 quienes desean escuchar en español pueden pasar al canal de español para cambiar canales. Deberían hacer clic en el icono de interpretación en la barra de herramientas de zoom. Parece un globo terráqueo ya que se se unan al canal de español. Recomendamos que apague en su micrófono para poder escuchar la interpretación claramente. Again, for those of you just joining the meeting, my translation in Spanish is available and members wishing to listen to Spanish can join Spanish channel by clicking on the interpreter icon on your zoom toolbar. It looks like a globe. Once you join the Spanish channel, we recommend you shut off the main audio so you only hear the Spanish translation. Nuevamente para los recientes llegados a la reunión, la interpretación en español está disponible y las personas quienes desean escuchar en español pueden pasar al canal de español para cambiar canales. Hagan clic en el icono de interpretación en la barra de herramientas de zoom. Parece un globo terráqueo ya que se unan al canal de español. Recomendamos que apague en su micrófono para poder escuchar la interpretación claramente. All right, ma'am city clerk, I'm seeing a quorum. Can we go ahead and call the meeting to order and call the roll? Councilmember Tibbets, councilmember Schwaetham. Here. Councilmember Sawyer. Here. Councilmember Fleming. Here. Councilmember Alvarez. Vice Mayor Rogers. Mayor Rogers. Here. Councilmember Tibbets, have you joined us? Okay, let the record show that all councilmembers are present with the exception of councilmember Tibbets. Great, thank you so much, Stephanie. So, council, in accordance with our new sunshine ordinance that we passed a couple of months ago, when there are high interest items that are on the council agenda, we will be providing interpretation services going forward tonight. You'll see that we do have interpretation available in Spanish for today's meeting. Dina or Stephanie, do either of you want to explain how the public can utilize this interpretation services or how it's going to work for the remainder of the meeting. Thank you, mayor. We'll do as you can see by your zoom screen, there's an interpretation feature or an interpretation button at the bottom of your screen or on your toolbar. If you wish to participate in Spanish, you can click on that button and listen to the meeting with interpreters working in tandem to interpret the meeting live during public comment. We ask those wish listening listening from the Spanish channel, but wishing to make a public comment to turn off or leave the interpretation entirely at the time you hear your name called so you can join the main channel so we can hear your comment in Spanish and we will have an interpreter available to assist you if you wish to make a public comment and Stephanie will go through the rest of public comment and what that will look like tonight. Mayor, do you want me to do that now under housekeeping or do you? Yeah, let's go ahead. Just as a quick reminder for council members, we do have our typical housekeeping rules. Keep your audio on mute unless you are speaking members from the public that are joining our meeting tonight will also be able to participate, but their microphones and cameras will be muted and turned off unless unless they are asked to speak. Panelists for today's meeting will be viewable from the public. If you're calling in with your telephone number and choose to speak during the public comments portion of today's agenda for privacy concerns, we will have your phone number renamed so that folks can't give you a call back. We are committed at the City of Santa Rosa in creating a safe and inclusive environment free from disruption. We won't tolerate any hate speech or actions and we are going to be perfectly willing to kick people out of the meeting if they violate those rules. We if need to be will end the meeting as well. As I mentioned, we have Spanish language interpretation available for today's meeting. You just heard Dina kind of walk through a little bit how that's going to work. Stephanie, can you talk a little bit about how folks can continue to participate in our zoom environment here for the rest of the meeting as well? Yes, after each agenda item is presented, the mayor will ask for council comments and then open it up for public comment. The host in zoom will be lowering all hands until public comment is open for the agenda item. Once the mayor has called for public comment, the mayor will announce for the public to raise their hand if they wish to speak on the specific agenda item. If you are calling in to listen to the meeting audibly, you can dial star nine to raise your hand. The mayor will then call on the public who have raised their hands. Public comment will be limited to three minutes and a timer will appear on the screen for the council and the public to see. Once all live public comment have been heard, the meeting host will play voicemail public comments. If you provide a live public comment on an agenda item, but also submitted an email e comment or recorded voice message public comment, your email e comment or voice message public comment will not be duplicated, read or play during the meeting. Additionally, there are two public comment periods on today's agenda to speak on non agenda matters items 13 and 17. This is the time when any person may address the council on matters not listed on this agenda, but which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the council throughout today's agenda when the mayor calls for public comment and interpreter will be prepared to assist anyone needing interpretación. Those using interpreter support will be afforded additional time for your public comment as required by the Brown Act. We ask that those listening on the Spanish channel but wishing to make a public comment to turn off leave interpretation entirely at the time you hear your name called so you can join the main channel to make your public comment heard and translated into English. This icon may now look like a circle with an e s in the middle and the word Spanish underneath. You can then rejoin the Spanish channel at the conclusion of your comment to continue listening to the meeting in Spanish. Great. Thank you so much, Stephanie. So we did not have any closed session items for today's agenda. So let's go ahead and jump right into our study sessions here. Item 3.1 Mr. City Manager. Item 3.1 wildfire preparedness mitigation and resiliency projects proposed uses of PG&E settlement funds. Turn it over to Interim Fire Chief Scott Westroom. Thank you, City Manager. Good afternoon, Mayor Rogers, Vice Mayor Rogers and members of the City Council. Scott Westrop Interim Fire Chief with Fire Department. And with me today is Assistant City Manager Jason Knutt and Deputy Director of Finance Alan Alton. Next slide, please. So this is a follow-up study session to the study session that we brought to you on December 15th in 2020. Finance TPW and the Fire Department presented to you a list of unmet needs in relation to one-time funding opportunities for the PG&E settlement funds. These really geared towards the wildfire preparedness mitigation and resiliency of the city. It was a snapshot of one-time expenditures to really show you the monetary cost of the problem that we're facing with wildfires right now. It was a very big number, right around $476 million. And City Council asked that we come back with a prioritized list of projects. And there was no specific goal given, but the number $25 million was thrown around. So we tried to target it around $25 million. So what we've done is the Associated Departments Met and we've developed a prioritized list of projects based on community input, based on the PG&E settlement survey, mitigation impacts, meaning we did a cost-benefit analysis of each