty thousand dollars in damages in neighborhood parks we had coffee for Ridge Rincon Ridge and Francis Nielsen Park eleven point four nine acres and a little over six million dollars as these are all rough estimates for repair and in our open space areas we had twenty five point eight nine acres with Francis Nielsen open space Parker Hill Rincon Ridge Thomas Lake Harris at over a little under seven hundred thousand dollars for repair the total would be a little under seven million for all of the parks and open space and then we also do have about 13 acres of roadway landscapes that were damaged is what I call the very tops lot photo in this image is one of the types of roadway landscaping that the city maintains specifically the parks department and those are estimated around four million so just to get a little more specific and give you some images so you can kind of connect the words to the images we had monument signs damage of fur ridge monument sign is the example of that along with all of the electrical components below there you can see partial electrical components lighting up the monument sign as well as all of the underground infrastructure that supports that electrical equipment was damaged to the right there the middle image is if you look down often you'll see irrigation boxes with a green lid green plastic lid that's what used to be there what's left is some of the equipment that's in there and those are completely damaged as well as all of the underground infrastructure is also damaged in many of these parks there's an example up there of a rules park rule sign that was damaged we also have concrete damage to concrete that needs to be replaced and repaired as well as one playground one playground area in the park coffee park was is completely damaged and will need to be replaced in addition we have park benches picnic tables turf drinking fountains benches and a variety of other amenities like this that are also damaged in the park without photos moving to more of our open space we have bridges that were damaged we have three bridges in our open spaces that were damaged as well as it's very hard to tell in this image but fences split rail as well as other types of fencing and some of our open space where we've lost trees and and shrubs we are diligently working on the path recovery with all the parks we have met with FEMA and Cal OES for site visits we've submitted all of our FEMA grant requests for all of the parks we are working on our arborist report we have our arborist report for our parks complete and we're working on the arborist report for all the street trees throughout the city we are removing and disposing hazardous materials including the street trees we are outreaching to our community especially for coffee park that you know essentially coffee park was a mostly a total loss so we really want to work closely with the community to rebuild their park the way they would like to see it so we had our first meeting on August 4th with the neighborhood to discuss what sort of amenities and how they would like their park to be moving forward we are we will be working on plans to redevelop all the damaged areas and we are somewhat underway with with those processes develop the plans and we'll be beginning implementation of construction for the major construction in 2019 overall coffee park is the only park that's closed all the other parks are open to the community however we advise caution stay on paths and avoid closed areas we do have safety cones and barriers up where there are concerns like bridges and things like that but otherwise the parks are open except coffee any questions thank you miss Santos council council member sweat home thanks just update I do have a question about coffee park because I know there's fencing there but it's all matted down but all the play structures are still there and people are using the park what steps is the city doing to mitigate the liability that may be presented with that situation we are looking to fence off the area in anticipation of rebuild because the it is dangerous to use the equipment we have put up snow fencing which is often disregarded but they they are structurally unsound so we do we are looking at putting up chain link fence around the entire park to prevent folks from entering and potentially injuring themselves so could you be more specific and looking into it because it's happening on a daily basis do we have a time frame as to when a chain link fence would be up there because it's a daily basis when there are kids in the park using it I can follow up with you on the on an update on the timeline I know that the the project to put the construction fence up was bid and I think we're nearing award for that so I'll follow up with you to get you an exact that would be great thank you council member comes I have a couple of individuals in the coffee park area who are suggesting that the play structures are safe and not damaged can you explain to me how we made the determination that they are in fact unsound sure let me back up a slide and I might be able to you bet I it strikes me likely that they are significantly damaged but I would like to be able to explain how we made the determination so for this particular play structure at coffee park this is the larger one the structure fits together almost like Legos so the upper part of that structure has separated and pulled apart from the from the rest of the structure and is also melted and bent to the right so it is it's a bit unsafe the other one is very similar so we did a visual inspection of the site and right into those conclusions correct we are certified playground safety inspector so we did an inspection to make sure thank you you're a council member Sawyer thank you vice-mayor would there be a way to communicate with it with that with the coffee park the intention and maybe even if a basic timeline because when the fencing goes up people a wonder why the fencing is going up be they're going to have an expectation that something's happening and that might give them a false sense of expectations so perhaps any way that we can communicate to the neighborhood what the intention is and what some kind of basic timeline if possible would satisfy I'm sure help to relieve some of the stress at the neighbors yes I I will double check our website there's a quite a bit of information I'm not sure if the exact timeline is shared on our website but I believe it is and in our august 4th meeting with a coffee park neighbors we did share the tentative schedule for redesigned master planning and rebuilding the park which we are looking to start the rebuild process in 2019 at the end of 2019 and finish the master planning process in February of 2019 very aggressive schedule thank you so particularly when it comes to coffee park obviously this is a neighborhood that's been traumatized are we continuing to maintain weed control other types of abatement so that the neighbors that there are there don't have to worry about another fire happening right we'll be working closely with the fire department to make sure that weed abatement is ongoing until the until the park is rebuilt yes okay and then when it comes apologies go ahead councilmember if I can just add a coffee strong mean last night we talked about over the weekend there were some design surets about what would you like to see in the park where residents were offered you know what do you think including some kids and I know there's a subcommittee from coffee strong that's working with Schaefer elementary to get their involvement what would you like to see in the park so there's a lot of activity I know at least from a coffee strong perspective they're keeping informed of the progress you know after the august 4th meeting that you know staff did a great job laying it out and they're not waiting just for staff things are happening when it comes to open space I understand from from your presentation that construction is going to begin in early 2019 you mentioned in particular that there are three bridges that were destroyed those obviously will take a little bit more construction time do neighbors have access to the areas still that they were going across in the bridge and are there temporary measures we can do while we rebuild them there as far as crossing creeks I haven't looked into temporary measures I'll check and see what is possible they can still get to areas surrounding those bridges but they're not crossable at this point but we can look into options great thank you so much any other questions all right thank you thank you thank you and in the next item the last item tonight after the few months ago the city council authorized a resilient city ordinance for designer view for a new building in the downtown and we wanted to give an update on how that's gone we've had a few a few projects come through that system and so when we implemented that are when the council voted on that item that requested a report out just to make sure that we check in with you on how things are going so supervising planner Bill Rose is going to give an update on what we've seen so far and a little brief update on how it's going thank you mr. Gwin mr. vice mayor members of the council I'm pleased to report that the process going very well so as the council may recall back in May of this year the council adopted an ordinance to do among other things reduce the review authority for design review for residential projects in priority development areas from the design review board to the zoning administrator the process is that these projects would go to the design review board for a concept design review and then the final action would be taken by the zoning administrator so I'd like to discuss a few of the changes that staff implemented right away after the council action to describe some of the projects that have gone through this process and then some of the projects that are coming forward in the next few weeks and months so first off as we changed the setting of the meeting so the meeting was previously design review board meetings were in conference room 7 they're now held here in the council chambers they start at 430 versus 230 so we have more opportunities for people to come a little later in the day and they're televised the other thing that we've done is previously for concept review we would take plans that plan sets that were a little bit less detailed since it was just conceptual on nature what we've done is we've asked applicants to bring essentially full design sets and what I found in my preliminary meetings with people when I request that I get very little resistance because the incentive is they know that if they come and they have a favorable meeting they will then go to the zoning administrator and it's an expedited process so that in turn has been well received by the design review board I've had continual discussions with the chair and with others and they've greatly appreciated the level of detail that the presentations they've seen the plans are complete and the teams have been fully complemented with with all of the architects and the consultants that you would typically see for a full design review action so the meetings have gone well in addition we continue to work with the design review board to refine the process so we're in constant discussions to look for any refinements that we can do going forward just to make it better one of the things that we we haven't not done yet but if we get feedback and the project is going to change we're discussing the opportunity to maybe bring a project back for a second review we've not done that yet but it's something that the chair and myself are mindful of to see if that's something that applicants might consider the process has been so favorable so far we might see that in the future I'd like to go over the three projects that have gone through this process and then as I mentioned some that are on the books coming forward so the first one is a project on Aston way it's known as the Aston way apartments it's a 28 unit apartment project it received concept review on August 2nd of this year and it actually went through to the zoning administrator on August 15th so you can see it's a very quick turnaround from designer view board a concept to then zoning administrator for action it received approval both of those actions were very favorable the board appreciated the presentation like the project and the zoning administrator did the same the next project is 420 Mendocino Avenue so a downtown project 128 studios ones and two-bedroom units nine flex units it's a six level building again very favorable response from the designer view board it's not been scheduled yet for the zoning administrator but we expect that to happen soon and then the last item is the Kauana Kauana senior Kauana spring senior assisted living center it's a 100 unit senior project on Kauana Springs again went through the process the applicant team is working on the feedback that they got and they will be refining that project and they'll be moving forward shortly and going forward we have nearly 350 units of projects on the books that will be taking advantage of this project process the Yolanda apartments that's 252 residential rental units on Yolanda Avenue and then the Lantana Homes project on Dutton Meadow 48 units this is 100% affordable and their for sale units which we don't typically see and then lastly a Burbank residential project this is in the Rose land priority development area and that's 66 multifamily units those have been submitted for a neighborhood meeting and concept designer view they've not been scheduled yet what I'd like to end on is I've had discussions with a lot of applicants developers I do a lot of the pre-application meetings as I've said very few resist coming in with full design plans because they see the incentive of this project they see the benefit for their themselves but just today I was speaking to a developer before I came here and I mentioned that I was going to be giving the council an update and he said please pass along my sentiment this is one of the best processes I've ever been through in the cities that he works in he also indicated something that I think the council might find interesting is that from his experience he is getting feedback that people outside of the area developers builders outside of the area are aware of what we're doing and very intrigued very interested and very impressed and so it's nice to see that we're getting attention from outside of the area not just from the tragedy that we all experienced a year ago but because of some of the great things that we're doing so in summary this has been a very good process and we hope to continue it thank you sir council member Tibbets thanks vice mayor I just want to say thank you for the update I know that when we were going through this it was a little controversial at first and one of the things I remember I asked for and I think the whole council did was was this exact update so thanks for following through council member combs I'm delighted to hear that it's working so well the fact that you are getting more complete information for the initial concept review is very important it's particularly important to me I know that a project came forward and I think for some reason council had to make a decision about it I'm not remembering if it was asked in our Kiwana Springs area I think it was Kiwana Springs area and I looked at the drawing and I said there aren't any street trees why aren't there any street trees on this and it was because it had been a concept review so the street trees hadn't been addressed yet so I think making sure that we have the complete information at the concept review phase is going to be particularly important I'm delighted to hear that folks who are in the processes are happy with the process but for me the proof of the pudding is in the neighbors and the ability of folks to not be surprised at what is suddenly being built next to them because we have cut back some of the public engagement processes so as long as it's a full package of information in the concept review and it's easy to find those concept reviews online and to tell where they are I'm very excited and I'm looking forward to it's moving this moving this to maybe a more permanent but I'd like to have a little time for some of these to be built and get some feedback on what did we miss by not having that extra set of eyes on the design part before I jump in and say it's all it's all great but it sounds really like it's headed the right direction so thank you council member Sawyer thank you vice mayor I just want to say thank you for for being a part of a a city department that is acting boldly and I got an email today from one of our local developers who's who used the term boldly and I and I totally agree and I think this is one only one of the times this evening I'll be I will be thanking the planning department for coming forward with with ideas and suggestions and indeed in this case a success story there is no perfection in what we are trying to accomplish here in Santa Rosa but we are improving the situation and we are hearing from not only developers but those people that will be able to take advantage of these buildings coming online so thank you very very much for moving forward and for willing to take the risk I want to thank you too I hear from council members and other cities around the state that they're taking notice of what we're doing not just in the rebuild but with our other existing units as well and it all seems very positive there was a question about the community engagement piece and in particular I remember when we first discussed this there was a defect with the website that made it so that you couldn't sign up for individual projects because it just the timeline was so short is have we corrected that yet have neighbors been able to sign up for a sort of a blanket we'll get notified or get emails about any project within their area I know that you are working on that Mr. Gowen I don't know yeah so one of the things that we're working on and we demoed it a little bit with the rebuild is to be able to the option to pull up information on permit in an area by geographic area by district or by zone what we're working on now is extrapolating that city-wide so you'll be able to sign up for notifications of any permits that move forward in that area so you can pick again by district or by a certain geographic area that's going to be a lot more fine-tuned than we've had an ability in the past so that is in the works and we're moving very quickly on it and we it's working well on the rebuild area so we're hoping it'll work well city-wide and I also do want to mention to think one of the important things that Bill mentioned was fact that these are videotape now which is great so we haven't had a history of these meetings in the past they've all been in a conference room so just a recorded video audio which is very difficult so that's something that we're excited about that we have a record now that you can pull up and watch if you if you weren't able to attend or you want to go look you hear about a project and so that's going to be made available as well great thank you so much thank mr. Rose do we have any additional updates that's all for tonight great I have one card on this mr. DeWitt hello my name is DeWitt I'm from Roseland and numerous times I've come and asked you folks to give us updates on what's occurring with renters and especially with journey's end it's nice to have this update and hear the progresses hopefully you saw today's article by Chris Smith talking about the 82 year old woman from journey's end still struggling or almost a year down the road and there were a number of unburned mobile homes there that they say well you can't use because of smoke damage but I've talked to people who've worked in that type of activity and they say hey you can clean them and then someone can move them they could go elsewhere it could be helping some people who don't have shelter so I'm hoping you folks will at least give us the updates on what's occurring with journey's end and what's going on with that situation Miss Santos has already left but her discussion about parks was really quite important because it pointed out it's going to take a lot of money to redevelop parks and the ones that had the least costs were the open space areas where they were basically just left alone and you know basically not have to spend a lot I would like to point out that people from the Roseland area have come here before and advocated especially right after the fire that the city help the people who lost parks first instead of worrying about spending funds over there on big projects in the Roseland area we just want nature saved we're not looking for a lot of concrete and then the last thing I think it's really important is Mr. Rose pointed out the resilient design situation and it's great it looks like there's hundreds upon hundreds of units coming forward now and you know over in Roseland right now there are hundreds upon hundreds of units being built one of the dilemmas though is the infrastructure is not being put in it's going to be needed for this type of thing you have to match it up so that especially in Roseland where we have the densest most disadvantaged and overburdened community in the entire city now facing even more people moving in did you see in the news the other day on South Avenue a duplex burnt down well I should clarify that one unit of the duplex caught on fire it didn't totally burn down but two families 11 people were forced to move we have people living in the densest situations over there where we're at and that's not being put into this dynamic as you talk about resiliency and you look about how we're going to do the future for the entire city it's great we're helping where we have had the fire a year ago but the extra effects that are out there they're having a negative effect upon Roseland we'd like to be helpful and we're saying yeah don't spend money on concrete to develop a park just you know do that over at Coffee Park thank you for your time thank you sir mr. Canini in regards to Councilmember Schwenghelm's question about the liability that the city might face if children are hurt and parks has let out a contract to put up a fence before you ran the kids out of those open spaces that mr. Dwick just mentioned where they were building forts and fences grammar school kids could put up a fence and could put up a fort maybe those skills were lost when you ran them out of doing what kids normally do maybe you should increase your permanent staff and have enough people in the city that you can at least put up a fence I mean really you got to go out to a contractor to put up a fence that's that mean that that's that's really sad the city should be able to do that in regards to this design review it's so glad to hear that design review was doing so wonderful seems like we may have the best design review ever no one does design review better like Santa Rosa or maybe mr. Trump is contagious you just you just heard from design review how wonderful design review is you hear from anybody else why don't you okay and then the other thing about taking risks don't confuse going with all deliberate speed famous quote from the extreme Supremes with shot circuiting a process very different you can move with deliberate speed without shot circuiting a process and you have a very bad history in this city of shot circuiting a process the city promised the people and I think it was in writing no ridghtop development and then you shot circuited the process then speed it up just shot circuited buildings were built along the ridghtops in what neighborhood was that oh found Grove found Grove and as you probably know as fires come over ridges if there's a house there that's kindling to the fire so I think Councilmember Coombs has a very good point we may you may regret this because you've regretted every shot circuit process you've taken deliberate speed is one thing risk taking with other people safety resources is something very different mr. Sawyer you can't even build a fence okay goodbye