one of the projects and implementation timelines, so the immediacy of the impact of the projects. And then obviously we factored in the cost, whether they could be partially or fully funded, and that's based on the parameters of the available funds. Next slide, please. So we're going to go through a project review with cost and implementation timeframe. We're not going to go into great detail of each one of the projects you have seen them before, like I said, on December 15. So we may not go into a bunch of detail. There's one that we'll spend a little bit of time on, obviously, but we prioritize list of seven projects to move forward into the process as we go into a goal setting. Next slide, please. So relocate and rebuild Station 5 as the first project on the priority list, and we're going to spend a little bit of time here because some things have changed. There was two major changes to this project, and this was all within the last week, really within the last five business days or so. The first is the city was denied its second appeal for public assistance funds from public assistance funds from FEMA. So at this point, we are not getting the public assistance funds that we are hoping from from FEMA, but that does not mean that we're giving up. So the city is working with MMO partners to strategize a different way of going about getting those funds. We're hoping the new administration will help in that regard. So we're not giving up on the project with FEMA. We're still pushing forward on the PA funds, but at this point, we did receive that news that we did not our appeal was denied. The other opportunity that's still out there as far as other funding sources goes is the CDBGDR funding from the state of California, which would provide approximately or up to 90% of funding for this project. So we're still on the hunt there. We're still working on that project as well and hoping that that funding source becomes available. The other news that we received is we received the official cost estimate and it came in much higher than anticipated. This is based on a couple factors. The first is the escalating construction costs and design rates between 2018 and 2023. Essentially, when we started this project in 2018, they're now projecting what the cost of the project will be out to 2023 when the project is supposed to be complete. Obviously, with COVID, material costs, labor costs, all of that has changed quite a bit and changed the number that we've been using for some time. There's also been an increase in soft costs. That goes into construction and project management. Again, the escalation estimates, inspection and permits. There's also an approximate $3 million request for contingency in there as well. So that raised the price quite significantly. Also, we've met some engineering and environmental lot challenges with a lot that we're currently an escrow in at the corner of stage coach in Fountain Grove that are adding some costs as well. I think we've really worked through that process well. The project management team has really done a good job at making some modification and changes to the project to make it fit on that lot the best way that it can without impacting the environment. All that being said, the one thing that I want to emphasize to the council is that these numbers are new to us. They're only a few days old. City staff is still trying to absorb it and we're reviewing them very carefully. I would anticipate these numbers could change, but we wanted to be transparent with you in this presentation. That was that was what the last minute change was about the new cost of the project that's in front of us right now. But again, we're working on other funding sources. We're working through these numbers to make sure that that we're getting the best cost benefit for this new fire station. So that said, we're still requesting to replace and relocate Fire Station 5 that was lost during the Tubbs Fire to the corner of Stage Coach Road in Fountain Grove Parkway. Station 5 will restore permanent service to the Fountain Grove area and protect the wildlife of an interface. As you all know, we restored temporary service to Fountain Grove at the old Fire Station 5 at 34 E Parker Hill Road. But this new location will enhance service to the entirety of Fountain Grove and also improve service level to the northern portions of Mendocino Avenue, including the proposed project at 3575 Mendocino, where the old journey's in Mobile Home Park used to be. The property for the new Station 5 is currently in escrow and in the sequel review is underway and a federal funding turns out not turns out to be possible, but it's not certain and if if we're successful in that these funds would be diverted towards other Fire Station projects. So as it stands right now, the project cost is $21 million. Again, subject to change and its under review and we have the potential to break ground in 2022. Again, the project is already underway. Next slide please. So the vegetation management program. This is based on the community wildfire protection plan that was approved by council in septiembre of 2020. The vegetation management program is built off the CWPP and it will develop it develops and implements the vegetation management program. This program focuses on improving evacuation routes, fire wildfire education, community preparedness, structural hardening of the built environment, vegetation treatments and defensible space standards with an increased staff to dedicated to only to the wildfire medication workload. For the five year program of vegetation management program, it's $5.25 million. The program is ready to implement immediately. It's essentially turnkey at this point due to the CWPP being approved and built and of course we just wanted to remind council that they would eat annual progress reports from our fire prevention bureau. Next slide please. Priority three on the priority list is the center as a fire department wildland resiliency and response strategic plan or as we did but we 2.0 where we're examining the risk and threat potential of wildland fires and adjusting our prevention mitigation and operational response components within the organization. So this is a snapshot of the organization. It's it's changing things that we can change without adding stations or without adding personnel to the suppression or operations bureau and so we're looking at six major strategies legislative changes which could be ordinance, statutes, fire code, working with our partners at MMO on state and federal policy, capital enhancements, it's slated to bias two new type three fire engines, two new type six fire engines and some other wildland based apparatus, non capital enhancements such as radios, tool caches, personal protective equipment, etc. Operations, looking at our response matrix, our training, our strategies, tactics and command, staffing. This is not adding additional staffing. This is looking at our current staffing plans and models and figuring out how we can make improvements with the current staff that we have and then community engagement which is really focused on being able to communicate with all members of the community regardless of socioeconomic status, language barriers or access and functional needs. Project cost for this plan is 2.75 million dollars and a majority of these strategies are already in progress. The our team is already working on these with the ability for immediate implementation. The only caveat to that is it takes a while to build fire engines so we probably wouldn't see fire engines unless we can tag on to somebody else's order but they won't likely be in service this fire season but next fire season. Next slide please. Next on the priority list is modernized radio infrastructure. So these are non fire radios. The fire department is part of a JPA with red com obviously so these are all other city radio infrastructure and some background is the new city wide radio infrastructure was installed in 2020 but this requires maintenance software upgrades and the ability to remain reliable for the next nine years. This agreement would supersede the current agreement and expand service to cover all non fire city radios. This provides a seamless system upgrade with minimal interruption to daily operations so this is really increasing the communication capability of the entire city. Project cost is $3 million and implementation will vary by department with the completion in 2023. Next slide please. Evacuation equipment is the next on the list. This is essentially bolstering our supply of evacuation equipment so barricades and message boards would be on a transport trailer. They'd be ready to go out of the msc to facilitate easy deployment rather than needing to rely on rental agencies, contractors, or mutual aid to provide and transport to sites. Barricades include a combination of concrete k-rail, plastic water filled barriers, lit a frame barricades, light towers, message boards in the transport trailer. Project cost is $150,000 and the purchases could begin immediately and we would anticipate that a lot of this can be accomplished before next fire season. Next slide please. Next is to build the hot emergency operations center. Our current EOC is considered cold as you all know. This slide could have been updated and that's my fault for not catching that but we've actually moved the EOC from the utility field office over to the transit operations building in adjacent msc north in anticipation of this happening. Essentially we can leave everything set up. We moved our emergency managers over there so we're in a little bit better place than we were last year. The EOC was activated five times in 2019, five times in 2020, and we've actually already activated the EOC once this year for the atmospheric river that came through in January. So the hot EOC would provide city with a permanent EOC facility located at the transit operations building in adjacent msc north and facilitates emergency management of multiple potential disasters in Santa Rosa, including earthquakes, hazardous material response, chemicals, bills, civil unrest on top of the fires and the PSPS obviously. Project cost is estimated at $550,000. That's $400,000 to convert space in the TOB and msc north buildings and $150,000 for a backup generator and potential seismic retrofits. Depending on when the funding is received for this and if it is received for this we can start immediately on those changes and hopefully have at least well underway before the 2021 fire season. Next slide please. So traffic signalization to aid evacuation choke points. This is to improve evacuations of the wildland urban interface areas. This is a director nuts project so hopefully I don't stumble through it too badly here. But it's the addition of quick connectors importable generators, closed circuit cameras, to key intersection as well as fiber optic interconnect along Fountain Grove Parkway, Farmer's Lane, Sonoma Highway and College Avenue. This allows traffic engineers to assist police and fire to better manage traffic flow and evacuation routes. Essentially they would have the ability to change everything green moving westbound so we can evacuate to the freeway quicker from the east side and things like that. And they would work with a consultant on top of that to develop a flushing plan for all evacuation plans in the Louis area. And what I found out as a flushing plan is actually the plan to move people. It has nothing to do with water flow or anything like that. The closed circuit cameras will allow real time assessment of where resources are needed as far as being able to monitor traffic conditions and evacuation situations. So the project cost is $3.35 million. The fiber optic interconnect closed circuit cameras would be $3.25 million. That's just partial funding of the project. Remember it was much greater for the entire project. Scoping design construction should be completed winter of 2024. And the evacuation route flushing plans partially funded at $100,000 and it could be complete fall of 2022. Next slide please. And one more. Thank you. So to cap this off the prioritized resiliency and infrastructure projects in order here rebuild and relocate Fire Station 5 at $21 million. Again, number subject to change. Comprehensive fire vegetation management program $5.25 million. Wild end resiliency and response strategic plan $2.75 million. Radio infrastructure at $3 million. Evacuation equipment at $150,000. Build a hot emergency operation center at $550,000. And the traffic signalization including fiber and CCTV at $3.3 million for a total of $36 million. Next slide please. So we just wanted to cover real quick. I talked to Deputy Director Alton about this. Just wanted to cover that these other projects that you have seen through the course of the last year they've been presented to you. They're still under consideration for settlement funds. We're not going to go into detail of each one. You've seen them all before, but we just wanted to acknowledge they're still on the on the table as well, including the plans that we just presented to you. So with that, that's last slide and we can switch to the next slide and answer any questions that you may have. Thank you, Mr. Westrop. Council, let's go ahead, go for questions for the interim chief. Councilmember Fleming. Thank you so much for that presentation and the care that you and your team put in to protecting our entire city. Even though fires come in typically from the east, we now know the destructive power and that really nobody is immune to it here. So it's of particular importance to me and my constituents, but not limited therein. So a big hearty thank you. I actually have a question that isn't about fire per se. It's more about the fiber that you brought up and the communications. And so one thing there is that I see that if we are to go forward with fiber, that it could be used not just for the purposes of public safety, but also as a public good. And would there be an opportunity, and perhaps this is more of a question for Mr. Nutt, would there be an opportunity for us to capitalize on those infrastructure opportunities that are usually quite expensive, but would be approached during this? Yes. Thank you very much, Councilmember Fleming. It's certainly something we'd be evaluating as the long term programmatic use of the fiber optic that we would install. Obviously, fiber has a number of different strands associated with it. We wouldn't be utilizing all of the capacity of that just for this program. So there would be residual capacity that we may be able to program elsewhere. We haven't actually studied what the possible options are, how substantial that could be. To some extent, it'll be a function of what we're able to put in the ground. Given the fact that our estimate was about $20 million to do all of the areas that we talked about on all the roads, if we're only really looking at about $3 million, we really trying to expand that as best as we could, which may include utilizing some existing conduit. That existing conduit may end up being some limiting factor. It's a little bit in the weeds, but the bottom line is we would really want to try to not just focus the capacity on our system, but also what it could do for the greater community in the future. Thank you, and I will admit that it is definitely the weeds are above my eyeballs when you start getting into it, but it's something which I'm really, really interested in going forward, not missing the opportunity and making sure that where there is opportunity that it's spread equitably