thank you mr. Kennedy we will move on to city manager and city attorney reports I hear they're bigly I've got a few to start with the city bus was awarded a federal transportation administration grant of 1.7 8 million dollars to purchase to zero emission vehicle to a zero mission electric buses we were one of 13 transit agencies in California to receive this grant to in the Bay one of two in the Bay area for this 2018 award we the city bus also received 1.2 back in April as well and bought two buses back in April so these additional two buses are going to help move towards an electric bus fleet and so it's an exciting time and it's very impressive that they got these two grants so again the 1.7 8 will fund the two zero mission vehicles and charging equipment it will help the transition to the fixed the city's fixed route bus system to all electric bus fleet and we the city bus will schedule a council study session to present the long-term strategy for electrifying our bus fleet in the future we'll also tie that into an update that we do for the climate action plan that's coming forward to you in late October so that's great news also you may have noticed there's some new art going on downtown over on the Roxy theater that one of our local artists bud snow has painted a mural on the back wall of the Roxy movie theater over here on that's first street the murals part of the public arts program downtown connections project and it was approved by the art and public places committee the painting started on September 13th and it's expected to be completed on the 27th which is just a few days away and some of these funds came from the 1% art program that we have for the remodel that the Roxy is doing of their theater so it's great that that money was put back into into the art on that project and then also want to give an update on the art program the art and public places program itself which includes the event permit administrations will be moving from Reckon parks into the planning economic development department starting next week so we're looking at that as an opportunity a way to find additional opportunities to leverage art work with development early on in the process to engage art as part of the 1% art program and I'm coordinating with the out there program as well so we're looking through those and evaluating what the opportunities are but I want to make sure that the council and public knows that that is moving over will be evaluating those processes reviewing the policies and opportunities and bringing an item to council in the future here to go through what those options are and future policy amendments that might need to be made and I do not have anything to add this afternoon great thank you so much item number nine councilor there are any abstentions today all right who wants to start for mayors and council members reports that's member to this thank you vice mayor I just had a question about the NOFA process that we're currently going through it is there a point at which the council is going to be able to review what the NOFA is proposed to fund my understanding is it went through the housing board and it will not come to the council for approval but that is my understanding as well the review of the applications we've got considerably more applications than we will be able to fund review of those applications is in process now so the if the question is can we provide an update in terms of what was awarded what the recommendation was for the board that's absolutely something we could do I'll make a note of that and we'll okay because I know the council is involved last year in the process and we don't have to be again per se but just getting an update on what was approved this year what's recommended would be great thanks councilmember sweat I long with several other members of the council attended the league of california cities conference in long beach in addition to a lot of the great presentations we heard really appreciated what staff did to arrange for the private public partnership tour of downtown long beach to see how they rebuilt their city hall and some additional housing very impressive with the collaboration so thank you for whoever arranged that but I found it very valuable to see what may be the potential of what we can do here in Santa Rosa I also want to thank all the city employees who participated in the day of caring last week and specifically Julie Guzzi who may be up there I know she coordinated some of the events but it's great to see so many city employees participate in that great event and lastly I want to recognize our own Ernesto Olivares on Saturday you might have written the paper he received life force of some counties first-ever champion of change award and life force is an awesome job of providing a lot of needed services in this community recipients of measure of funding so I just want to acknowledge that and congratulate you on that well-deserved award councilmember comes in addition to the league of California cities meeting I had the good fortune of going on from there to San Diego San Diego has a remarkable and cutting-edge fire alert system fire response fire preparation actually general emergency alert response and preparation system and I had the good fortune of going to the San Diego gas and electric company and meeting with their meteorologists I mean they have a room of meteorologists who have up to two minutes of the minute data from a remarkable number of sensors located throughout their mountainous areas so that they know when high fire and when conditions are are likely so they can have good situational awareness I had the good fortune of getting to also visit with their 2 1 1 service which was remarkable in their ability to handle calls provide information and information about the area so I'm really looking forward to bringing some of those kinds of services service expansion to to our area I'm also going tomorrow to the Casa steering committee the committee to house the Bay Area so there is a set of specific state legislation that Casa is currently in place to address some of the issues that we're going to address in the next few weeks. I'm going to talk a little bit about the compact so while some of us may grid our teeth over certain elements and cheer others they might not always be the same ones we all cheer and grid our teeth over this is the way the compact is looking now if you don't mind I will read the 17 items that are listed on the agenda. The first item is the right to legal counsel for tenants. Four is an amendment to the housing element also known as Rina for the preservation of what's called missing middle. Five is a no net loss of units. Action six is increasing dollars for a housing trust fund or ballot measure. Eight involves the recreation of redevelopment. Nine is regional wide inclusionary zoning. Ten is the removal of barriers to accessory dwelling units. Eleven is a line and implement density bonus and inclusionary zoning. Twelve is amend permit streamlining mitigation fees and sequit to create a more fair process. Thirteen is to cap impact fees. Fourteen is improve state streamlining. Fifteen is minimize zoning near transit. Excuse me, establish minimum zoning levels per near transit. Sixteen is modify defect liability for condominiums. And seventeen is to look for new revenue to cities that build housing for their planning departments. So that's a heavy lift of seventeen items. I anticipate there will be a lot of conversation about each of these. I don't anticipate that this package is completed, but I wanted to give you a heads up on where the regional planning agencies, CASA committee to rebuild the Bay Area is going. And also to note how many of these that we have grappled with ourselves locally and are moving forward. I think we're a good model for the rest of the region. So, thank you. Thank you, Council Member. Mr. Sawyer. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just want to report out on the Sonoma County Waste Management Agency. Patrick Carter, our executive director, is moving on to bigger and better things. He's highly respected and has been a very popular executive director, not only with his staff, but with the board as well and served on the agency staff for 12 years. So we are in the process of hiring an interim executive director. We had a really good response, an excellent response to our RFQ. And he will be with us for a little while longer, but it is very sad to see him go. But he will be successful in his next endeavor. We wish him all the best. And I will report back when we have a new director. Thank you, Mr. Sawyer. I also will report back on the League of California Cities annual conference along with some of my colleagues. Most of the trainings this time obviously focused on homelessness and housing, but in particular, I thought it was really interesting sitting in on the Pension Reform Committee meeting. And most telling for Santa Rosa is we heard pretty much exactly what we heard in our last long-term finance policy and audit committee. It sounds like we are at least in step with other cities in terms of how we're trying to address the long-term liabilities. We also had our first meeting for the successor to the successor agency for redevelopment. A few months back I reported that I was appointed by the nine cities that make up the mayors and council members association as the city council representative to that entity. We had our first meeting where I was begrudgingly as the chair of that committee. We'll continue to report back on that. Finally, we had our second to last planning meeting where we finalized details for our one-year remembrance of the October wildfire. Coming October 8th, we will have a 6 p.m. kickoff in the square where we'll have the poet laureate from Santa Rosa reading a poem. We'll be partnering with our local firefighters to do the ringing of the bell ceremony to remember those who were lost. It will also give us a chance to then open up where all the way through the ninth, individuals will be able to come and do chalk squares on the square to represent how they're feeling one year out. Whether it is a picture, whether it's a thank you of somebody who has helped them or even if it's a complaint about something that's not going well, this will turn into an art walk for our community really as an opportunity to show where we're at one year out. And that will lead right into, I've heard Coffee Strong is also going to be having a candlelight vigil on the ninth as well. If you're interested, we have bracelets up with Julie Guzy up at the top. They are green Santa Rosa Strong, Sonoma County proud bracelets that we are passing out to folks who attend the event and to help publicize that we are in fact going to be doing something a little bit low-key as a remembrance. I have one card, Mr. Chernoff. We do not have an update on the Groundwater Sustainability Agency. So if you'd like to give a general comment about some of the council reports, that's fine, but that item is actually not on the agenda tonight. I think we can include that. Or I could address that in a certain way. So here we go. A message concerning Groundwater Sustainability. Grounding of our spirit, our physical being in soul. Clear water flows in the Promised Land's goal. Sustainability of cactus is mana for all. The mother of all boycotts be the true call. And time for California students as Jedi Knights being the rainbow spirit warriors. Yes, every son and daughter to now be walking on water. Shaday, Shaday, Adonai Shaday. Be open, I say, for the lion now lays down with the lamb. I am, yes I am, Peter's servant leader. I am who forever has cried as the spear that pierced his side. I am he who has felt the terror of every abused and slaughtered sentient. I am the red, white, and blue unfurled into the promised world. I am the love of Almighty, so too such love shared through Aphrodite. I am the conviction of veterans who know the light having survived the fight, having left so many behind. I am the mother's pain of children lost only to be comforted by finding out that they were angels all along. I am he who burns all bridges of corruption, forever ceasing mammon, all the industry of oil and every slaughterhouse. I am the one who forever has walked the trail of tears forged by fire and liberty's desire being free of all fears. As surely as the fires were commanded by the iron rod of God, so too every knee on earth will be grounded and remanded. I am he who shared the promised prophecy that this moment be set under spiritual fire ceasing for 40 days the world's economy. I am now the essence of your being. I am the clarity of your seeing. This world of illusion and all its profusion now cease, 40 days releasing Leonard Pell Tier and our U.S. Constitution. That moment we will know peace. Huwagalahemeral, ahura, nomas travajo, nomas de schools, not a penny to the system. This be your given full moon tune, beautiful high noon command. I am that I am in service unto most high, commanded you be, put forth all your strength, all love, and you will be supported from beyond and above. So too all strength from within and down under, fortified by the greatest of all lightning and thunder, as you have heard it, as you have heard the word, embrace and abide this almighty command with a smile on your face as be given, now done into the promised land. For we are the power and the time is at hand to open these doors to the promised land which I tell you for true be beneath our feet and we are the most powerful people on the planet. Together united by this 40 day freedom strike we be on granted. Amen, amen, ahol. Thank you, sir. And Council Member Combs has slipped me a note as a reminder. This community did lose a trailblazer over the weekend. Helen Rudy and we will be closing tonight's meeting in her memory. With that, we will move on to item 10.2 and we are actually going to hold this item until Mayor Corsi returns. It is the agenda item regarding a community homeless assistance program update and alternative housing options. We will bring that back when the mayor is back. Item 11, approval of minutes. Councilor, are there any amendments to the minutes? Seeing none, we will show those as adopted and move on to the consent calendar. Thank you. We have six consent items tonight. Item 12.2 is a motion. Traffic signal detection camera, manufacturer standardization. Item 12.2 is a resolution. Approval of seventh amendment to general services agreements F000608, Smile Business Products Inc. Item 12.3 is a resolution. Sixth amendment to professional services agreement with PFM asset management LLC for investment advisory services. Item 12.4 is a resolution. Agreement with E plus for a new storage area. Otherwise known as a sand. Item 12.5 is a resolution adopting amended conflict of interest code. And item 12.6 is a resolution. Second amendment to solid waste collection service agreement between the city of Santa Rosa and recolored Sonoma Marin DBA Recology Santa Rosa. And if I may, I just want to mention that on item 12.5 the amended conflict of interest code there was an updated resolution on the website and before you simply added in the assistant right away agent into the city manager's office as well in the appendix A. Thank you. Councillor, are there any questions on the consent calendar? Council Member Sweatham. For item 12.3. Are you pulling the item or just asking? No, no, I just have a couple of them. I'm not going to upload hopefully quick questions. Thanks for coming down now. Two questions in the staff report. It talked about how this investment firm had the returns had beat the benchmark, but there's no idea what is the benchmark? Where would someone in the community find out what is that benchmark that has been beaten by 0.38% I think. So for that we actually have a representative from the firm, Polina Wu, and she can answer that part. Was your second question along those lines as well? The second question, this is the Sixth Amendment. When would the next competitive bidding process be for this contract? We are getting ready to, we actually have an RFP that's, we're just finalizing right now. We'll get that onto the streets. So this will only be for this year. I know it's, there were some extenuating issues last year, but it's our intention to have this actually under contract, easily by the end of this contract or even sooner if possible. But it's, we figure probably a good six month process, especially if a different firm is selected just from the whole contract review process. Great, thank you. Council Member Tibbetts. She's answering the first question. Thank you so much. I'm Polina Wu. I'm a director at PFM. I have worked with the city for many, many years. To your question, Councilman, the city publishes a monthly report that goes up on the website. I believe we also got a copy. The benchmark is on there. Sorry, I apologize. Could you move a little bit closer over the microphone towards you? Thank you. Is that better? Awesome. Sorry, the city publishes on its website a monthly report, and it has the benchmarks that the city uses currently for the portfolio. It's a one to three year Merrill Lynch Treasury benchmark. You also look at where the funds are versus the state pool. So if you had left all your funds liquid, so you have that on the graph as well. You also have, I believe, another Treasury benchmark on there just to show you where the market is. So for our portfolio, we manage against a total return benchmark that is a one to three Treasury benchmark, and that's on the report that goes up on the city's website. Great. Thank you. Councilmember Tibbets. Yeah, I have a question about this. Alan, what are the restrictions on investing this money? I remember I looked at this last year, my first year on the Council, and noticed that there was a wide range of performance with PFM. Going, ranging, I think when I checked in last it was at 0.89%, but it looks like it's gone down. My memory could be fuzzy. It was really a long time ago, and I was looking at this. But there were also a lot of restrictions, and I remember it was because, again, I was trying to invest locally because I'm aware of a couple of regional banks in our area that have liquid savings portfolios generating 1.5% annually. And I asked us to look into that, and the response that I received was, actually there wasn't much of a response at all. And I'm thinking that now, depending on what the restrictions are imposed on us by the state and how we invest taxpayer funds, I'd like us to go out to bid right now. Okay. I'm trying to understand the question that's in there. So the regulations are requirements. Is there a reason why we're not looking at some of these 1.5% savings accounts that exist, especially in our regional banks? Right, right. I remember that initial vaguely, that initial question that you had with that. And I would be happy to, why I need to look back and find out what our response was because I don't want to say it right now and take a guess at exactly why we said we couldn't go into there. But it was, I recall it being pretty clear at the time that it fell outside of what we could invest in. We do line ourselves up well with the government code and what were restricted along those lines. But allow me to go back, find that, and then I can report that out to the whole council. That would be great. I appreciate that. Because if we can find a local or even regional bank that is producing a comparable amount of our code allows us versatility in our choice, I would strongly advocate that we go with something that's more of a regional or local option. And for that, Mr. Vice Mayor, I'd ask that we keep this separated out separately so I can vote separately on this particular measure. Yeah, we'll pull that out. Thanks. Council Member, did you have a question? I have a question on 12.5. I'm not sure who's responsible for 12.5. That would be me. It'd be Daisy, but we can take the question. Okay. So I'm looking at, you know, most of our levels of transparency involve level A, which is a very thorough level. Level B, which is a little less inclusive in level C. We only have a handful of level C's. In fact, I only see two among staff and two among our boards and commissions. And I'm wondering if someone can explain to me why, for example, the two staff members are in housing and community services involving code enforcement. They're at level C disclosure instead of at level, say, B disclosure. Can that be clarified why that is? Well, it really is upon, because the department heads review all of the position based on their responsibilities, the department head will work with staff and figure out whether or not they should be reporting in one of those three levels, A, B, or C. So I'm not sure if staff is prepared to answer to that position specifically if you're asking about that specific position. Because it seems to me that B includes investment interests in positions regarding business entities, whereas C is specific to real property. That might be why code enforcement is only looking at disclosing real property interests. But I don't know if we have investment tools now that include investments in real property. So I'm trying to figure out if an investment interest has a real property element in it, does that have to be reported or not? If I'm tracking your question correctly, Council Member, is that we selected level C for the code enforcement texts? Yes. Because they're not making financial decisions or handling cash transactions and basically wanted to know if they had any conflict with certain properties they might be visiting? I don't know if they're called texts. It says code enforcement officer and senior code enforcement officer that may be the same thing. So they're enforcing rules on what may be a corporate property owner. So I'm wondering if they're invested in a corporation that is involved with that corporate property owner. Do they have to disclose that investment? They would. Even though they are not particularly a direct real property owner. That's correct. Okay, so C covers that. I believe so. Okay, I just wanted to make sure of that before I said okay on having those be only at level C and not at an interest level. Thank you. Thank you. And similarly, why was the chief building inspector deleted from the conflict of interest code? We went through and updated the titles in terms of what titles we have on the books versus what we actually have. So we have a chief building official and senior building inspector. Great, thank you. Is there any other questions on the consent calendar? Great. I have one card, Mr. DeWitt. Thank you, sir. Hello, my name is DeWitt. I'm from Roseland where recently it seems like the biggest sport has become red light running. So I was concerned, especially when a motorcyclist was killed almost two years ago now. I'm hoping that 12.1, that you have traffic signal detection cameras that could be upgraded to red light detection cameras in the future if that type of thing becomes possible here in California. It's used in Florida and it does help. On 12.3, it boggles my mind that we would have to pay $2 million of taxpayers' money to invest taxpayers' money. It should be that whoever's doing the investing shows that they can make the money and they get their commission on the return rather than us paying out. So I'm real concerned about that and I hope that you will not waive competitive selection and competitive bidding for this. Definitely support Mr. Tibbetts' approach that you go with regional banks and perhaps even a public bank here if that could be put together in Santa Rosa and Sonoma County. With that in mind, I believe that it's really important on this conflict of interest code that you perhaps when you adopt that resolution have it printed in the newspaper so people could understand it and see it. I'm real concerned because at times over the years it seems like I've watched various government employees do things which don't necessarily seem to be in the best interest of the taxpayers. And it's really important that the taxpayers know that any of the employees for the city are doing their best to help the taxpayers save funds, operate a safe municipality for the health, safety and welfare of the residents. And then I'm really quite concerned that when you talk about level of A disclosure transparency, why not put everyone on level A, the highest levels of disclosure so that we're all on the same footing and everybody understands, hey, we're trying to make sure that we have the best information for the public to understand that someone who's doing the public's business isn't going to be helping their friends. It's not just themselves perhaps making an advancement of the personal interest, but their friends. This is really important in Santa Rosa because there's a thought out there in the public many people feel that having friends at City Hall can help you get stuff done and that you can actually come out ahead and maybe some of your friends might make a profit on something that they shouldn't have. And that term friends at City Hall is very broad, I understand, and it's something that we could talk about. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. DeWitt. Mr. Oliveris. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. I think we can move consent items 12.1 to 12.6 with the exception of 12.3 and we may further into the text. If I may, before we move forward with that vote the issue was brought up about the code enforcement officer and the senior code enforcement officer and the issue of whether those should be in disclosure category C or B and actually we have touch base with Director Gwine and with the city clerk and it would be my recommendation actually that those do go into category be given the nature of the kinds of work that the code enforcement officers are engaged in. Thank you to make that motion as amended. We have a motion and second. Great. Your vote is council. And that will pass with six ayes. And then I'll move consent item 12.3 and way further reading of the text. We will pass with five ayes with councilmember tidbits voting no. We will go to public comment. Mr. DeWitt and he'll be followed by Michelle Tremble. Thank you sir. My name is DeWitt. I'm from Roseland. I'm pleased to have this opportunity to speak about the Roseland neighborhood and the efforts we're making there to have nature saved for our young people. To have the poorest people in Santa Rosa be able to live in a city like Santa Rosa. We're in found grove for now to get to experience what the world to do. With that in mind we've been talking about a veterans trail over there. Vietnam veterans chapter 223 put together a veterans trail in anna park decades ago. And at last Tuesday night's meeting of the VVA we came together to support trying to provide a good opportunity to actually unify the city. And we could have such as the southeast greenways going forward we could have the southwest greenway the Roseland creek bike way and greenway go forward and the Roseland veterans would help out on these things. With that in mind also make a difference day is coming up. It's Saturday the 27th of October it's an opportunity for people in the city to get to experience what it's like to live in a city like Santa Rosa. With that in mind we'll talk about the community at large. Over in Roseland we've decided to work along with the community action partnership community benefits initiative the members of the Burbank avenue neighborhood association and Hughes Avenue neighborhood association Roseland action and health action. We're going to be out there doing something good in nature and there's a lot of young people there it's an intergenerational thing. I see some young people here tonight from Santa Rosa high school some of them may know Roseland they can come out and represent the neighborhood like we've been doing for all of our years since we were kids at Santa Rosa high school. And did you know what the NAACP chapter here in Sonoma County got started in 1953 in Roseland? Yes. That's the key to this stuff. Roseland is the most diverse and unified community in many ways. If you guys brought us in almost a full year ago into the city you can start coming out and enjoying Roseland. We don't get to see many of you here tonight. It's Saturday the 27th of October 10 o'clock in the morning right across the street from Roseland Creek elementary school will be make a difference day we'll have refreshments and we'll have tools for you if you want to come on down we've got some gloves for you in case you don't want to get your hands dirty but it's all going to be fun and we're making the invitation to you be followed by Kathleen Winston. Good afternoon. My name is Michelle. My mom and I have a home that is still standing there. And our year anniversary since the fires will be next month. We were uninsured so we have FEMA that our benefits will expire next month. We're on a real short time break. We need to we know that Burbank put a proposal into the HCD and HUD to redevelop the property. We don't know what the proposal consists of but as a fellow homeowner there and my neighbors and we spoke we would like to get a condemnation of our homes so that FEMA can pay us out help us out and the insurance companies can pay off the homeowners that have been involved in the proposal. We don't get any answers from anybody. So what I have found out is I found a report and I e-mailed it to all of the city of Santa Rosa. It's a 90 page report based in Vermont but it consists of information that has to do with mobile home park condemnations and the whole report of the disaster of Hurricane Irina was involved in it as well. So I hope that you will all read this report and especially appendix 5 when it comes to condemnation because our governor actually has the executive powers to condemn our homes to be destroyed and get that done. So I hope you guys will read the report and maybe take into consideration getting hold of our governor and his administration before our hope for any kind of money goes out the window. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Tramell. Kathleen Winston followed by Anita Lafellette. My name is Kathy Winston. I'm 68 years old. I live in my car. I work to my whole life. But my social security is really low and I find a place to live that I can rent. And I just want to ask you to consider how important it is to build affordable housing and before that gets built we desperately need safe parking because there isn't anywhere I can park where people don't want me to leave and I've been told it's disgusting that I'm camping in my car. I'm really disturbed that people call it camping because I went camping when I was a kid. Camping is recreational and fun. Living in your car is not recreational and it's not fun. But it's the only option to live now and I've also been told that I should leave the county or the state to find affordable housing and I would like to say that I was born in California and I've only lived in two places in my life Sonoma County and Southern California and living in my car in Southern California I haven't heard any gunshots up here since I came back here whereas when I was living in my car in San Bernardino County I heard gunshots several times a night from all different directions all and after my mom passed away I decided yeah I didn't need to stay down there anymore I was down there to take care of my mom for 10 years and after she died I came back here and I would also like to tell those people who think that I should leave the county and the state to find affordable housing I would like to tell them that this problem is nationwide affordable housing hasn't been being built for the last 30 years and homeless women elderly homeless women are going to be increasing in numbers at a terrible rate from now on unless we get more affordable housing so thank you very much for listening to me Thank you Ms. Winston Anita Lafellette followed by Peter Chernoff Good evening I wanted to find out when these 15.1 about the odds and 15.2 about the reduction in the services to homes help us to keep the RVs out at Apollo Way they're still getting towed out there there are people that found RVs to live in because they had no home now they're very difficult to register because of course they got them on the black market so I wanted to thank you if you're going to pass those to I don't know what happened to them but I guess you're waiting for the mayor to come back 15.1 and 15.2 will be heard later this evening Okay and I also wanted to say that we are having event at the Center for Spiritual Living coming up on October 12th from noon to five and in that event we'll be showing the slides that Scott took I think you know him he's gone to Seattle and Portland and done some real nice evaluations of some of the alternative living structures that there are out there and if those could be considered when you do 15.1 and 15.2 because those would be an option and also I want to say that the huts are not being used at this time everyone was kicked out of them and so that's because they didn't have all yeah they didn't have electricity I don't know the huts are only for living that's you know for sleeping at night so if you would reevaluate that and I also want to say about the Sonoma County homeless system of care that's being redesigned all this we'll get there this time is for items not on the agenda you want me to come back we will have that item in a couple of minutes if you'd like to speak on that please come to the center and also I want to find out how come HUD doesn't work here in Sonoma County because we have a lot of apartment complex out that are not full they're begging for people to move in at $1,600 for a one bedroom and how come it doesn't work the capital system is really not working in Sonoma County for some reason those rents never do go down there are apartments over on Jennings over on north and down Santa Rosa Avenue but nobody can move into them like the lady you just heard from that's because they're too expensive and HUD doesn't work so I wonder why those two things aren't working and maybe you should put that into an agenda item when you do your evaluation of making many redesign plan that you're going to do and thanks for hearing from me and thank you Jack for the meals that you give to those that need them thank you Miss LaFollette Peter Tarniff good afternoon one more time it's good to see the students here I've said that before Dennis DeWitt made a mention of that he's a veteran and there's a lot of veterans that have seen a lot of things that are above and beyond what you see in most of the movies and a lot of them did what they did on behalf of the likes of the students you raised before you were a twinkle in anybody's eye and you are the generation that's been spoken of by prophecy of Native Americans as the rainbow spirit warriors you happen to be in the most powerful state in the world you happen to be in the most blessed county on the planet and probably the most incredible city of all there's a reason that Charles Schultz there's a reason that Luther Burbank stopped here Luther Burbank said this is the best place of all the earth to grow veggies and fruits and cactus peat says if we do it the right way we end all disputes you have more power than you can imagine so during this 40 day sabbatical we speak to each other maybe a little radical we make sure the parents and the cops and the politicians make sure they all get off the fence pay no more mortgages no more rents we're talking to them how we got a solution to every problem you're going to pay nothing to anybody for 40 days and at the end of the 40 days you might say if we agree to pay anything at all for mortgages and rents if we do it'll be 25% of what it was before which means every city county, state, worker every teacher everybody that's working 40 hours or more a week can now work a 20 hour week and have more than before we've just added 340,000 new jobs in the state of California and then of course we tell them about the 14 acre south Los Angeles urban gardens and the blueprint which puts everybody else to work full time forever every problem solved as all these corruptions be dissolved a 40 day karmic yoga exercise drum circles spoken word I challenge any one of you to challenge me with a little 3 minute deal with spoken word I doubled area it's time to be bold and beautiful under great spirit be fully dutiful the queen of soul high noted we think think then act for all the violence and wars and corporate stores they stink and that's a fact I am hell bent in heaven sent warriors now clear free of all fear withhold withdraw all consent the freedom rose now flower never again to deceivers do we give our power let us be fully arisen with courage to serve who have worked for us get on the freedom rose bus with courageous nerve together we command away forever the apathy ceasing all corruption by your royal interruption the 40 day freedom strike prophecy two more sentences support the veterans for they have done unto you come on mr. turnoff to me is not Mr. go ahead Mr. turnoff your time is up come on sir mr. go ahead my name is please sir mr. hello my name is Catherine jerk and I would like to make a statement about a request of the city about what you might say publicly about how unsheltered people should be treated the city and council city council members and all electric elected officials should take a bold step and claim unsheltered people as part of us they should work hard to shift the public away from a view of disgust for the awful way these people live to one that sees the extreme difficulty living on the street is the actions of evictions removing sanitary facilities harassing unkind words impatience impounding arresting for crimes of being human need to be replaced with space for all care for mentally unstable medical support disabled access elder care patients sanitary facilities language of compassion support services and more it's time to stop talking about the population's garbage and human excrement and start wondering about a society that created a place where human beings have to eke out in existence in one of the richest parts of the world it's time to talk about the morality of throwing away anyone thank you thank you mr. I so mr. I heard from one individual about the limbo that we've to be able to be paid out by insurance. I know we cannot discuss it in this meeting because it hasn't been agendized, but could you please look into the idea of having the governor condemn the unit and bring it back to our rebuild committee? Yes, we will do that. Great. Thank you so much. We'll move on to item 14.1. Item 14.1 is a report. It's a request for summary vacation of an approximately 1,700-square-foot public service easement along the west bank. It's a request for summary vacation of an approximately 1,700-square-foot public service easement along the west property line of a property at 2220 Mercury Way, located on the south side of Mercury Way, approximately 100 feet west of Apollo Way. APN number 035-490-032. File number VAC-18-002. And presenting is a request for summary vacation of an approximately 1,700-square-foot public service easement along the west bank. Thank you, Vice Mayor Rogers and members of the Council. My name is Kristen Toomey and Senior Planner. The item before you, 14.1, is a vacation of approximately 1,700-square-foot public service easement. It's a 10-foot-wide public service easement that is not being used for such a purpose for more than five consecutive years. Vacating that easement will allow for orderly development of the site. Here is a overall view of the project site and the surrounding areas. It's surrounded primarily by Kaiser's medical office buildings as well as a, I believe, building facility to the east. Here's a close-up view of the property it's currently vacant and undeveloped. The project involves a request for a summary vacation of approximately 1,700-square-foot public service easement that spans the west property line. And you can see that highlighted in blue for you on the site plan. The applicant has provided to the public service easement as well as the public service easement. And the public service easement also known as a PUE was found to have no utilities present. A little background on this property. On May 3rd, 2018, the zoning administrator approved plans for an approximately 3,200-square-foot craft's spirits distillery. The removal of that public service easement will allow for specific drainage issues on the site. The project is consistent with requirements of the California Street and Highway Code section 8333. The city may summarily vacate public service easements if it has not been used for more than five years. And there are no public facilities located within the easement. As I mentioned earlier, the public service easement needs this requirement. And the public service easement is pursuant to secret guidelines section 15305 minor alterations in land use limitations. The Planning and Economic Development recommends that the council by resolution approve a summary vacation of a 1,700-square-foot public service easement located along the west property line of a property at 2220 Mercury Way. Thank you so much, council. Are there any questions? Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. I move a resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Rosa for a summary vacation of an approximately 1,700-square-foot public service easement along the west property line of property located at 2220 Mercury Way, APN035-490-032 file number VAC18-002 and way further in the text. Second. How can we not comment that we have a public service easement requirement for a public service easement in August, but we'll do one in September this time. That passes with 6 ayes. Item 14.2. Item 14.2 is a report item. It's a homeless system of care redesign and presenting as Kelly Cucandalo. Sorry. We're seeing the community services manager and David Gwine. Good afternoon Vice Mayor Rogers and members of the council, Kelly Cicandal here with Housing Community Services and our director Dave Gwine. That item before you this afternoon, I will cover a brief overview of the planning process of our redesign of the homeless system of care and also new governance structure of the redesign system of care as well as Mayor Corsi's appointment of Council Member Combs and Shwet Helm to the new leadership council. Beginning in 2017 the Sonoma County Community Development Commission and I want to point out now that we do have some representatives from the CDC here with us this evening we have the director Margaret Blee and Michael Gauss who is the coordinator for the continuum of care here with us. The CDC is the lead agency for the Sonoma County continuum of care. We are required to have a continuum of care or planning process here in Sonoma County in order to receive approximately three million dollars annually in federal funding to address homelessness. The three entitlement jurisdictions in Sonoma County, the Housing and Urban Development entitlement jurisdictions I should clarify are the county of Sonoma and the cities of Petaluma and Santa Rosa. The CDC contracted with Home Base which is a HUD technical assistance provider based out of San Francisco to develop a report and preliminary recommendations following an evaluation of our system of care last year. This report was presented to the Board of Supervisors in August and to the City Council in September actually just about the same time last year we were here before you with that report. Those presentations and joint meeting was held by the Board of Supervisors and the Santa Rosa City Council in November and members were appointed to a joint ad hoc committee specifically tasked with the redesign of the system of care. Those members included two representatives from the Board of Supervisors, Goren and Hopkins as well as Mayor Corsi, Councilmember Combs and Tom Schwedhelm. You'll probably recall this slide from the presentation last September as well as in November. This really provides a visual of our current system of care and how it's fragmented in terms of how funding decisions are being made, how Housing First is being implemented, as well as an overall lack of coordination among the many task groups and task force working on this issue and also an overall lack of vision for our system of care. This slide shows an ideal system of care and it includes three key aspects, a primary decision-making group comprised of key decision-makers, a lead agency which manages this process and that's currently being staffed by the CDC and focused task groups. Redesign, planning occurred approximately over a 10-month period. This process included staff from the CDC as well as the City of Santa Rosa, stakeholders, the existing continuum of care board and the ad hoc committee. Through this process the ad hoc develop a recommendation for a new governance structure for a new Sonoma County homeless system of care. The overarching goals of this new system of care include setting a vision, making decisions and measuring results to address homelessness countywide. The vision is to achieve functional zero homelessness in Sonoma County through the utilization of the Housing First strategy. Here's the structure that the ad hoc committee came up with. The leadership council will be comprised of nine members and this will serve as the new continuum of care board mandated by HUD in order for us to receive that funding. I mentioned the $3 million that comes to our community. This will include five elected officials from the three HUD entitlement jurisdictions that I mentioned, the County of Sonoma and the Cities of Santa Rosa and Petaluma as well as four members from a technical advisory committee which we're calling the TAC. The TAC will be comprised of 25 voting members and six task groups. These task groups include coordinated entry and housing first, data initiatives, housing production and rapid rehousing, system funding and emergent issues. The CDC is working on a application for accepting applications for the TAC and they hope to have that out in the next couple weeks. So staff one of the items we're seeking approval on this evening is approval of this new structure, the new governance structure which is comprised of the leadership council and the technical advisory committee. The goal is to have the new leadership council placed by November 2018 to align with some funding that's coming down through the state which is being called the Homeless Emergency Aid Program that will provide approximately $12 million to Sonoma County specifically to the new leadership council. We're looking at the new leadership council and we're anticipating awards will be announced in January of 2019. The HEAP funds are eligible uses include services, rental assistance, capital improvements and there's a provision in the guidelines that 5% of these funds be set aside for youth. That's approximately $600,000. So this is the second part of what we're seeking approval of tonight is the new leadership council. Petaluma earlier this month appointed council member Gabe Kearney to the leadership council as their representative and the board of supervisors will be appointing their representatives on October 9th. Before I move into the recommendation and concluding the presentation, I wanted to ask if councilmember Schwedhelm or Combs had anything that they would like to add in terms of the redesign process and moving forward with our new system of care. Thank you Kelly and I wanted to thank you for your involvement. I know that you've taken part both as a COC member and as a staff member for the city and I really have appreciated your feedback and your input in the process as we've gone forward. We have a number of people involved here. I see Jenny Lin also is present from Catholic Charities. This is a big lift for our community. We have had a scattered system for managing homeless services and I think we have had difficulty in knowing who is going to be responsible. Whose job is it to take care of homeless services? And I think that we are establishing a board where as Truman would say the buck stops here, a board that will speak for what services are being provided and also express what is needed and excuse me, I missed you. I really want to appreciate the work that the previous