since we're in this information age, and so many of our families and children are really suffering without adequate access to libraries and internet and trying to do all of these things. So I think this could be a win-win, done right. Thank you. ¿Councilmember Sawyer? Thank you, Mayor. I just need a little bit of clarification on the slide 10 with actually the item that council member was just speaking about. The costs, as far as the flushing, is there, because it sounds like a very important part of getting an evacuation would be able to expedite that and it's one of the things that we hear fairly often in emails and phone calls about getting people out of Oakmont, for instance. So it is the, how connected is the closer, or the closer to Canvas to the fiber optic. I mean, is there, I know that the fire trucks can control some of the lights of the fire engines. How much of this is interconnected would have to wait until 2024? So the camera systems, actually the least expensive component of implementing the fiber optic and there are some technologies out there if we're not successful in obtaining funds to do fiber installation that we can deploy cameras. The idea of the cameras is really to help us understand what resource needs are required for a certain location. Utilizing fiber in combination with the CCTV gives us real-time ability to be able to respond, gives us real-time knowledge and situational awareness of what's occurring at a specific location and it allows all of our staff, whether it's police, fire, fields, public works or signal public works, to be able to respond in a way that helps us manage the situation in as close to the time as needed. To ensure that folks are able to get out of a situation in a safe way. So that's where the CCTV cameras come into play and it would be our intention to deploy those as part and parcel with the fiber at this point. I don't know if I answered your whole question. Well, I think pretty close. I'm just wondering, given the importance of being able to move people quickly and being able to control the traffic signals, is there a part of that that could actually be put into place prior to 2024 that does not require as much as this apparently looks like it does? Yes, Council Member, there is. The flushing plan in and of itself is the... We'll give us information about how to establish a timing sequence or the signals out there. It will be a pre-established preset program that we would need to go and implement. Most of the signals we can already interact with remotely, there are some that we have to coordinate with the state, but it would at least give us the opportunity to have a pre-established plan that could be incorporated into the controllers for those signals. The nice thing about the fiber is it gives us more real time. It gives us the ability to be more flexible and more reactionary in a real-time basis as opposed to having a preset program. But to answer your question, yes. We would benefit from having even that component to be able to get that out on the street in coordination with Caltrans so that folks on the east side of town can find their way out to Highway 101 in a more expeditious way, given an evacuation request. Oh, I appreciate that. I'm just looking for compromise and hoping to not let perfection get in the way of the good. So, and then that air go my question because I just wanted how far we could go without the entire project. So, and you've answered that question. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Sweatham. Hey, Mr. Mayor, you have a couple of questions. Chief, you had mentioned that there's some potentials. I think this was slide two when we were talking about the new engine or station. There's some community development block grant, disaster relief funding, potentially still from the state. Is there a timeline on when we would know if we might be successful in obtaining any of that? Oh, again, I would have to defer that defer that question to Assistant City Manager Nutt. He's really been driving the ship on that one. Yeah, the community development block grant notice been tense. The applications have already been submitted. The state is actively reviewing those. They've been submitting questions to provide additional updates and information along the way. It's our expectation that we should be getting some feedback from them by the end of this month or early next month. And hopefully we're successful in our asks. Between the two programs that exist out there, we do believe that a substantial amount of the cost could be covered. We are not able to ask for 100% of the cost based on the criteria that are incorporated within the application or within the project and the applications. But we believe if we're successful around the board, we'd come pretty darn close. Great. Thank you for that. And the chief, you talked about on slide seven, modernizing the radio and infrastructure. And I guess I'm struggling a little bit if we just bought it in 2020, less than a year old and we have to modernize it already. Can you give a little bit more information about that need? As much as I hate to do this, this is actually a TBW project. So I can't icon Scott into into the chief into actually doing the presentation. They figured he'd cover everything. Councilmember, the issue here is police department implemented a revised radio system that and police department's network is integrated into the city wide system. Other departments have not had the opportunity to upgrade their equipment to conform with that new system. So that's really where this comes from. We have the back room and the police department is already ahead of the rest of the city. And so we need to bring the rest of the city up so the communication can continue to operate effectively and efficiently during the course of the disaster. Okay, great. Thank you for that clarification. And then on slide nine, I'm not even going to offer a name who may answer this, but with the emergency operations center is my understanding that the city built that seismically, you know, I've told people it's the safest building in the city of Santa Rosa specifically because it was going to be at one of our emergency operations center. Can you tell me or share with me a little bit of the thoughts as to why wouldn't we maybe just keep the EOC at the utility field office and use the adjoining meeting rooms at the transit building? In other words, flip flop it since I think we've already made the investments of the seismic upgrades at the UFO building. I'll take a crack at it and then see if director and that needs to jump in. But essentially it was an opportunity where we always struggle with the space and the immediacy of the use of the space at the UFO. So it was built for that. It's designed. It's very, very safe. But we're always struggling with even doing trainings and having to move people out of meeting rooms and things like that. So the space became available across the parking lot, again at the TPW facilities. And so the opportunity was to move over there and that's just the place we can build it out and make it a hot EOC. So it really came out of an opportunity as a location to not displace a lot of meetings, not just displace a lot of people and to keep the EOC hot all the time. So it was balancing out what was essentially to get us to that place where we have a hot EOC versus the space that's available. We, councilmember, we can take another look at that. But one of the challenges is the origination of the UFO building and how that was built. So we were utilizing it for emergencies as part of our compact. But it is essentially a building built with rate payer funds. And to occupy that space was going to lead us down some additional conversations about ownership of the building, who originated the