COC has been doing and I know that they will greatly inform the work as we go forward. I understand that it will continue to be with Margaret and I thank you very much also for being willing to carry forward with this. This is such a difficult topic. There aren't easy answers. There isn't enough funding resources and I hope that by making a more streamlined, efficient system for dealing with concerns through this leadership council and this TAC that we can see some significant progress toward our goal and a unanimous goal which is functional and easy for homelessness. Thank you. I appreciate that councilmember. I am going to ask that we do statements after we do questions and public comment. So before I come to councilmember Schwedhelm, are there any questions or anything you wanted to add on? I'll say the comments for after. Two questions I had. One in the heap funding, the 12.1 million. There's some specific language that needs to be included to meet the criteria that the state has established. Since I believe we declared our state of homeless emergency before the heap created their language, is our language consistent with what is required to receive this funding? It is. I sent a resolution to the state reps for this program and confirmed that our shelter crisis declaration that we made in August 2016 meets their requirements. Great. Thank you. The second thing is the money, again the heap money goes to the entitled jurisdictions if they declare the emergency and the county has done that. What's the status of the city of Petaluma? Do you know if they have an intention of declaring a state emergency? Michael is reporting to me that the city of Petaluma is planning to do that in November. I don't know about the other cities throughout the county yet. You have to be one of the three entitled jurisdictions. The reason I was asking that, as we start developing strategies, if they hadn't declared that emergency, then I believe it changes the allocation. My understanding is that funding could go to a jurisdiction that did not declare that emergency. So thanks for clarifying that. I will have some comments at the end, but I'll save that, of course. Councilor, are there any other questions? Council Member Oliver. Thank you, Vice Mayor. This is questions on the entire package now. Thank you. And thank you for those that were involved in this process. It is a good change and I much need to change. My question is as the transition occurs, will there be a process for community awareness on what this change is and what it doesn't mean as far as our continued efforts to reduce homelessness in not just Santa Rosa, but sort of my county? And also, will there be a way for continuing to involve community engagement in the process? I mean, homelessness does impact entire communities. What I don't want is our community to say, well, we have this body here. They're going to fix it for us. We're all in this together, and I think it's important that we are clear on really on some accountability on how we're all going to be working at this, although we do have this formalized body. But I guess the specific question is related to the awareness. How do we educate the community about this major change? What does it mean to us as far as day-to-day life? And also, how do we continue to keep our community engaged in this effort? So the CDC is working on next steps, including the application process for the TAC, and that will include a broad representation of our community. But definitely there's going to be, as part of that, and I don't have the detail this evening, there will be a lot of information going out to the community about this new system of care, our rebranding, messaging, what the vision is, what the goals are, strategic plan, especially. And in terms of opportunities to engage the community, as far as I know, we'll be continuing the quarterly continuum of care meetings that we've had for many years, where anybody is welcome to come to those meetings and participate. Thank you. Similarly, along those same lines, what really struck me from the report was how many times it used the phrase defragmented, that we're trying to defragment our system. But there are different policy shifts that we have from the county. For example, we've discussed at length the safe parking program. We've discussed sanctioned encampments. We've discussed rapid rehousing programs that we fund, they fund, or that we choose not to do, they choose to do. Is the intent of this group to, in the future, our budget discussions will be about how much are we putting into this group? And will we still have specific input into policies, for example, safe parking? Will we still be discussing that as a policy at a city level? Or will all of that policymaking follow the funding through this entity as well? That is certainly a topic of discussion for the policymakers. As we've envisioned, and at this stage, is this new leadership body would be informing you on decisions made for the continuum of care, which may help you decide on those types of policy actions as a city council, and likewise, a board of supervisors or a city of Petaluma. That's where the conversation has been so far. So just to be clear, even making this shift, if we were to make this shift and approve this structure, we'd still have to have a future conversation about whether policies around homeless services were driven at this board level, or if each individual city still was able to have the fragmented system, so to speak. Yes, you still have to have that conversation. Great. Thank you so much. We have a couple of cards on this. I'm going to begin with Dwayne DeWitt, followed by Catherine Jerich. Mr. DeWitt appears to have left the building. Ms. Jerich, followed by Anita Lafellette. So I want to echo Mr. Olivares' statement about community awareness and involving the community, engaging the community in the spending of this money. I want people in the heap planning. I want people with ideas that might be out of the box, might not be the ones that are coming right now from COC, not a quarterly meeting that might be accessible to people, and I don't even know when the next one is, but open meetings where you go around the community and you ask people to come in with their ideas, their ideas about tiny homes, their ideas about cob houses, their ideas about safe parking, their ideas about huts, their ideas about anything they have for homeless and take these into consideration. This needs many facets of attack to make it work. And remember, this is a state of emergency, so some of the laws and provisions and statutes and standards can be waived to take care of business to get people in homes. And I'm also going to, I hope I can do this, we do have a homes for all, what works conference coming up on October 12th. We're inviting people to come and talk about other ideas that works. Work, please come and see what can work and maybe this can be used to stimulate ideas for other ways to deal with homelessness that involve community input. Thank you. Someone else can have the rest of my minutes. Thank you, Mr. Anita Lafellette, followed by Thomas Els. Good evening, yes. I wanted to say that this redesign of the situation of CDC looks to me like kind of a corporate takeover. I mean, behind closed doors, somebody's deciding who's going to be on the committee to direct this funds, I guess, because it's $12 million. It does look like there are a lot of backdoor meetings. Obviously, I'm not included on the committee, even though I've been involved with homeless action and working with homeless people for over three years now. I was never invited to even talk about who was going to be on the committee. And I really think you ought to have people on the committee who are homeless. Yes, if you don't have homeless people on a committee, you don't have anyone on the committee that understands what that lady just told you, what it's like to live in a car and find a place to sleep behind a bush, you haven't got anything even remotely in your ideas about how that is. So I wanted to, yeah, no, homeless action was not included also. And I want to remind you that CDC did, in fact, condone an encampment called Camp Makayla. It got a little big. That's because there are a lot of people out there that need places to sleep. So I want to recommend that you go with the CDC and stop having all this finagling because there's $12 million out there. And again, I want to remind you that what they're going to do with the money is build a lot more apartment complexes like the ones down the street that can't be rented for $1,600 a month. And why can't we use HUD? Here I am back on that subject. Why the people cannot use HUD? And the last lady that came to our meeting, she had gone to the HMIS and been recorded and they told her to go out and find some season of sharing funding. I don't know why they're supposed to do that, right? But she's running all over town trying to find funding so she can get in a place to live to have surgery on her throat. Now, this is a dire need for someone to have a living situation. So, yes, all these things need to be considered in this meeting with these people who are behind closed doors making a lot of political decisions that look very, very unethical. Thank you, Ms. LaFollette. Mr. Els. Hi, thank you. Good evening. Some might say that this has been a rather sudden event of the adjustment to continuum of care. It has taken a period of time. There has been some time and some consultation about it. It is a bit abrupt and some people had some sensitive feelings about that. More than we're here, some particular people. I hope that this will be good. I hope that it needs input. It needs observation. It needs your good heart to be a part of it for it to be good at all. Any change can be either bad or good. It depends on how what we make of it and we hope that this can be functional and effective for the good. I know that it would help to have more community input. I know that that's an issue that Homeless Action would like to see in general on the specifics. Generally on the specifics of the solutions whether they're administered somewhat in an ad hoc way by city by city or whatever, but that there be community input as to what they want in their particular area. Hopefully according to the state planning code that they can't have NIMBY activities going on there, but with regard to shelter things. There's an implementation group of the Health Care for the Homeless Collaborative which has been in existence for quite some time. At that we've discussed these things and Annie Nickel is a great representative on the National Health Care for the Homeless Collaborative Board and very involved in all these things. She has mentioned and forgive me if I speak for her here that it's really required to change from the housing first model a little bit to have a sober environment because what's happening is people who are sober can't go into the environment. So let's say it's a person who's suffering from a medical condition and they need to get housing, they need to get staged if you will to get to some housing so that they can get that medical treatment, whether it's surgery on their throat or any other kind of stuff. There are many people, many people are in line for that. And they may have triggers with regard to their other issues that maybe have addiction issues and so on and that they go into currently into Sam Jones or something else that's housing first where all these people are, if they were in a different place it might be different or in many places it might be different but in being one place it's a real problem and they get triggered and they can't be there. They can't, they absolutely can't be there. So they can't get ready for their surgery so they can't get the surgery. They can't even be prepared to where they can be stable. So there are a lot of these things that need to be looked at. And thank you and it's your heart that we need. Thank you. I'm gonna bring it back to the council. Ms. Keikendahl, there was a question about involvement of someone who is homeless in the leadership group. I believe that there is a requirement that one of the permanent seats is somebody who is currently or has been homeless within the last five years. Is that correct? You are correct. And I didn't provide that detail on this slide. So the four members from the Technical Advisory Committee, one of those will include a person with lived experience and currently experienced homelessness or as you said within the last five years. Great. Councilor, are there any additional questions? Oh, I'll come back for comments. Yeah, go for it. One other thing to clarify. Are the COC meetings open to the public? Yes, they are. The board meetings and the quarterly membership meetings are open to the public. Have they always been open to the public? The quarterly, yes. And the board meetings that has changed recently in the last year or so to be open to the public. And what about has there been the discussion, the decision made about the future attack? Will those meetings be open to the public? That I don't know, but I can look into it and let you know. And who's eligible to apply to be a member of the Technical Advisory Committee? It's a really broad representation. I have that information in the... Give me one sec. In the redesign plan or the white paper that's attached to the staff report, just to give you an idea of who will be seeking to apply to the attack. Give me just one sec. Or if you maybe even just say, where can members of the public find out if they're eligible and some of those... Right, yeah, so the CDC is going to be coordinating that process as the lead agency for the continuum of care. They're in the process of doing that. It should be out in the next couple weeks. I imagine Michael will post it up on the continuum of care listserv, which is far-reaching to just about anybody who's involved in this issue in Sonoma County. Great, thank you. As a follow-up to that, do you think that we could have a link to that posted somewhere on our internet system? Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. Really fast. So this is going to require two motions. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. So, Council Member Sawyer, let's go ahead and put the first motion on the table. Can I ask a question just before I... I'm curious. This is actually part of what the vice mayor alluded to. Is it your expectation that, given the regional nature of homelessness in Sonoma County and of course, especially in Santa Rosa, being the largest city, that they will be... That this body, the various pieces of this body, will be tackling... Will be answering some of the questions that we have that have been posed to the Council over a fairly long period of time, dealing with them in a broader environment with this body. The issues that have been brought up tonight. So I don't want to refer to it as a clearinghouse, but clearly some of the questions, many of the questions of not all of those questions that have been posed to this Council would be whether or not the recommendations would be vetted in this other environment. Is that the expectation? That's my understanding, Council Member Sawyer, and that body would be making recommendations and then we would be bringing those back to our individual bodies. Does that make sense? It does. Of course, the city and the individual cities always have the opportunity to make policy for their own city, but I think the reduction of the fragmentation would be certainly desirable. So I look forward to their work. Council Member Sawyer, what I would add is it gives the legislative body the opportunity to decide for itself whether it wants to align with other policies. And so we are just getting off the ground with the redesign, but there will be more deeper work on the subject of homelessness, especially from the technical advisory committee to inform those decisions, which then come back to the City Council, how might we want to align our contracts or not, same with the Board of Suits. That's a deeper answer than I provided the Vice Mayor earlier. Thank you, and is the Vice Mayor interested in a motion at this point? Yes. All right, thank you. I have two motions. We'll take them one by one. Motion number one is to approve the redesign plan and formation of the Leadership Council and Technical Advisory Committee of the New Sonoma County Homeless System of Care. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development mandated continuum of care program for Sonoma County. Second. Is there any discussion or comments that people would like to make, Council Member? Well, thank you, Vice Mayor. So I just want to make some comments about the process, and I really do appreciate the CDC staff and the city staff that helped us through here. And one of the things, you know, there's almost several months, if not a year, process. Struggling with that concept, we need the perfect system. And there's like 43 different COCs throughout the state of California. And I want to say they're all different, but there's not one. This is the golden model across the nation. You know, we even talked about the state of New Jersey who's got a COC that ended. They got to functional zero, but it's a different, different dynamics in Camden. I think it was Camden in New Jersey. So that's one thing I want to emphasize for the members of the public. It may not have been there. There is no perfect system in my opinion. And for me, if the second motion passes, I'm definitely open up. If we could have done it better, we need to make some adjustments. Let's make some adjustments. This is not in concrete, and the body can change its membership. But one of the big things for me, why, you know, I was really a supporter of this nine person, especially with five electeds, it's the funding streams. Right now, each of those entitled jurisdictions have consolidated plans, have representation on COCs, and have housing authorities. Previously, we didn't talk to each other. I know the county's got their one consolidated plan. The city of Santa Rosa does, and it's not consistent. And again, where I'm really optimistic, there's a lot of different things. You take cannabis. Cannabis in feds, it's illegal. At the state, it's illegal. The county monitors in one way, the city in another way. And it's confusing for those in the industry. We have an opportunity now for a homeless system and care where HUD is saying housing first. The state of California in 2019 will mandate housing first. The county is going the same direction. And we in 2016 have said that. Can you imagine the possibilities what can be achieved if we have that consistent funding into Councilmember Soria's question is, this body could do whatever they want. We don't have to fund housing first models. But for me, we have this opportunity. Well, why wouldn't we want to do that? And evidence-based methodologies where we're letting the data decide our decisions and drive our decisions. Because for me, one of the first things that we came very quickly to an agreement on, what goal do we want to have for this? In quite frankly, when we asked the question, well, does the current COC have a specific goal? It was like even to say that functional zeros are a consistent goal. They say, I don't even know if we could be in agreement on that. Well, we came to that very soon. So we now know where we're headed. And for I as one, if I'm one of the nine, it's like we're going to fund things. They're going to help us get to functional zero. It's not about the bureaucracy or the organizations. It's about the clients we're trying to serve and we're trying to end homelessness, just not managing it. So I'm going to be, I'm very supportive of this. As Council Member Combs said, this is going to be a heavy lift. Our work is just beginning and we are going to be very interested into the public input and what other people across the nation are doing. Because if this was an easy thing to fix, we would have done it long ago. And again, the solution is simple. It's housing. But how we get there is a complicated part. And it's going to be a very difficult one. I'm going to take this opportunity to make this a very important one in this direction. Council Member Oliver. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Very well said, Council Member Schwedhelm. Imagine the possibilities. I think we can all imagine what things can be as we continue to move down this path. I'm excited about this that we're all going in the same direction. Having a plan, having goals, having evidence based practices, measured outcomes. There's so many things that we talk about and best of all what I see here too is less finger-pointing I see more shared accountability and responsibility to get things done and do it the right way with with housing first and I think this also is it's more than just about the policies that we're setting I think if you look at the at the attachment with the leadership plan and they talked about the the homeless census and surveys I think it really is a moral imperative we look at some of these things that we do need to do what we can to keep the people in their homes and do what we can to him homelessness not just here's our county but throughout the state across the nation I think we're we're we are a great nation a great state and I think we could we are in a position to really look at how we can start establishing establishing a model a model for others to to copy and again we give them everything they need to do it but I think this is a big step a bold step and I fully support this so thank you council member Sawyer thank you vice mayor I had someone asked me the other day what are you going to do about the homelessness challenge in Santa Rosa and the first word that on my mouth was we need funding and this when I when I saw this item on the agenda and the the all important funding is is is coming forward I mean all you can have all the ideas we want in the world but without that funding especially in our financial situation that the city finds itself in that was such a major challenge but I think with that with that regional cooperation which is all important and patience I know that's a really really difficult piece to try to access as patients right now because we've been dealing with us for a long time when there are people in a great deal of pain and misery but there is but we have vision and the community engagement and and having determination will help us get through this late again I look very much forward to the assuming that we have on the votes tonight if it sounds like we do that will be being able to take all of that together and with that funding move forward and get some solutions accomplished thank you Mr. Sawyer council your votes that will pass with five eyes it's councilmember coursey absent and councilmember tippets has stepped away councilmember Sawyer your second motion please thank you and from motion number two is to approve the mayor's appointment of two members of the council to the nine-member leadership council I believe madam city attorney do you need the names of the two individuals in the motion yes I would identify that the council members a good idea and those and those members being council member shaw hadelman councilmember combs second yeah and that will pass with five eyes as well thank you moving on to item 14.3 mr. Hewitt the 14.3 is a report items contract extension within the transportation for ADA pair transit services at oakmont deviated fixed route service and presenting is Yuri Coulson transit planner and Rachel E deputy director of transit and while they get set up I just I want to acknowledge Rachel Yuri and Steve Rose and director nut they put on an event Sunday to recognize their bus drivers for their accident-free consecutive years multi-year and one bus driver had 35 years straight which is incredible driving on city streets every day so it's a great event so thank you guys for putting that on Yuri Coulson transit planner thank you for the transit division within transportation and public works we're before you today seeking your award of a contract extension with MV transportation Santa Rosa City