building. This, we were good guests as general fund occupants, which is where the emergency work happens. But to set up and permanently take over would require some additional look. But we can go back and do the cost analysis on that. We're happy to do so. But it was about permanency as opposed to temporary. And it's 218 related. So we can go back and do some additional look at that. But that's the reason it was identified to be on the general fund side of that as opposed to be in the rate payer. Obligating the rate payers to pay for something that was primarily a general fund usage. Great. Thank you for that clarification. It's very helpful. Thank you. Yeah, I appreciate that too. That was one of the questions that I had and that's a difficult answer, but one that I think we all understand here. Scott, my question was for you about the vegetation management program. You mentioned that that is ready to go that the moment that we sign off on it, that work can be done. Who is actually going to do that work? So it could only be done by the, the implementation plan be done by the fire prevention bureau. So under Scott Moon with Paul Lowenthal is the lead on that side of the house. But the plan still needs to be developed. So the implementation is we would develop the plan and get to work on it. A lot of things can be accomplished now. There's something like, there's 60 some odd goals and objectives out of the CWPP. So a lot of them could be done even before the plan's written in a higher vegetation management specialist. That's one of the positions that's called out in that plan. So the implementation is the plan could be, the CWPP, would it be implemented? The plan would be developed and the rollout of the work would begin immediately. Yeah, I appreciate that as I've mentioned to you before. My interest in this as well is not just the program but also potentially utilizing the youth conservation core or some other high risk at risk youth that we have through our violence prevention partnership. Some other ability to move folks into this space to help us to do the work and to get the training, the jobs training that they might need for future employment as well. So I'd like to see us look at that, keep that on the agenda long term for discussion. Absolutely, my message has been that nothing's off the table and we're willing to look at anything and everything. Obviously that gets into a deep conversation with the city attorney and things like that. So, but what I've told our team is there's nothing off the table and the best we can do to engage the community and get the community's help in this regard, we will do. And we've, and mayor, we've traditionally utilized those types of resources to complete this subjective. So I don't think that there's going to be any differentiation moving forward. That I believe is part of the plan. We can come back and revisit that topic by providing a more full presentation where we're trying to get this particular initiative underway, but those are the types of resources that we will have to utilize to keep the plan moving forward. Okay, great. Thank you so much. And in regard to how this is structured, I hope that the CDBGDR funds come through for the cost of the fire station. I think this is a question for director nut since he's been working on it. Excuse me, assistant city manager nut. In the presentation, it was listed that in the event that this did receive funding elsewhere that the funds allocated by council would go to other upgrades for fire houses for fire department houses. My preference would be that any additional funds come back to the council to be reprioritized into other aspects of this or other asks from the community that we're not able to get to. So I just wanted to see if that was built in in the proposal. And if so, is there a dire need for additional resources and other departments or excuse me, other firehouses that we have not heard at this point. So we could come back. I'm going to jump in for assistant city manager nut. I think that's the proposal. We would always be coming back to council. So absolutely. That's why we're here is to receive input and that would be an easy edge. I don't think the intent was to avoid or get a commitment from council on that long range plan. We'd be back in front of you to discuss next steps, which would include not just evaluating those plans, but as you said, the other interests from the work that we've encountered during the community listening sessions to date around PG&E funds. So absolutely. Okay, thank you. And just to emphasize it, if there is a need for us to put investments in other stations, I want to hear it. I know that other council members want to hear that as well. Absolutely. Great. Councilmember Sawyer. Thank you, Mayor. Given that we kind of gave you a sense of a budget of 25 million, and the first two items on our list go over that somewhat, and so we kind of overshot the runway because of the increased costs associated with the new firehouse, would we be able to, and it kind of speaks to the mayor's question about future prioritization, would we be able to condition our kind of our comments on what happens with the additional funding that may or may not happen because the first two items, no, that kind of leaves us, then the rest are going to be hanging out there potentially, unless we up your budget. And that's kind of a hard question to answer today. So would we in our, in our response, it's going to be coming up here pretty soon, would we be able to condition that response based on the potential for additional funding subsequent to tonight? Yes. Excellent. Thank you. And I think that this is a good time for me to mention for the council. We've been having these discussions not just on fire, but some of the other asks from the community. There will be a space in goal setting in a couple of weeks for us to see if we have reached consensus on some of the items to begin to move forward ahead of the June budget. So just keep an eye on that as well. We've been talking about these each in sort of their individual pockets, but that'll really be our first opportunity as a council to talk about how it all fits together and in the totality that we have available to us. Right. Any other questions from council members? Okay. Seeing none, we'll go to public comment on this item. If you're interested in participating in today's public comment, go ahead and hit the raise hand feature on zoom. Or if you're dialing in, I believe it's star nine to be able to comment. You'll have three minutes. I see Mico will be first. Will be able to get Mico unmuted here. Hi, can you hear me? Yep, there you go. Okay. Thanks for taking my comment. So my name is Mico Boyarski. I'm with coffee strong. I'm on the board of directors. I'm a local school teacher. And I'm just commenting on the use of these funds. And my concern is I've got two little parcels of land at the entrance to Coffee Park. They're on either side of Hopper where Hopper meets Coffee Lane. And these two pieces of land were destroyed in the Tubbs Fire and we sort of tick under our wing. We've landscaped them and we're trying to get the city to incorporate them into the public park system. And when we first proposed this idea, we were told that there wasn't money. And now we have that money. We've got the P&G settlement funds and we also have the measure M funds. And these funds are designed to restore a community. They're to make good on a loss. This damage was caused. P&G is liable. And they're supplying these funds to restore our community. So I love what it was doing. I love all the prioritization here. But there's only one item and that's the firehouse that really restores what was there. And so I'm hoping that some of this money can be used to incorporate these two little parcels of land into our park system. I've been looking at all kinds of opportunities. I've been looking at 503, a non-profit, looking at a land trust and everybody keeps coming back to me and says, you're just crazy. It's too complicated. These parcels of land are too small. The funds are there through measure M, through the P&G settlement. It makes the greatest sense for the city to take them into the park system. So I'm hoping at some point that will happen. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you, Mico. Next, we'll go to Pat, followed by Robert. Can you hear me? There you go. Hi, council members. This is Pat Cuta. I'm co-chair of the Roseland Library Coalition and I'm speaking in support of the $10 million ask for the Roseland Library permanent structure. I'm here to remind you that the settlement award provides a once in a lifetime opportunity to assure a permanent library for Roseland. This major capital investment will go a very long way in fulfilling your promise to provide equitable services to our newest and most underserved neighborhood. The community has demonstrated over the years on many, many occasions at city and county council hearings, area strategic plan, vision sessions, community advisory councils, and also in passing a countywide tax initiative that included keeping the Roseland Library open that this vital service is of the highest priority. We don't expect this funding chance will come along again. Please invest in Roseland. It's youth. It's families. It's future. We stand ready to partner with you in assuring that the Roseland Library will be a point of civic engagement and pride. Thank you. Great. Thank you, Pat. Next we have Robert. Okay. There you go. All right. Good afternoon. I am Bob Geiser. I'm co-chair of the Southeast Screenway Campaign Committee. We are requesting that the council consider using some of the PG&E sediment funds to help purchase from Caltrans the 9.7 acres of the Southeast Screenway property that are zoned for 244 housing units. The subsequent sale and transfer of this land from the city to housing developers will give the council the ability to lower the per unit land costs and thus help new affordable housing to be built. Responding both to the city's adopted housing goals and the need to replace housing units lost in the recent fires. The city already has an existing agreement with Caltrans that gives the city the first rights to purchase this unique 57 acre corridor. Caltrans has stated that they want to sell the whole property to the city in one transaction including both the land zone for development as well as the 47 other acres planned for city and county parks. We have secured the grants and donations to donations to acquire the park land but no funding has yet been determined for the purchase of the developable parcels. Which is why we are here again today talking about funding housing projects and a study session focused on other types of city projects. It appears now that the title mapping and reports and appraisals for the greenway property could be completed in the next six months so that the final negotiations with Caltrans can proceed. This means that the issue of how to acquire the developable 9.7 acres of the greenway will be before the council in any case in fiscal year 2021-22. We look forward to working with the city and our other partners as the process moves ahead. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you so much Bob. So that's the last live public comment and I see do we have any hands on the Spanish language interpretation side? Yeah I'll appear on this on your main screen mayor. If you are participating from the Spanish channel and wish to make a public comment you can raise your hand. When you hear your name called please disable the interpretation function or shut it off and join the main channel so we can hear your your comment. Okay and I did see one hand pop up here so we'll call on on SAVS. Hi, my name is Adrienne Lobby. I am not here speaking particularly as a member of SAVS Sonoma applied village that just tell my zoom is popped up right now. I just would like to draw your attention to the next item on our agenda the homeless projects and updates. There is a need for funding for several of those projects and I think homelessness is one of your top goals this year. I would consider and hope that you would consider using some of this money to fund some of the efforts that you're going to hear about in the next session. Thank you. Great. Thank you. We have Kendall. Can you hear me now? Yep, there you go. Hi, I'm Kendall Jarvis. I work with Legal Aid of Sonoma County. This is more of a question or point of consideration than a critique by any means. With the the issue of the fire station being rebuilt and the HCDCDBGDR funds potentially being available I know that the city has struggled significantly trying to get reimbursement from FEMA as well as from HCDC or some of our other lovely partners that are supposed to provide such reimbursement but I am wondering if it is the best use of the potentially initial question of 25 million dollars when there's another 15 million dollars in projects that could potentially go forward and make a significant infrastructural difference. Obviamente I support the rebuilding of the fire station as from everything I've heard from the community so do a majority of survivors and additional community members but it does seem that it would be beneficial to see if there was a potential to lock down that funding as I know as you guys know all too well reimbursement is much more difficult than obtaining funds on the front end. So just my two cents I hope that helps. Appreciate that Kendall and I'll ask the interim chief to address that a little bit when we're done with public comment. Now Dina I don't see any other live hands do we have any voicemail public comments on this item. Coming up. Hi my name is Danielle Valerio and I'm calling in support for funds for the Roseland's library agenda number 3.1 in espanol mi amor Daniela soy maestra de español en santa rosa y quiero decirles que está a favor de usar el dinero que hay para tener una biblioteca para hacer una biblioteca en Roseland y que gastemos el dinero que sea necesario para hacer que eso pasa. Roseland needs a library it's an issue of equity a library is somewhere students can do online work get tutoring meet with mentors borrow the books they need to be successful in their classes and as a teacher I know all of this to be true adults can also continue their education as well in a library and I wanted to quote Frederick Douglass to deny education to any people is one of the greatest crimes against human nature it is to deny them the means of freedom and the right whole pursuit of happiness and to defeat the very end of their being COVID-19 has highlighted the inequity that exists within our county the Latinx and Hispanic community has been hit much more profoundly than other communities specifically the white communities en Santa Rosa by this pandemic Spanish speaking immigrants and community members they are our essential workers they're keeping everyone fed they're keeping people not fighting over bags of food in the grocery stores and I think we could all imagine that that could have been our reality and it's not because these Latino workers they show up every day like the heroes that they are Roseland needs a library if we're serious as a city and addressing the deep inequities in our county we need to really put our money where our mouth is and invest in the community of Roseland thank you and that concludes boys versus public comments on 3.1 great I'll go ahead and bring that back then to the council Mr. Westrop there was a question there about the importance of building rebuilding the fire station as one of the primary