bus contracts with MV for ADA pair transit services within the city of Santa Rosa and also for deviated fixed route services in oakmont as you are aware pair transit services are required by federal law to be provided within three quarters of mile of all fixed routes the oakmont service is a long-standing service in which the costs are heavily covered by the oakmont village association and the service is open to the general public and managed by the city the contractor was originally awarded by council in 2015 through a competitive bid process to MV as they offered the best value to the city at the time the new agreement before you would allow the contractor to provide services for two additional years the agreement with the current contractor provides for two one-year options to extend throughout the life of these existing contract the contractor has successfully operated the city bus pair transit services meeting the productivity efficiency and on-time performance targets established for the service the transit division has found the staff to be responsive in delivering quality service and importantly members of the public and the city's pair transit user group regularly commend MV staff for the quality of service that they provide MV approach the city to renegotiate pricing for option years in order to make employee wages and benefits more competitive thus addressing ongoing recruitment and retention challenges that they were facing see city staffs main goal in bringing council a 90-day extension was to ensure city staff completed our due diligence on this matter in June 2018 earlier this year council approved a 90-day extension to the MV contract agreement to enable transit staff to conduct further market research and negotiate with the contractor staff has brought council a contract extension for two years that staff believe is in the best interest of the city and the riders that rely on the service transit staff have spent a considerable amount of time evaluating our pair transit service and negotiating the proposal presented by the contractor wages for MV drivers dispatchers and maintenance personnel are lower than those of several comparable pair transit providers in the Bay Area average wages within the MVs team have declined due to loss of experienced rider experienced drivers over the years over the last three years this contract period from 2015 to date city bus operators comparably had a starting have increased their starting wage about $23 an hour whereas our pair transit drivers have had a stagnant wage of 1550 an hour some specific examples of the difficulty with recruitment and retention that MV is experiencing for example the the city's fixed route has interviewed and hired some of our MV drivers as they've been well-trained and skilled to provide services in our fixed route as well and MV has experienced that many Bay Area employers hire some of their most experienced pair transit drivers and mechanics the contractor currently has four open visit positions that they're having trouble filling due to the wages and benefits provided difficulty recruiting and retaining drivers mechanics and dispatchers is a track continues to be a challenge for the contractor over three years the city has unspent funds of about $180,000 in 2015 when the contract started pair transit demand was on the rise which required more hours of service at a greater cost over the last three years of the contract just the opposite has occurred pair transit demand has decreased the contractor has consistently met our ambitious efficiency standards and this has resulted in these cost savings after the due diligence due diligence and negotiation with MV staff is recommending exercising option years to extend the contract with MV through September 2020 increasing the this results in increasing the compensation payable to the contractor by 2.7 million over a two-year period this is an increase in compensation of approximately 116,000 in year four and 145 in year five all of which is associated with wages health care improvements for drivers dispatchers and maintenance personnel there's no changes in management salaries or benefits and there's no changes in increased costs over over the original year four and five of the contract and yeah no changes in fixed costs thank you there are a few additional elements to this amendment that control costs for the city and provide some assurance for the contractor cost sharing for additional employee health care premiums if it exceeds over 50% participation and one year suspension of liquidated damages related to driver availability one that we've never exercised in the life of the contract thus far in summary this contract before you maintains paratransit service as required by the Americans with disability act for individuals with living with the disability and also maintains the oakmont deviated fixed route service serving the oakmont community it maintains current quality of service to the public and provides for improved wages and benefits for drivers dispatchers and maintenance personnel only and the to the end that it addresses ongoing recruitment and retention issues that the contractors facing in closing it is recommended by the transportation and public works department that the council by resolution approved the second amendment to professional services agreement with MV transportation incorporated to number one extend the contract for delivery of their ADA paratransit service and deviated fixed route service through June 2020 to increase the compensation payable to the contractor under the agreement by 2.7 million and three suspend a specific liquidated damage provision during year four only and four provide for sharing the cost of MV transportation's increased contribution to employees health care premiums over a specific threshold of employee participation thank you and I am prepared to answer your questions that the council may have on this matter also available to answer questions is the transit divisions deputy director Rachel lead as well as representatives from MV the contractor council there any questions that's remember comes thank you and thank you for the thorough report I have a question about the flexibility of the contract in terms of the ability to include or increase stops or include other routes if we have the ability to establish a similar services the service in Oakmont and other areas of the city do we have that kind of flexibility within the contract we're looking at I would say we would need to confer with the city attorney's office on that but my expectation is because this was bid specifically for the ADA paratransit service and the oakmont deviated fixed route that any additional service that nature would probably be a separate RFP process okay so I have folks from particular manufactured home park living community that it seemed to be appropriate to include them in the oakmont fixed route service because oakmont fixed route often comes in a long highway 12 and provide services in that general area and those folks are somewhat unhappy with having lost their regular bus route stop is that the kind of thing that we would have to renegotiate or would that be I think you're one of the communities along highway 12 the where aware of is the Santa Rosa village yes community and we have part of the oakmont service is that once a day that service provides a shopping trip into Santa Rosa and we did work with them so they do have there's I believe two days a week that we do serve that community because the service didn't we didn't have to redo a route it's a it's open to the public service adding a stop yes and we've done that could you send me that information because the last time I was there they did not know they absolutely absolutely I would like to make sure they understand that that is available to them absolutely thank you the other one of course is a senior living a facility that I believe is called either vintage or vanguard it's off of Petaluma Hill Road I think and it's a senior facility where individuals are having difficulty walking to the appropriate stop that that's at the end of the road so if we could make sure that we're providing services for those two areas or that it's within the concept of our of our contract that we could provide those I'd appreciate it one thing I'll just note related to some of those challenges and thank you for bringing that one to our attention we can follow up as you know I think we're in a process now looking at you know we've had about over a year about a year and a half of experience the new fixed route system and we're looking to the future and some of the alternatives we have different ways to deliver transit and paratransit services with some more flexible tools including you know the TNC type real-time dispatch models and so I think we'll have an opportunity to discuss with Council in the future perhaps implementing some different types of service models that could provide additional coverage for folks who are having difficulty getting to the fixed route network my experience so far in talking with seniors is that while they are eligible for ADA paratransit services they are hesitant to so label themselves this is maybe not appropriate for them to not recognize that you know they're avoiding what might be seen as a stigma and I think it's inappropriate to view having a disability as a stigma but we have seniors who are refusing so to self-identify and so I have some concern about how we make it so that seniors feel comfortable using the paratransit system by simply making it a universally designed system rather than specifying ADA and I would suggest that that we come back at a later date and talk about those more global issues because what's on the agenda today is simply the amendment of this contract I just was concerned about making sure that we had the ability within the contract to have a future conversation we can have a future conversation thank you any other questions council mr. Sawyer thank you vice mayor excuse me I'm curious about the funding and I know that the transit department has had its share of funding challenges over the years with this increase and being that we are dependent and the general fund is not affected today and we are dependent on the state and federal funding for its operation how sustainable do you feel these sources of funding would be and what what kind of situation could we find ourselves in and having to support this contract if we did not have the same level of state and federal funding that we expect sure the funding for this service comes from both federal fifty three seven formula funds that are fairly stable source of funds as well as state transportation development act funds which go up and down with with gas tax or sales tax on fuel so overall they're stable sources of funding and I'll just comment that you know this the we've budgeted very conservatively for paratransit service over the last several years based on the lower cost we've experienced we actually reduced the budget in the current fiscal year 1819 by about $50,000 for paratransit even with that reduction we still have enough budget and funding behind it to support this increase we have I absolutely we have had our share of financial challenges we ended fiscal 1718 in a stronger position than we expected we still have the ways to go to really reach a sustainable funding point but we have a plan to do that and so I feel confident that we have a financial strategy to absorb this increase and be able to sustain it and ultimately it relates to service quality excuse me and I think it's a it's a good investment in the sustainability of our overall system in terms of the level of service quality and and we we have a funding strategy to continue to support it excellent thank you very much seeing no other questions I don't have any cards mr. Tibbetts 14.3 establishing payment options are you sure vice mayor Rogers I've got 14.3 here saying payment options for water and wastewater demand fees for high density residential I don't think this is the appropriate resolution so I think somebody put the wrong sticker here resolution of the council of the city of Santa Rosa approving the second amendment to professional services agreement f 0000983 with MV transportation incorporated to provide ADA paratransit services and a deviated fixed route service in the Oakmont community and authorizing the director of transportation and public works to execute the amendment and waive further reading of the text second folks council that will pass with six eyes moving on to item 14.4 and council I will mention we have a pretty lengthy agenda tonight if you need a break feel free to take one away from the dais but I'm going to keep this train rolling thank you 14.4 is a report high-density multifamily residential incentive program and with me as Kevin Finney with Kaiser Marston they were brought on board to help do a peer review and an analysis of the program that we're proposing tonight so I'll let him say a few words as we get near the end of the presentation I was also here to answer questions and we also have staff in the audience both from from water and from planning economic development planning any different departments building to answer questions as well as needed so what we have before you tonight is a goal to try to identify a solution to what we've been talking about for a couple years now which is our housing need in Santa Rosa I think you've seen this chart before basically our what our production of housing has been over the past few years what we need what arena numbers stayed in all what we're trying to achieve and then also obviously the rebuild through the fire so we have a task ahead of us we are working on all fronts to try to adjust the housing need across the board both in the rebuild but also building new homes in different locations different styles all affordable all affordability levels the focus tonight is downtown the city council made downtown housing a council priority that is one of the primary bases for what we're bringing you tonight the downtown is defined in multiple two different ways one in this downtown stationary a specific plan which is on the upper left-hand side which is I'm shown by the black dashed line I'm essentially a half-mile radius from transit hubs which is smart station and also the bus transit center the other boundary we have is on the lower right-hand side which is in the general plan which is the downtown boundary the only difference there is a section to the east towards brickwood in the downtown stationary plan update we will be included we're recommending that we include that section of brook up to brickwood so that the general plan and the specific plan are consistent with each other so as I mentioned downtown tonight when I mentioned the word downtown I mean describing both of these maps so again the only difference is the section from e-street to brickwood and what so why are we looking at downtown we've talked a lot about this in terms of focusing on downtown there's a environmental reasons for building in downtown adding density adding your transit creating a walk walkable city quality of life we also are looking at business work and business and workforce attraction and retention we've heard a lot a lot from our industries and in our in-town large industries and small industries about having a downtown and housing option transit oriented development obviously is key the economic impact to our city by adding density and focusing our development in the downtown core which affects sales tax and property tax revenue to the city and also the reduction in infrastructure costs to support those units on an ongoing basis the goal is to again look at a different type of housing that we don't have in the city currently and also to address all levels of affordability which we'll talk about in as we move forward so how do we get there it's not going to be one single thing we found we've found that putting one policy in place isn't going to solve the problem I heard earlier on the work that Casa is doing it's going to take a lot of different initiatives it's going to take a lot of different approaches so we've been systematically going through the process starting with our housing action plan getting the housing action plan in place looking at policies looking at processes looking at fees everything we can do to help further moving move the needle to try to generate the housing that we want the type of house we want where we want it so what we've this picture depicts is essentially what we're trying to do so the puzzle pieces together the political will the permitting process fees property city incentives affordable housing sequel infrastructures all those are key to developing the type of housing that we need and to get that housing we want to see so I'm just gonna step through real quickly background on what you what you've done today essentially the political will there's definitely a political will from the city council that's being heard loud and clear across the state I've heard that from multiple people as I speak at different events that they know the city city is looking and supportive of bringing high-density residential to Santa Rosa the fact that you made it tier one priority we've got action plan in place authorize the negotiation us to negotiate development agreements using city property and unanimously passed a resilient ordinance all those are our keys and indications to to the broader world that we are interested in building housing the permitting process we did this in two different ways looked at policies and then our programmatic approach so the policy that the council adopted resilient ordinance back on May 22nd that your update earlier tonight about what the how that process is going essentially what that did is reduce the time from it could be up to up to 10 months down to about a three month process and also reduce the cost of going through that process so still trying to get that quality product of reducing the time and cost to get us there and adding certainty and getting our projects through programmatic we talked about this during the budget process how do we speed up the process how do we find an expedited way to go we've staff and many of them sitting behind me have been working very hard on coming up with what an expedited process looks like we've outlined what that is we've come up with a program and hopefully like our goal is to implement that on a project coming forward housing project coming forward in the near future the intention is taking a process that typically takes 18 months and bringing that down to about six months and that's going to take all the departments in the city coming together with the design engineers architects the owner and working together as partners just to work through the building process agree make corrections and get those things built so that's where we're dedicated to moving that forward and we're working on we're looking forward to seeing the first one come through a sequel is another big issue issue that comes up a lot of times we hear well sequel is going to stop the project we can't do a project because a sequel well the city has taken the proactive approach of putting a specific plan in place in the downtown that area that we talked about before so we do have a sequel document coverage for the downtown and we currently have sequel analysis and infrastructure analysis and water supply analysis for up to 10 stories in the core down to seven stories and then five stories on the edges so that's in place now in addition to that what we received which you awarded a couple weeks ago which is $800,000 grant from MTC to update that plan that plan was put in place in 2007 anticipated 3400 units and since that plan has been in place we're halfway through the life of that plan we've seen 100 units built so there's a fundamental problem with what's going on both the economy obviously is a part of that but also everything we just mentioned processes policies but we also need to look at what that plan says how can we tweak it how can we adjust it to try to unlock those units that we've already approved in a way that we thought that we the community came together and wants to see in our downtown so we'll be looking at height density parking how we analyze transportation in this plan we just closed the RFP and we received nine napkin nine proposals and a consultant to do this work will be selected next Wednesday and we will be moving forward very quickly to get that process going and get the community involved in updating that plan for wall housing it comes down to funding and so we've talked a little bit about this tonight downtown is designated as a federal opportunity zone so we are actively aggressively going after what that means that those rules are still being written they should be released by the federal reserve I believe who's putting that out the next week we are tracking that very closely understand what that means how we can position ourselves to attract investors to partner with developers to actually build the units in Santa Rosa there's plenty of these around the state so we have to set ourselves apart in everything I've talked about up to now is really part of what's going to set us apart from other communities in California renewal enterprise district we're working closely with the county to develop a joint JPA to take a regional proposed housing and so that's something that we'll be bringing back later in the year for the council review tax recommend finance this is something again we've been looking at to determine how do we how can we set up a district to generate capture some of the increment from this and the new growth as housing is developed and put that in the infrastructure so we're gonna talk a little bit about reducing fees and that's infrastructure up front cost tax recommend financing and these other tools are broader ways more sustainable ways to generate longer term fees to help offset the infrastructure cost and so by removing fees adding tax property tax and sales tax increase we also need to find a way to start to look at what that long-term infrastructure cost is going to be and this is one way of doing that and then there's a housing bond that the council put on the ballot for November 2018 that's moving forward the other thing that the city council is property so looking at city property again identifying properties that are available to build so the city owns a lot of property that parking lots parking garages there are opportunity sites out that that we're working with developers on the city has given authorization start looking at those and we are we were in negotiating one development agreement now we're looking at putting an RFP out shortly for some other surface slots and so again that's a key piece being partners in some of these developments to also require the type of housing we want certain affordability levels and certain environmental requirements that we think is important to us as a community we can require on city property and then I touched on this a little bit before is the urban three analysis that we did a while back so we're continuing to look at that and evaluate the impact of where development happens what that means from a standpoint of how it affects the the economy of our community moving forward so property tax sales tax the intensification of that revenue back to the city to do the services that we want to do the services that don't have a revenue to support them and so again another reason why we're focusing on the downtown which brings us to fees and so fees is one of the last puzzle pieces I think that we're trying to put together this is so we're bringing this forward tonight just some background typical downtown project for a multi-family home in the downtown the impact fees would be about $29,000 and what impact fees are just as a reminder the impact fees are fees that you pay when you build a new unit for the impact of those addition of those residents to the system and the impacts are a variety of ways both capital facility fees capital facility capital facility fees are transportation connectivity bike and ped infrastructure park impact fees obviously go to developing new parks park assets water and wastewater demand fees those are fees that go to the water and wastewater enterprise fund to help with the infrastructure doesn't make sure it's sized right the treatment plant size right in the disposal capacity is there for those new residents the housing allocation fee is goes into the affordable housing fund so that's already been adjusted to reflect the fact that these units will be smaller and more affordable by design well we'll talk a little bit later about an incentive to try to get more of those built rather than the fee being paid so we need both we need the revenue but we also want to see some units actually be built as part of projects the school district fee collects those fees those are fees that we can't control those are set by the school district and then all other fees for construction of the project so that's that's essentially what we're looking at so tonight what we're bringing forward is a little over 75 percent of this the capital facilities fees the park fees and the water and wastewater fees that we'll talk about those and a solution to how we address that and before I do that though the program essentially in the way I like to catch it is it's a program to reduce and defer and encourage affordable housing for impact fees and we'll talk about how we do all three of those the criteria for being eligible for this project the way we looked at this is that has to be within the boundaries that we talked about before those two boundaries the downtown boundary and both the specific plan and the general plan in zoning that allows seven to ten stories which is CD 7 and CD 10 we the recommendations require at least three of those floors dedicated to residential use so a lot of times what we see is a podium structure with parking and commercial on the first floor and then three residential floors so essentially you get to a four-story building with three residential so we would require that we at least three residential floors you have at least three residential floors in that zoning to be eligible for this program and then everywhere else in the boundary which are all these other zonings which is CD 5 TV and TV are our 318 and our 330 those have different height limits up to about five and some are have seven stories but those you would need at least two stories of residential be eligible for program so essentially it steps down based on the allowable height you can put in and then the last one is this is temporary this is a pilot this is we're trial we're trying we're gonna see if this works but we want to set a deadline and we want to encourage we want to encourage action we don't want to just have a policy on the books that sits there and so what we've done is so that you have to break ground before August 31st 2023 which means you have to get a foundation permit so if you're fairly long in the process you're not just talking about it or having a approval on paper that's not what we want to see so to step through what this looks like the policy is just a little graphic to try to depict what this is I could walk through it the if just look at the gray on the bottom the parking commercial I'm just gonna assume that the first floor is there's no residential on the first floor there's a parking structure and in some commercial activity on the first floor this isn't where seven intense story buildings are allowed so the first three floors would pay the normal fees which is about 13,167 dollars and that's just CFF and parks so I'm not talking about water or any of all those other fees just the CFF and parks in this point so for the first three floors you pay that normal fee 13,167 dollars for every single door in that building the many you add another floor that floor would be exempt from those fees and any floor above that would be exempt so essentially what that does is you start to advertise that that dollar amount per door over those numbers over that fee so by the time if you get up to say a seven-story building you're paying about half the fee so it drops from 13,000 dollars a door for to $6,000 store so those fees and you start to add that up if you have hundred to 100 to 200 300 units in a building that adds up fairly quickly so that's the intent is to try to bring that per door cost down encourage people to add additional units add density and not do the bare minimum of a three or four building in the downtown core we only have so much land we have to use and we want to encourage people to make the most of it and we need the housing stock to to satisfy that our housing need so to shift outside of the downtown core to lower levels essentially what we do is the same concept only require the first two floors so then if you do a four-story building or a five-story building the incentive is slightly larger because you have less capacity to go higher so essentially would be half the fee at a five-story building for a somewhere outside of the downtown core the other thing I want to mention too and we'll talk about this here in a minute on the affordability I was gonna go through this first I'll add to this the four to that's for a market rate project what we're trying again like I said we want to add another layer and another incentive to encourage people to build affordable units with their project so what we've done is added a fee specifically for affordable housing you have to build the units on site they can't be on a different property they can't be in another project and they have to be consistent with our city's inclusionary policy which lists what the affordability level is in the percentage of affordability and the intent is to tie the link to that policy so that if that policy does get updated over the next five years it'll still this program will still work so the incentive would be that you shift from a the feast fee schedule that we have now to just it'd be a flat $2 per square foot for part fees and $2 per square foot for capital fees so it's essentially a testing out another concept that we wanted to test out for some time which is a square foot approach to units so since this is a pilot we wanted to look at a different couple different things see what worked what didn't and then we can try to modify as we move forward so again assuming average size of 800 square foot affordable inclusionary project that go it would go down from $13,000 to $3,000 a door so really acknowledges the fact that somebody is stepping up and putting an affordable unit under contract and we're coming to the table with with them on that to make sure that happens so this is just an example what that looks like so again the same same as before as we showed for the market rate but with the affordable housing mix in there so for instance if did per our policy did all the inclusionary per policy at a seven-story building you could get that fee down to $1,600 a door which has a big impact on the overall cost of a project penciling with affordable units this slide essentially summarizes everything I just said and I put this in here just for reference so people were to take this PowerPoint or slide they could go through the table since she's broken down in two different sections the market rate incentives of the first couple sides I talked about in this section section second section is the affordable projects and this is also in the staff report as well so just in the presentation for reference for people and if we have questions as we go forward the next slide is to illustrate the difference between downtown where we have allowable higher have units are zoning that allows taller buildings and all other areas just to give you a sense that if you compare a five-story in the area where you can do a seven-and-ten story you're only essentially getting a 25% break on the fees but if you're doing five-story outside of that area where the there's a lower height limit you get a higher return you essentially a 50% break on those fees so it's just to illustrate that we are trying to accommodate the fact that it's not one size does not fit all so the final piece of this is the water and wastewater so the water wastewater fees were a big piece of the overall impact fees and you saw that in the earlier pie chart a lot of the feedback we got early on over the past couple years that I've been doing this is that the fees in the construction loan is a problem and sometimes that causes problems with lending and ability to get a project to move forward and so what we looked at is how do we move those that that fee we were keeping this fee intact but we want to move that fee out of the construction loan and so we're giving people two different options you can move it outside of the occupancy past occupancy up to six months or until you're 75% occupied the concept there is that you're you have your generating revenue you have people in there it's outside of your capital construction financing you're now you're into permanent financing and that's a different discussion and hopefully will be easier for people to have that make those work the other option is to enter into a five-year payment plan with interest similar to what we did for the restaurant program back a few years ago but the concept is there are some criteria with that and so it depends on the developer depends on the finance depends on how that project wants to move forward on what option that they want to pick but again because this is a pilot because it's a trial and it's a limited term we wanted to put a couple options out there to see what what works what doesn't and where we find the issues Kaiser Martin again in their peer review and an analysis of this looked at what the deferral of the funding does does two things one it allows movement of the fund in the capital stack on where it's paid which hopefully will help move projects forward but it also has a overall incentive was an estimate of about $1,700 and I'm in Kevin can explain that if there's questions on that so those are the elements of this program again it's a it's a reduction of CFF and park fees it's a deferral water and sewer fees it's a extra incentive and testing out of square footage for affordable housing and we are looking forward to try and looking forward to putting this piece into place and hopefully this you know along with everything else that the council's put in place hopefully see some some building here soon so before we move on and conclude I want to give Kevin a minute to just give a overview of the work they did to take a look at this and the analysis you did to evaluate the program thank you David my name is Kevin Feeney Kaiser Marston associates Kaiser Marston has a long history of advising public sector clients on real estate and land use issues we performed an analysis and in addition to the peer review of the fee program we performed an analysis of the impact of the proposed incentives on development feasibility in the downtown that analysis can be found in attachment to of the staff report that analysis looks at a range of building types densities heights and the conclusion is that the fee incentives are both helpful and necessary for spring development downtown fees like David said are one piece of the puzzle there's many other factors that will determine whether a project is going to be built in the near term but this is an important one and it's a step in the right direction I'm happy to answer any other questions on our technical analysis or the fee estimate above during the course this discussion thank you so with that I'd be happy to answer we take some questions and the recommendation is to adopt this we do have three resolutions there's a resolution for the park impact fees as a resolution for the CFF and then there's a water and wastewater fee resolution so three as we move forward in the motion great thank you Mr. Newman so I just wanted to make sure I'm clear it looks like from my calculations looking at the fees that between the park impact fee the capital facilities fee and the water and wastewater impact fees if a developer were to maximize what we're trying to do here tonight it would move their per unit fees from a little bit over twenty two thousand dollars per unit all the way down to a little bit under three thousand dollars per unit so that would be for the CFF and parks the water and sewer fees would still be paid it would just be deferred correct so yeah I'm talking about during development correct during development great and obviously one of the conversations that we have had as an entity when we were discussing in particular the housing bond was the need to also have infrastructure investment at the same time as housing development to make sure that our infrastructure can still maintain the amount of units that we're putting downtown can you talk a little bit about how we are going to shift the cost away from the development while still maintaining the ability to keep our infrastructure intact right and that was a big point that we talked about up front is first what are these fees for why do we have the fees in the first place there they are impact fees so they're for new new an expansion of services so again for parks adding new parks and expanding park services capital facilities fees is transit transportation bike bed those those are important elements especially when you're adding individuals living in a location you we have to have park facilities we have to have connectivity and transportation networks so one of the reason one of the approaches we did and the clarification to is these are for new an expansion we can't use these fees for ongoing staff or maintenance are those type of fees so these are really new and a different type of funding so what we did is a portion two ways we have conversations obviously with the parks department and the TPW and water we're looking for how do we offset that part of that is like I talked about a different funding source and we talked about impact fees earlier this year when we did the impact fee update and the concept being is the need is very large in terms of what what fee is needed a development we wouldn't see any development if we charge that whole fee so what we end up doing is right sizing that based on what's feasible so we still have a gap to close for infrastructure needs and so regardless of us changing this fee we still need to find new funding for infrastructure so the TIF tax income finances is a tool that we're aggressively approaching and looking other ways to bring money to the table the other thing is the rationale for keeping collecting for three stories in the downtown core and two stories on the outside was to collect fees to make sure that there was still was a revenue source coming in fee revenue that we're not seeing now really wouldn't see if nothing if nothing got built but because we have residents coming we want to make sure we capture some of that and bring that back in and so another element to this ordinance is that the park fees collected in this area stay in that area to try to try to make sure that people that as we develop housing in a community of people living downtown we start to use revenue to generate urban park settings and gathering places for people so it's something we have to keep an eye on because it's five years is a limited term it's really to kickstart and jumpstart the construction of housing units we're going to be tracking the cost tracking the impacts and at any time Council can modify this they can we could stop this program if we start to see a lot of development and let the market take take care of itself or we can extend it if it looks like it's working and we're able to find the revenue to keep up with this infrastructure so I hope that answers a question but we're going to be looking at this and taking them making sure we don't cut short our infrastructure needs as we move forward yeah no I really appreciate that answer thank you so much this is clearly designed I think this council has had a priority of incentivizing people to build up in our downtown clearly this is designed to do that not necessarily to maximize units and what I mean by that is if an individual were to build a five story versus a six-story but still has the same amount of units it incentivizes the six-story to be built rather than the five is there anything in here that would incentivize a developer to maximize the amount of units they could produce per level while we're incentivizing building up as well great question you know I think they what we're seeing right now if I understand your question correctly we're seeing the market trying to figure out what size units we need to have in our downtown core so we saw a project come through earlier 420 Mendo that had some very small studio apartments and they did maximize the number of units on that property there is questions about that how many of those do any versus to bedroom for people that want to have a family live in the downtown or a couple or with it with a child so those are things that we're not sure how that's going to play out yet so right now we focused on at going up and adding additional units of any size but we can look at that I don't know if there's if Kevin has any history with other cities in terms of maximizing the number units per floor I would just add that I think the the incentive isn't large enough that a developer is going to reconfigure their entire unit mix the developer is going to determine what the market needs in terms of unit sizes and then size the development according to that so I think I think the incentive still accomplishes those both both those goals of more units and greater height because because the units are essentially fixed I don't think there's going to be as much gaming the system in that way at least we haven't seen that in other areas that have adopted incentives thank you but I think to that end when we do a review of this down the road I think the per square foot might also help us to sort of answer that question really just want to say thank you to staff for working on this and for continuing to be creative about ways we can get development downtown council other questions councilmember tidbits thank you vice mayor director Geun or I should say assistant city manager Geun what is the interest rate that you mentioned on the fee deferral program I don't know if you know that yet or not or if it's to be determined but I was just curious oh okay thank you the second question I had is do we know what the in lieu fee for affordable housing is per by door yes and so it's a $1 per square foot up to 912 909 close 909 square feet and then it then it ratchets it up and so then it has steps that go quite a bit higher after you get over 909 feet okay so is the I'm looking at your affordable housing incentives in hopes that this will actually generate more in mixed income developments I know that that is really difficult to attain yeah so just hearing how you levy the in lieu fee will it will this be less than the in lieu fee and hope hopefully encouraging more mixed income developments for it sounds like it's still higher yeah people that are putting affordable units in this isn't gonna this will help I think encourage more conversations about that look at it because essentially what it does is it applies to the whole building so if you were to do the those units you get benefit for the whole building so people really have to look at those numbers and make some decisions but what we're hoping to do is make people stop pause and run those numbers to see if they can pull it off and to build those units but it's you know I think that it's not a one-for-one so the incentive you get it just really depends on how tall you go for your for your building so it's every project's gonna be unique from that standpoint okay well I just I'll get my comment out of the way for later if that's all right I just want to tell you I enthusiastically support what you've created here and thank you so much when in the last two years I really heard two things from the building community trying to help us with the housing crisis and that is time and cost predictability but also fees and in particular I think this is really emblematic of how well you and your department are out there listening to people and the other one that I heard a lot about was feed deferrals and not just deferment until you've built the thing but until it's been occupied the residents have taken out mortgages and actually put that money in the builder's account so really thank you for for doing that and being so attentive to the community's needs thank you council member sweat out thank you but when would these make an assumptions passes when one of these few reductions start if you put it in the context excuse me many of us up here in the chamber know some projects that are in the pipeline specific with a smart property and we've got exclusive negotiating agreement when would the fees start what impact would it have on those two projects or even the 420 medicina that we've heard a couple of times that's somewhere in this pipeline but what would impact would this have on those two projects yes so they their resolution so they would go into effect tomorrow right I mean immediately tonight the we have been reaching out to all active developments essentially kicking the tires on the policy what does it do run run them through this to see how does it change I think everyone is just waiting to see if there's something the council wants to support but it does have an impact on those projects that's the smart site the press America site the 420 Mendo all projects that are looking downtown right now are taking a look at this and so it would affect them and there's still time to have those conversations and are there other projects it seems like we've dealt with this in the past that let's say four months ago they broke ground is there any going back to support some of those projects or it's only from tonight on forward and this is from tonight on this is the way the ordinances the resolutions are written but I don't know of any housing in the downtown that's broken ground that would come in here I think this is that's the problem that we haven't seen any so I don't anticipate that happening but I it's a good point and something that will keep an eye on and then you mentioned a couple of times this is the intent of this and so you know I'm kind of in how we're going to measure our success and I know ultimately five years from now it'll be the seven persons who are up here but his staff talked about that okay by doing this we're hoping we're going to get 3400 units yeah I think that that's go if we can if we can start to get towards our what our specific plan is our specific plan update is going through over the next eight to eight to nine months we'll be looking at that number is the 34 the right number or is it something we need to adjust and so as that comes out whatever comes out of that update the specific plan that's going to be our goal we're going to target that number and try to realize what the community and the council wants to see in the downtown so we'll track that I'm similar to what we're doing with ad use sent a chart around a little while ago so the policies of the council put into place we saw immediate effect of the number of ad use built in Santa Rosa so we're going to keep tracking that and as there's a policy later tonight to talk about ad use we'll track when that policy went into place and what the reaction was and what that does to the housing stock so we're going to continue to track those numbers and we'll we can report out on that thank you thank you very much for this is what an exciting time I really look forward to seeing some multi-story buildings with the 3400 more need more units coming so thank you for bringing this forward to us can you tell me a little bit about the outreach that you did as you move this forward I understand that you're talking a lot with folks who are interested in developing have you been talking also with the historic neighborhoods that surround our downtown just can you let me know what kind of outreach has gone on with this yeah so it's pretty much every talk I give I