goals for the council can you talk a little bit about the importance of that and how it feeds into the broader system here in Santa Rosa for fire for fire recovery absolutely so as you know we've done several studies we have a strategic plan a staffing report and a standards of coverage report and all those reports look at the city like a chess board so to speak so moving one station or having one station a particular spot is to meet the response time goals of that area not only at the the initial response area so for single unit responses such as a medical aid to make sure that they're we're there within our response time for medical aids but also part of the greater system to make sure that we have a full alarm assignment there so three engines and a truck company there in time to you know put out a fire at a small level whether it's structure fire vegetation fire so those are sort of the two components we look at through NFPA 17 10 17 20 and so as we move things around we got to make sure that all of our our spots are covered and putting station five in that location as I said is strategically driven to number one protect it so it's not at the top of the hill at the top of a draw in the middle of a very bad area I mean fire station five as a lot of those buildings were in found grove was built to movie standards but it was in a poor location for response to both sides of the hill and for the fire threat so it it protects it better but it also provides service to the lower found grove area on the west side much quicker we have engine six on the east side and we have engine five obviously they can still respond to the east side so we did a study on it and we determined that was the best location for it to improve response times and coverage to the entire like I said the presentation the entirety of found grove but particularly giving help to that busier west side of found grove with the with the care facilities there and then lower down in the mendicina border so you know anytime you move something as it has ramifications somewhere else we're very cautious of that but we had the plans and programs to back that up to show that's the best spot for that fire station and I would just also like to couple that there was a question about the reimbursement process and unfortunately what we find ourselves in after multiple disasters and ongoing pandemic is the reimbursement process is the challenge right it is you have to expend the monies and then you get the money back through a reimbursement it's not an advanced program that's not what what the federal government and and the state partners engage in they engage in a reimbursement so so we will likely with some of these successful projects not not all of them but when we deal with reimbursement there will be a return to the city it varies the percentage of that return depending on the project eligibility and the return rate but unfortunately we're in a position where you have to front fund the projects and then you get the reimbursement and those timetables as we've discussed with council before unfortunately can take up to 10 years and you're going to see later this evening where our position has shifted because of some of the work we've had to do to support activities in the field which has put us even further behind on our reserves and left us less prepared to face another disaster but I just want to make it clear that unfortunately the program is for some of these funding sources is a reimbursement program we don't get money advanced so if you don't do the project you don't get the reimbursement and that that's really challenging for communities in general but that's unfortunately how some of these get financed Council Member Fleming Thank you my question is more about reimbursement and it kind of dawned on me City Manager McGlynn as you were talking that because of the provisions in measure O that if the council were to decide to proceed with with funding with taking the PG&E dollars and I know this is a different conversation but this is I'm asking a hypothetical before so you get upset with me for talking about how we might deal with that I'm curious to know if we were to say not have this PG&E settlement go through the measure O protocols then would a reimbursement that came from that be returned to the general fund and have to address that issue again or would that be CLEAP like would that money we can ask the question I don't think we're prepared this evening to answer the question Council Member but absolutely we can ask the question and I think that it's kind of a a very specific question so I don't expect to get an answer tonight but I didn't want to put it on your radar as you know something that would have implications down the road we can look at it we'll we'll do some further digging but absolutely want to take a look at that that question okay so now Mr. City Manager if you could articulate for the council for our final comments on this if there's any particular direction or questions that that you and staff are still struggling with what kind of direction would be helpful as we go towards our goal setting well I think you see a portfolio programs I think we're looking for affirmation that you're in agreement with the the prioritization to to Council Member Sawyer's question if we if we have opportunity is there something that you think is misordered and that we should be addressing in a different order obviously this is evolving conversation you're going to need to see the later conversation getting the goal setting but I think we're we we we tried to complete the exercise staff tried to complete the exercise that was requested some things have changed including price point and where we sit at vis-a-vis federal the federal program but we're looking for input concurrence and you know this is obviously going to be an evolution are there any things that you want us to go faster on and I'll turn it over for to scott for for for the final request on that side the final request for for the general project is is like mr. city manager said is is affirmation that the prioritized list is where you want it to be obviously the price point for five station five is where we want it to be but we're hoping those numbers will improve over time and when we go into goal setting we'll have a better number for you can't make any promises that's going to happen but that's essentially it is that is that we're just looking that this is the list that you wanted while it's not really at the price point that we had anticipated it's essentially the best blasha what we what we had in front of us that we could take at it and to give the the council what they were looking for in this regard to to make our city safer and more resilient for wildfires okay thank you I'm just going to go around the horn where I see people councilmember alvarez first and foremost I appreciate the presentation it's I mean from going from four hundred and something million down to twenty five and a thirty six I mean I do appreciate that the effort and to be able really going down the conversation for me I really I don't have anything specifically to say about the order of our presentation as each and every one of them is is important so I again I appreciate that for those putting to the presentation anything to do that we can do to prepare and protect our residents on the east side all for it thank you okay councilmember sweat on thank you Mr. Mayor I appreciate this information I'm not prepared to say I totally agree with this priority list because to me it's we'll be having more of that discussion once we take a look at we start making decisions as the mayor mentioned at our goal setting in a couple of weeks because I think it may be you know we have to balance all of them there so again what I was looking for