talk about these types of elements essentially the puzzle pieces and what we're working on talk to a lot of public groups below can I know the number of meetings I talk at but one of the things that I'm very clear about those these these fees are for just the planets already in place the current specific plan has been adopted with the protection for the neighborhoods in terms of the stepping the stair step to five to seven to ten this does not change that at all and this just helps realize what we put in place in the plan that's adopted by the public as we move forward in the specific plan update that's going to be a very key discussion that the edges is probably the number one issue we have to address as we update specific plan how do we interact with the historic neighborhoods both from a parking standpoint from a height from a visual that's a primary purpose for us to move that forward I was to have that conversation but these fees will just follow along and support anything that the any plan that's in place so good I have another one and I'm trying to find it I'm gonna ask you to come back to me because I've seemed to have turned the page not a problem council members all right we'll go on to public comment and we'll come back to you council member comes Dwayne DeWitt followed by mr. Korea hello my name is Dwayne DeWitt I'm from the Sonoma County Housing Advocacy Group I wanted to thank the staff for adopting some of the recommendations we've made for close to 20 years I have with me tonight general plan Santa Rosa 2020 published in June 2002 at that time housing advocacy group have been advocating for very high density zoning it hasn't been put in yet and I'm hoping that you'll go with a stipulation that very high density is going to be allowable and that there's no upper limit on how many units somebody wants to put in if they want to pay for it they should be able to get it I really believe that what's really important though is that you clarify and verify that you request the affordable units be built first and that there are any violations of the contract that is signed there'd be punishment in a sense not just incentives and the punishment be sure swift and harsh I say this because back at the turn of the century there was a developer that came down here and he was able to get a project through saying that he was going to make sure there was multi-family apartments affordable housing built in his development out in southwest Santa Rosa called Bellevue Ranch it didn't occur it was sloughed off onto the taxpayers and that person laughed all the way to the bank so we need to have you folks be looking to watch out for us I would suggest that you end the in Luffy altogether and make sure that all the affordable housing is required to be built in the project on site then you get it done and you know it's been done with that in mind once these nice units are built people will need their parks please don't cut the park impact fee right now the park impact fee goes into a big pot and it's used anywhere in the city because I've asked to have the park impact fees for Southwest Santa Rosa just be used over there but when you ended the Southwest area impact fees that didn't get allowed so essentially right now it's going to be harder for those places that are under parked to have parks and this new project here is essentially going to make it even more difficult to get parks so I'm sure that that small little amount of money is not going to be a deal breaker for someone that comes in and talks about a multi-million dollar development last but not least I would hope you put up the map of downtown again and look that it reaches over into Roseland to Roberts Avenue and you folks should be looking at that right now as an opportunity site and working with the county which has gotten funding from the US EPA to do Brown Fields redevelopment and to help there along Roberts Avenue that's a big opportunity last but not least the residential units that you have used in commercial and that get those back into residential units for free thank you thank you so much mr. DeWitt mr. Carrillo followed by Peter Rumble great thank you I'm distracting mayor members of the council it's really unfortunate that more Santa Rosas aren't here this evening because I think they would really be proud of the city council's efforts to address the crises that we have here on housing I you know staff has done a tremendous job of navigating the challenges of providing the tools and policies for the council to ensure that we can look at what the major factors that drive good housing development we know that time certainty and cost are major drivers of good housing development and not one of these aspects can either make or break a project but when combined together suitably they can have a significant impact on how housing good housing development can occur in our community we can begin to start making the incremental progress to determine and support what the city has already identified through your housing action plan to be housing positive it's exciting to see all the factors in play for downtown I think when you talk to seniors when you talk to young workers young professionals they're excited about the opportunities to live in the downtown core what you also see is a desire and the recognition that restaurants and shops will do well when we can have people that live near them as well so the the the cross dynamic here I think couldn't be any better to move policies like these to help not only streamline but to help inspire development that has otherwise been dormant or has been in a standstill rising rents prices together with low housing production have contributed to the severe housing shortage that we are experiencing not only for working people for low-income families but for many members of this community and I do believe that the incentives that are being proposed by staff to the council today can assist once again in inspiring development that has otherwise been dormant get off the ground in this existing markets and we know that jobs will be generated as well in providing healthy contributors and providing community benefits so would encourage the council to continue to be bold in your perspectives as to provide an avenue to where good housing development can occur in a downtown core thank you thank you sir mr. Rumble followed by Thomas L's good evening Council Peter Rumble from the Santa Rosa Metro Chamber I couldn't have said it better than mr. Carrillo so I'll try to keep it short I do want to start first by thanking David and his team his entire team I don't think that we could have asked for a better partner in realizing your council's priorities and encouraging development and economic development downtown so I want to make sure that they hear the kudos staff rarely do so so thank you as your staff pointed out there's no single solution this is a big puzzle piece and having said that though there's no puzzle piece that fits together without this kind of financial reform and for the financial reform that I see is the development impact fee work other financial incentives for affordable housing as well as a yes vote on the housing bond measure and and coupled together again this puzzle works together to get what we need we know from the development community that a dollar either way can make a project pencil out and we know that they simply don't right now downtown and so again moving forward with something like this makes all the sense in the world and I truly commit every resource that we have as a chamber to help bring the business community to encourage and be a partner with your council with the city and far from a giveaway to Mr. Carrillo's point this kind of financial incentive for development particularly in the downtown area provides more affordable housing for our families to have dollars in their pocket to spend in our shops and our stores and our restaurants has a greater impact positive impact through our tax revenue and just a greater economic activity downtown a more vibrant downtown downtown where people want to come and want to visit drive tourism as well as our local economy so I very much encourage you to move forward as is and don't don't meddle with a very good recommendation thank you thank you sir mr. Ells hi thank you council and to the staff for developing these programs that have been a long time in coming and recommended certainly I believe before 2000 and incorporated at that time in 2000 if we look back we can remember Kathleen Cain said that 80% of Sonoma Countyans pay more than 50% for their housing and transportation so this is hopefully will reduce that a little bit in this area affordable by design ends up can be a problem in that you have there with fairly significant rents and there's no cap on that so affordability within their affordability in terms of of actual covenants and and contracts is very important there's another way to look at that would be to encourage other types of housing ownership some of those are cooperative housing intentional housing and mutual housing so they're different forms and and if we could encourage that then you have actual single-family ownership within the type of housing stock that you have it's just a different type of building and it's very important in terms of of ongoing relationships in the community that the people have a stake because if they're just renters in these places the the actual building owner of apartment type complexes really actually pays all the taxes claims all the representation and and disenfranchises those people whether they're whether they're minorities or low-income or seniors they're going to be disenfranchised looking at other ways to actually own those properties then changes that they have a stake they vote they're they're involved in the community it's very important the other thing I would say is what happened in 2000 with the development of the housing that was here instead of senior housing ended up dealing with all kinds of other housing and there were not jobs developed associated with those and then there were the oh let's still build the houses and we'll have we'll have no income loans for those they don't have to have income to those Phantom loans and everything like that sure build the houses and then we'll just sell them the house and the loan who cares about it we need to have jobs that needs to be work so it's not just about restaurant jobs and other kinds of we need to really consider along with downtown housing or what are the kind of jobs that we can encourage here where people those people that live there can have really you know decent jobs to be able to live here one way to do that again is to have seniors and then you can have seniors with all kinds of amenities that that they need whether that's hospitals or every other kind of thing but essentially you have to be able to have the senior share and and the jobs thank you thank you sir I'm gonna bring it back to the council and I believe council member combs might have found rather a question thank you Chris yeah actually the question was real I have to then the question was related to we're looking at possibly stimulating 3400 units I understand that there's a scale or a table for determining how many of those units would be affordable I know we need about 40% of our housing units to be affordable what are we looking at here are we looking at maybe upwards of 15% affordability from this number I think that would be ideal having at least 15% I think what we're looking at right now is kick starting a housing development I'd want her to have to get something going prove it out yeah it's an interesting yeah it's an interesting situation where without any housing the lenders and everyone's a little skeptical of going forward so right now what we're trying to do is get something going and then as we start to get something over gonna we'll see more creative uses than the good thing is we do have city property downtown and as we look at developing city property the city council has control over the levels of affordability on those properties and so that's a conversation that we're gonna have that will help us bring affordable into the downtown one way or the other as we look at private development we'll be working with them through these different programs and other funding sources to try to encourage them to build on site I would like to just comment in support of the vice mayor's comments regarding concern about square foot versus per unit just because we want to make sure that we are discouraging someone who wants to build a lot of small units because we do have students we do have seniors who may not need the larger units I don't want to discourage large units either because we have families who will want to be moving in but looking at it the square foot model I will be very interested in following that as as it goes forward and I have one slightly off the wall question here maybe more literally about the wall as we densify downtown will we need to switch what method of construction is being used in our downtown area and would we be working with the fire department with regard to making sure that we have for example not with frame construction downtown because of the density of the downtown area so we will be working with our chief and official who's here tonight Jesse Oswald and the fire department looking at this we do have a internal staff task team of all departments when we're for downtown housing so these are the conversations that we have in terms of infrastructure I'm talking about how do we connect to 101 how do we deal with fire issues height all those all those elements you're bringing up those are things that we're going to be talking about on a regular basis as our downtown housing task force and that's when I'll put on the list to make sure we address okay and I want to thank you again for showing me how they need as it is as opposed to how much we're actually building and appreciate this as a solution it's it's one of the three P's we have to have production of housing and if we don't stimulate production of housing it's almost impossible to do housing first it's almost impossible to do tenant protections and to preserve existing affordability and I really thank you for for bringing this piece of the three of the puzzles forward so thanks very much thank you councilmember tidbits thank you vice mayor director you and quick question on page 20 of the presentation it says that it's in the downtown a minimum of four stories with three floors dedicated to housing for the feed-for-all program but when I looked at the resolution it says and I'll read it looks like they're not yeah this I apologize this this slide did not get updated so the resolution is correct on this story two stories correct yeah great thank you thank you and councilmember I believe you have this item so if you'd like to put a motion on the table for us to discuss and then get comments from council members that'd be great happily okay I move a resolution of the council of the city of Santa Rosa establishing payment options for water and wastewater demand fees for high-density residential within the downtown specific plan area and waive further reading of the text and I do believe we'll we'll go through all three of these motions but I'll take comments now and I wanted to start by actually just asking you to move forward a couple of slides in the presentation so I actually really liked this logo that was on here I think it's a nice reminder of what this council is trying to do turning downtown into uptown here in Santa Rosa I just really wanted to echo some of the sentiments that were made in public comment this has been a really creative approach across the board for the last two years from staff who continue to go out and meet with jurisdictions to see what are they doing that's working and meeting with developers and figuring out what's not working and bringing us back tangible viable solutions that we get to implement from up here so I just really wanted to say just a heartfelt thank you to everybody for the work that you've done on this and continue to do on this councilmember Sawyer thank you mr. Vice Mayor well although I didn't know that I would be sitting in this seat when I think back 30 years ago I am feel very privileged to be sitting here being able to support what I know this virtually the entire organization has come together to provide to bring this forward to the council I am ecstatic that this is before us tonight I've been waiting for decades to be able to support this kind of proposal it will be a game-changer I am a little surprised that the community isn't that there aren't more community members here but I will fully expect them to be at the groundbreaking of the first major project that comes before the city so I thank the council for its support over over these months for the work that's being done in the planning department and again I feel very privileged to be here tonight because I believe that this will begin the change in the downtown that is so necessary on so many levels it's very exciting and I would like a t-shirt that has that emblem on it but I think I like the color palette on slide 4 so just just saying thank you yeah what else can be said this is an exciting time and thank you to all the staff and yes council support who would have thought that we'd be actually moving up and I think things these are things that we probably dreamt about years ago but they are real reality today I guess we can say that things are looking out for us all around and I think this is a good thing so thank you council members what else mr. vice mayor yeah I just want to applaud the efforts of the entire team you know it's it's the quite frankly the whole 1200 employees of the city employees that have helped this and what I really like is that your department particularly isn't looking at the council goals as just mere suggestions they're actually items of action and it's very much a pretty appreciated by me and I first some comments in the community that we you know we have a housing talking plan to me this is no this is a housing action plan we're actually getting things done and this is so impressive and one of the things that we recently did when we made some comments that go into the time capsules and one of the things that I had some hopes and one of my hopes was some of the decisions that we've made about annexing Rosalind reigning the square that those Santa Rosas in 2068 said those guys got it right there I would like to add this to the list that this effort is that man back in you know 2018 with the struggles they had they got it right by doing these type of things so you're actually doing actions not just talking about it not finding barriers to not do something you're figuring out things to actually do that will make a difference so I applaud all the efforts and very much in support of this council member comes thank you again so we've come out of the silos and I really think that's a key in this particular in this particular proposal several departments had to work together to coordinate for the benefit of the whole and not sort of stay siloed so I really want to appreciate the working together and the coordination and and what may have been difficult in some departments to have this kind of plan come forward that affects so many aspects of ours of our city you know Santa Rosa is nearing 200,000 people we are the fifth largest city in the Bay Area the largest north of San Francisco and when I say that I'm finding that there are many people in Santa Rosa who don't know that yet you know there's a lot of folks for whom we're the fifth largest city in the Bay Area is shocking so we're growing up to add to the to the uptrend here we're definitely growing up if we're gonna have the things that we love about our ag county like urban growth boundaries and green belts and an agricultural element we can't sprawl and the way you stop doing sprawl stop doing 2d growth is that you have to go to 3d growth so we had to we have to go up if we're going to preserve the quality of life in Santa Rosa and in Sonoma County so I really I'm very excited about this and I want to appreciate all of the staff that worked on this and that work in a coordinated way and I agree with councilmember Sawyer I want one of the teachers thanks all right council we have a motion in the second your votes on the first resolution that passes with six eyes I move a resolution of the council the city of Santa Rosa approving the second amendment sorry I got the wrong one here still those sticky notes my apologies 14 points number two of 14.4 resolution of the council of the city of Santa Rosa setting forth the schedule of park fees charge pursuant to chapter 19-70 of the Santa Rosa City Code and amending resolution number 2018-083 establishing a residential project incentive program to increase high density development and affordable housing downtown and requiring that 100% of the park fee revenue be spent within the downtown station area specific plan and the general plan downtown core boundary for the creation expansion and or enhancement of parks and recreation facilities and waive for the reading of the text second that passes with six eyes I move a resolution of the council of the city of Santa Rosa setting forth the schedule of capital facilities fees charge pursuant to chapter 21-04 of the Santa Rosa City Code and amending resolution number 2018-082 establishing a residential project incentive program to increase high density development and affordable housing downtown and waive for the reading of the text second we forgot a council member swear let's do that again almost got there I think that was well council member swear we'll pass with six eyes as well thank you so much we'll move on mr. you and we'll move on to item 15.1 council member comes over here setting a bad example for public comment okay I next item 15.1 is a public hearing accessory dwelling unit utility connection fees and presenting is Jessica Jones supervising planner good evening vice mayor Rogers and members of the council the item before you is a zoning code text amendment to address the accessory dwelling unit section of the code specifically related to utility connection fees the proposal is to add language to that section to no longer require utility connection fees for small ad use or accessory dwelling units of 750 square feet or smaller so a bit of background as you will all remember in October of 2016 the council adopted the housing action plan included in that document is direction to achieve affordability by design with the goal of reducing barriers to second dwelling unit construction then in June of 17 and February of 18 the council adopted its top priorities which included housing for all and in December of this year the council adopted the amendments to the zoning code related to accessory dwelling units which included fee reductions those amendments to the accessory dwelling unit section were to address changes to state law and also to ease regulation for the construction of smaller units as directed by the housing action plan the few reductions that were included as part of that process were to the capital facilities fees parks and southeast and southwest area impact fees so the proposal this evening is as I mentioned to add language to the ordinance to no longer require water and wastewater connection fees for small ad use of 750 square feet or less one note of clarification is that the code already does address internal conversions of accessory dwelling units they do not require a connection fee but it does not address new detached units so this would incentivize those smaller units and the potential fee reduction would be approximately 7300 dollars so notification of this process was put in the press democrat was also emailed to the community advisory board as well as the public excuse me the board of public utilities and was posted at City Hall the adoption of the proposed ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as it would implement the government code sections that relate to accessory dwelling units as you're well aware zoning code amendments typically go before the planning commission prior to coming to city council for recommendation to the council however because the commission does not have any authority to take action on city fees it was determined that review and recommendation by the planning commission was not required the other thing I want to mention is that the board of public utilities also typically sees these types of fee changes related to water and sewer we did take this item to the BPU last week as a staff report or staff briefing they identified two items that they wanted the council to be aware of one was a concern regarding reducing fees if there was no requirement that that unit actually be rented out and then they also wanted to ensure that the council understood the fee reduction which is the 7300 dollars that I mentioned so with that the planning and economic development department is recommending that the council adopt the proposed ordinance change and I am here to answer questions and we also have staff members from the water department here as well thank you miss Jones council are there any questions on this item council member comes sorry thank you I have I have three questions one is how do you tell an ad you from a duplex so if somebody were to propose building a house with an ad you they would get this break but if they come forward and say they want to build a duplex they don't get this break so accessory dwelling units have specific requirements in the zoning code and they've have I'd have to pull it up to to get the specifics but there are there are definitely differentiations between accessory dwelling units and a duplex okay so it could be made clear in some way that an accessory dwelling unit is always built after the other houses built or you do have to one requirement is that you do have to have a existing or building at the same time a single family dwelling in order to have an accessory dwelling unit so you could build at the same time and if you crafted your structure such that it met the requirements of an ad you it would be considered an ad you and could be eligible for for this program so I will be interested in seeing what that does to the construction of duplexes the the other question I have and this may be related is why did we pick 750 square feet and not say a thousand so 750 square feet was identified by the Planning Commission when the first round of amendments were coming through as kind of an affordable by design and so the the fee structure that was developed for the reduction in parks and CFF fees was also based on that so if you have a unit of 750 square feet or less you don't pay any fees and then the fees go up as the unit gets larger okay and can you just refresh my memory on how large an ad you can be 1200 square feet 100 okay thank you and in our community we have a lot of interest in water saving and water conservation is there a mechanism to let the individuals who are in the ad you know how much they're using water without having metering I'll have to defer to our water staff for that question is there maybe a sub meter system or some some mechanism that we can help them know how much water they're using separate from the main house the way to measure water use is a water meter while a water meter would not be required for a unit of 750 square feet or smaller now under this ordinance it still is permitted but there are additional costs associated with that Miss Unino could address that actually so would you just pay for having a meter as opposed to the hookup fees you could choose you could choose to have them a separate meter if you choose to do that but you don't have to it's not a requirement right but there'll be there'll be opportunity as well especially with the new metering system that we have to make sure that we're watching for wasteful use or very high use or leaks and then the way construction is done now they'd be able to determine if the leak was coming from the ad you or if the leak was coming from the main house you can use shutoff valves to determine if it's actually irrigation use where the problems are and so we will still be just as active as we are now in our water use efficiency wonderful thank you very much and again thank you for bringing this forward I'm really excited we already have had a blossoming of 80 use it'll be interesting to see how many more grow now thanks so I received two questions from the community and I don't think we can actually have a substantial debate on the policy of it today but one in particular was about the covered parking requirement for 80 use have we do we have an opportunity to talk about that in the future in the future you'll have an opportunity to talk about that yes and how about also the VRBO shared economy conversation around 80 use as well yes you could have an opportunity to speak of that in the future as well but neither are on the agenda for tonight that's sort of what I figured we'll go to public comment mr. DeWitt followed by Charles Metz thank you sir my name is Dwayne DeWitt I'm from Roseland I support this and I'm glad you're going to do it I wanted you to have a bit of a historical outlook many of the people in my generation grew up in homes that were 750 to 900 square feet that's the size of a full house back in the day so it's great to hear that those are accessory dwellings now it's interesting that we're doing well enough that we can say okay we don't have to charge for those fees and I want us to keep that in mind that now that we're setting this precedent we could be doing something along the lines of saying well units that are 750 feet 900 square feet that are affordable should always be able to get these kinds of waivers of these fees all throughout the city not just on somebody else's parcel thank you very much for your time thank you mr. DeWitt mr. Metz followed by Alima Silverman thank you for that my name is Charles Metz I live in Santa Rosa and thank you for the clarification that short term rentals will not be discussed tonight but I do want to express my approval for the deduction of accessory dwelling unit utility fees and I believe that reducing fees will help more middle-income and lower-income families be able to afford to build an ADU or JADU on their property I also believe that long-term use as well as short-term your use of rental use of ADUs and JADUs are also important to our community as well right now wineries in our community are ready to harvest their grapes and many Vittner students from all over the country are looking for inexpensive dwellings where they can stay on a short-term basis so they can do their internship the majority of them look to sites like home sharing place home sharing sites to find a guest who can house them which is easy to book and it also has a bathroom and a kitchen so they don't have to go out and eat every night since the city of Santa Rosa currently has a ban on ADUs and JADUs being rented less than 30 days the remaining ones that are allowed to operate are harder and harder to find and it's not only winery students who are seeking temporary housing right now ADUs and JADUs also provide an economic housing option for many more normal short-term situations such as traveling medical professionals doctors nurses x-ray texts which I've had in my home seek lodging for less than 30 days ADUs and JADUs are often less expensive and to equivalent lodging in a hotel and it's easier and less expensive to book an ADU or JADU than to find a temporary apartment during the first fires of last year JADUs and ADUs in Santa Rosa and Sonoma County provided immediate lodging for relief workers firefighters PG&E workers insurance agents as well as providers well as people who provided immediate lodging for individuals who lost their home or shelter after a fire ADU and JADU units offer property owners much more flexibility than how their property is being used the cost of building an ADU or JADU can be offset by allowing it to be used as a short-term rental this allows the middle to low-income family the ability to afford to build an ADU or JADUs family needs change over time an ADU or JADU that was originally built as a short-term rental can be used long-term to house a relative or a family member or meet any other needs the family desires for instant an aging or ill host who might wish to convert an ADU or JADU into a dwelling for a full-time or part-time caregiver or it could be used temporarily by an adult child out of work or attending a college or by one half of a divorced couple the concept that anyone can list a dwelling or a room on a home-sharing site provides a level of equality that anyone has the opportunity to earn extra income no matter who they are since operating ADU or JADU requires extra time and expense from the homeowner thank you thank you sir and I should mention to the public this is a public hearing so we're all just going to collectively pretend for a moment that I opened it to speakers ago we are going to continue mr. else we're going to continue with miss silverman followed by Scott Johnson hello vice mayor and council members my name is Alima Silverman I'm an architect in Santa Rosa and I've been working with the rebuild green coalition which is a group of architects and engineers and others that are helping homeowners rebuild their homes from the fires in a greener way in a more sustainable way not always it's not an option always offered by contractors so anyway I've also been helping people with designing ADUs and being able to expand the housing need in Santa Rosa through the building of ADUs so that's what I'm here to talk about tonight I want to thank all of you the staff David Gurran and others in Jessica Jones in the planning staff for bringing this forward I know I've come to quite a few council meetings talking about this issue and I'm glad that something was able to be done it's another example of the city departments working together and supporting each other and supporting the community so I know that there has been a lot of work on the housing problem in Santa Rosa by the council and by staff and I really appreciate that the housing bond the density increase in the downtown that was brought tonight and several other housing policies that have been adopted we need them all and certainly making it easier for middle income people to build ADUs on their property is one piece of this puzzle to adding more housing so just for a minute to talk about the rebuild green coalition is sponsoring another rebuild green expo this next February where we're going to be offering to both professionals and homeowners information on rebuilding green healthy materials healthy homes all of you are welcome to attend I know already Councilman Tibbets has said that he would attend but it's the invitation is there for everyone we have a website rebuild green expo calm where you can go and get information we'd like to see as many people as possible I also support the gentleman who spoke just before me in terms of ADUs being used for other purposes as we go through life we have different stages of when we have family members come and live with us and it's great to have a place for them thank you thank you miss silverman mr. Johnson good evening Council members and vice mayor I wanted to my name is Scott Johnson and I am the member of urban community partnership some of you may remember from several years back as well as a developer of small units things like ADUs and I wanted to applaud both the council and city staff for what you guys are doing here tonight with these sort of this trifecta of things you're trying to pass tonight because as you've seen historically you know we need a lot more housing and we need a lot different housing than we've managed to get built in the last 15-20 years I think the downtown is a primary example of wanting to have 3400 units and getting a hundred ADU is another example where there have been desires for more ADUs to be built and they just haven't gotten gotten built the city only has certain levers to help encourage these things and one of the three things I think the city can really do in helping these is reducing the uncertainty of the process reducing the time from proposal of the project to completion of the project and reducing the cost and these things tonight all about reducing the cost and I think that's to be applauded particularly with ADUs my experience that the people who want to build ADUs are not seeking profit they're not like a large developer they are cost sensitive and so reducing costs for them it makes for some people who couldn't make it pencil for themselves because they're taking a loan out on their on their main house reducing the fees by several thousand dollars might make the difference between doing it or not doing it so I just wanted to support this this amendment and then the downtown density and thank you guys for doing a fantastic job thank you thank you sir is there anybody else would like to speak mr. else forgive me yes I just had a thought that you know councilman combs was talking about how to look at these duplex and I thought about the previous measure where I said cooperative housing essential housing mutual housing if you have a different housing ownership structure within the same kind of physical structure that you're talking about you could have two separate demise units next to each other which would appear from the outside like a duplex or it could be reconfigured as the city attorney said to look like an ADU so you could have a private unit through a cooperative or other type of intention housing adjacent to it could be owned by them an ADU you would have two units right there at the fee of one reducing all the fees for I'm giving away these brilliant ideas and reforming and I would hope that that you could actually entertain those I don't know if in the process of the ADUs this is a separate thought that in the process of doing an ADU maybe this gentleman's mentioning about the difficulty of creating these is that it's possible that there could be a tax reassessment I don't know if that's been looked at or anyone has talked about that if someone adds an ADU do in fact trigger a tax property tax reassessment of the property I'm not aware of whether that but it could be a prohibition and if it and if it doesn't trigger it then maybe effective marketing and communication could overcome that barrier thank you sir I'm going to sing no other individuals rise for public comment I'll close the public hearing bring it back to the council council member combs I believe you have this item let's get a motion on the table this is an ordinance of the I move an ordinance of the council of the city of Santa Rosa amending title 20 of the Santa Rosa City code section 20 dash 42 point 130 D 3 B utility connection fees to no longer require new or separate utility connection or related connection fee or capacity charge for accessory dwelling units that are 750 square feet or smaller and wait for the reading council are there any questions if you can some council members quite a millisecond are there any questions council member quick comment I wanted to just thank the water department particularly director Horenstein for his willingness to to move this forward and with something that has been discussed for a long long time and only until now if we've been able to get it done so particular thanks to him anyone else right your votes council that will pass with six eyes item 15.2 item 15.2 is a public hearing temporary housing development impact fees just Jessica Jones supervising planner will present this item as soon as I can get the slide of while we wait I can ask council member Oliver to make more puns about building up I hope I know I'm kind of curious what the what your department's going to be doing you know that you've done all this work and you're kind of finished now what else are you gonna do good job all in one night too okay thank you for your patience so this next item before you is another zoning code text amendment addressing fees this one in particular is addressing impact fees in section 20-16 which is the new resilient city development measures chapter that the council recently adopted this particular text amendment would address waving of capital facilities housing and parks impact fees for temporary housing so just a quick reminder back in April of this year the council adopted the resilient city development measures chapter and specifically at that meeting the council adopted sections 010 through 050 which were related to temporary housing temporary structures and accessory dwelling units following that meeting in May of this year the council adopted the remaining sections of that chapter which were related to reduced review authority so the temporary housing section as currently written addresses waiver of water and wastewater connection and demand fees but does not address any of our other impact fees so the city has recently received our first application for a multi-unit temporary housing project under this ordinance so 14 unit temporary housing project the capital facilities and parks impact fees for that project are estimated at about $162,000 because the temporary housing is is what it is temporary housing it is intended to be there for a temporary period up to five years per our current code but it is required to be removed after that time it was determined that omitting a waiver of these fees was an oversight and should be included to similar to the waiver of the wastewater and water fees so the proposal that's before you again is to waive those impact fees that I mentioned for temporary housing and we would also ask that language be included that requires an agreement from the property owner to assure termination of the use at the expiration of the temporary use permit and that is similar to the language is also in the code for the water and wastewater fees so as far as notification is concerned again we noticed the meeting in the press democrat we sent an email to the community advisory board to notify them of the change the notice was posted at City Hall and then we also placed the notice on the resilient City Development Measures website so this ordinance proposal is also exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act this one exempt is exempt pursuant to the common sense exemption in CEQA as well as an exemption related to the establishment of rates tolls fares and other types of fees charged by public agencies so similar to the last item this item typically would go before the Planning Commission for recommendation to the Council but again because it is related to fees only it was determined that I would not need review by the Planning Commission so without the Planning and Economic Development Department is recommending that the Council introduce the ordinance adding the language identified and be happy to answer any questions that you may have thank you miss Jones are there any questions council member comes thank you for bringing this forward I hear that this is temporary that temporary is five years what are the provisions for an extension of temporary there are no provisions for an extension and if residents or an occupation if it stays there longer than five years what happens so as again similar to the way that the language is set for the water and wastewater fees there's a requirement that they sign an agreement with the city and so we're working with the city attorney's office to develop that agreement and so I don't know maybe the city attorney could expand on what the consequences are to failing to do so but they would have that agreement in place sometimes temporary becomes more permanent than we would like yes what is contemplated is that the structures would have to be removed from the property from the site after five years if the property if those structures could be made legal permanent structures there'll be a path for for folks to do that okay but if it's inconsistent with the zoning as a permanent structure then the those structures would have to be removed if there is a legal path toward permanence would these fees come into effect at that yes yes thank you open the public hearing yeah mr. DeWitt followed by mr. Johnson hello my name is Dwayne DeWitt I'm from Roseland I wanted to ask you folks to look into something that's probably been overlooked at this point back in 2005 the state issued the future of infill housing in California and they have a website that is a infill parcel locator anywhere in the state of California it basically identifies sites both vacant and economically underutilized sites based on analysis of county assessors parcel data and I think we should be looking at where you could put temporary housing as soon as possible and it should be something that is a part of the job description right now in the city under this whole resiliency situation it's like great to wait for a developer to come forward and say hey I got this idea but we could be having our staff looking at the available vacant lots and parcels within not just the downtown but within a half mile to a mile radius of the railroad square train station and the transit mall we could be taking care of things in a more expeditious manner just by utilizing something that already exists was put together by the University of California for the state of California's business transportation and housing agency has existed good things are out there we just need to begin to put them to use I support this I'm glad you're doing it and let's just hey let's make housing happen everywhere and once again keep in mind we could utilize those residences that already exist already your zone already ready and say hey they don't have to be a business let's get people living in there thank you very much for your time thank you sir mr. Johnson council members and vice mayor again in addition to building ad use I also have been working with home for Sonoma who have been working on temporary housing for fire survivors and as we sit here almost exactly a year after the fires the need for housing for has has continued has not gone away many people have found sort of temporary positions with family members or have you know rented places or have money coming from FEMA or insurance but that money is going to run out we've been told that in April and then again next October the funds available for their temporary housing their hotel rooms will be gone and so we'll see another wave of people who have managed to survive this long in Sonoma County after the terrible fires but won't have anywhere else to go because the rebuild will know will not be done at that stage temporary housing is a challenge because it's challenge for the cities because there's the fear that it will become permanent where it wasn't planned to become permanent but it's also challenged because it's expensive to place largely because of the infrastructure in different jurisdictions it often has to be under grounded and putting you know five or fourteen or or three units on a small parcel requires a lot of electricity and a lot of water and sewer lines and that's a lot of money and these units are all being placed and built typically by donations from individuals and from organizations and so reducing these costs and making it easier and faster to get this temporary housing out before the money runs out for the for the fire survivors is critical and so I want to thank staff and I want to thank you for considering this tonight thank you sir is there anybody else would like to speak I will close the public hearing bring it back to the council any additional questions mr. Schwadel thank you mr. vice mayor moving ordinance of the council of the city of Santa Rosa amending title 20 of the Santa Rosa city code adding section 20-16.030 e to chapter 20-16 resilient city development measures to address waiving of capital facilities housing and parks impact fees for temporary housing file number REZ 18-008 and wait for the reading the text second and your votes council that passes with six eyes there are no written communications do we have any additional cards for public comment again as a reminder we will be closing the meeting tonight in honor of Helen Rudy and with that we are adjourned