is just what you delivered coming from our public safety you know fire department and transportation public worst this is the priority that is helpful information for me to consider once we start actually making decisions as to where to allocate those dollars councilmember Fleming yes thank you I I feel pretty comfortable with the allocation I do agree with councilmember sweat helm that given the timing you know if we had just had goal setting two months ago then it wouldn't make sense to wait for goal setting but given that we do have this coming up next week that giving the opportunity perhaps it will be impacted by that conversation but I think it leaves us the opportunity to weigh everything in the balance and to allow for more public input and more perspectives before settling in but as things are now I'm inclined to support and await further information to just finalize that but you know I'm you know all the way ready to sign I just want a little bit like one more week councilmember Sawyer thank you mayor well you know funds de una vez son algunos de los más difíciles para hacer decisiones porque son de una vez por lo tanto me aprecio la lista de prioridad y estoy seguro de que habrá más conversación sobre cómo estos funds estarán expuestos hay hay frustración en la comunidad que no divertimos algunos de los funds que vieron de PG&E a otros proyectos pero si esto fue un el fallo de una dama hecho por el aeropuerto de ingenieros mi guía es que el daño hecho por una dama de un fallo podríamos estar mirando gravemente a los daños y cómo a hacer con control de flujo así que estoy acuerdiendo de donde los funds vienen de a la a la a la origen si tú y el por qué no tenemos los funds y tiene que hacer por lo que estoy preocupado con protección de fuego ahora cómo eso cómo elegimos de estas varias posibilidades para esa protección de fuego y todavía para la conversación pero para el tiempo de estar confundido con la lista de prioridad sabiendo que que es tipo de condición de inicio condición de lo que may may puede tener algunos funds loos en el futuro y vamos a tener otra conversación sobre eso entonces cuando esos funds están disponibles pero hasta entonces estoy confundido con la recomendación que viene de nuestro fire department gracias castellano ¿dónde tuviste más para añadir? y sabes tengo un el más respeto para el colegio de la memoria y un poco diferente de perspective que quería respetar añadir to eso uno de la origen de los funds como vamos a a nuestro objetivo que es mi entendimiento que tenemos los funds porque tenemos un fire pero los funds no específicamente sobre fire aunque son muy importantes sobre el costo de la ciudad incertida que todavía se ha pagado y cuando veas esos costos esos costos fueron por la entidad de la ciudad y así creo que hacer la entidad de la ciudad todo como para defender otro desastre como esto de lo que se está haciendo y es un poco desgraciado de lo que el miembro que estaba diciendo pero creo que nos permite para ambos hacer el fire de la preparación de preparación de trabajo que estamos enfocando hoy y en el mismo tiempo acknowledgando que hay infraestructura necesidades por la ciudad y que el fire impactó cada corner de la ciudad y lo más intensamente mi ciudad pero no solo mi ciudad y financiamente el impacto fue probablemente más intensamente ambos en la ex la gente quien los que han perdido sus hogares pero luego los peores personas que pagan un mejor % de su incomes en tarjetas de salas y así por así me gustaría tomar un vía holística de la economía de la ciudad y en donde por lo que por lo que tenemos este dinero es dos cosas uno que hay un fire y dos que la ciudad todos nos pagan este dinero que hasta que ya se ha convertido. Y yo quiero esconder las cosas. Gracias. Gracias, Madre Vice Mayor. So I would like to thank you for the very thorough presentation. You guys did a wonderful job. And I think that it is exactly what I was looking for in narrowing the town. And I really just can't wait to get into the goal setting so I can have the ability to look at the whole picture and have a conversation with the rest of the council council members. So thank you. Great. Thank you. And I want to thank you as well, Mr. Interim, Interim Chief, for really drilling this down into what our priorities need to be. I haven't been shy in saying that to me this is the highest priority for the use of the funds that our community can't afford to continue to live in fear for four months out of the year. It is too disruptive to our mental health. It's too disruptive to our economy. We need to make these investments to make our community safer. And if the council signed off and had sent us a contract to start the vegetation management program in the wild and resiliency and response components of this a month ago, I would have signed it a month ago, even understanding that we have all of these additional as well. I'm hoping that come goal setting. We can all give the thumbs up to most of this, but in particular, those two because what I heard from you is we are anxiously awaiting the go ahead to start doing that work that this council has previously signed off on in the community wildfire protection plan that we are ready to hit the ground running and that this is the time of the year when we need to be doing that work so that down the road in September and in October, our community does have some of that assurance that we are making the steps that we need to taking the steps that we need to take to get to a more sustainable and more safe community as well. So thank you for the presentation. We'll see this again in goal setting in a couple of weeks. And I hope you got the direction that you need going forward at that point. All right, Mrs. Mr. City manager, I'm going to take a five minute break for the council and then we'll come back with item 3.2. Mayor, would you like to make an announcement again related to interpreter services or are we just going to keep moving forward? Yeah, if you if you could please do that and then we will take role and re resume our meeting here when I see four council members. OK, thank you. Can I ask the interpreter not currently actively participating or interpreting on this Spanish channel? Please raise your hand so I can move you back over here to help with these announcements. Thank you. Those just joining the meeting. Live Spanish interpretation is available and members wishing to listen in Spanish can join the Spanish channel by clicking on the interpretation icon on your Zoom toolbar. It looks like a globe. Once you join the Spanish channel, you can shut off the main audio so you only hear the Spanish interpretation. Pablo. A los que recién. Según la reunión, interpretación en vivo en español está disponible y los miembros pueden unirse a escuchar en español para unirse. Hagan clic en el icono de interpretación en la barra de herramientas de Zoom. Parece un globo terragio. Una vez que según al canal en español, le recomendamos que apague el audio principal para que solo se escuche la interpretación en español. Excellent. Thank you. And Stephanie, do you want to take the role and we'll resume our meeting at Item 3.2? Yes. Councilmember Tibbets, councilmember Schwethelm. Here. Councilmember Sawyer. Here. Councilmember Fleming. Here. Councilmember Alvarez. Present. Vice Mayor Rogers. Present. Mayor Rogers. Here. That the record showed that all councilmembers are present with the exception of councilmember Tibbets. Great. Thank you, Mr. McGlynn. Item 3.2, Homeless Services Programming Update. Kelly Kaikendall, Housing and Community Services Manager, Presenting. Good afternoon. Give me just a sec to. Turn my camera on here. Sorry about that. Was having an issue turning the camera on. Good afternoon, Mayor Rogers and members of the council, Kelly Kaikendall. The city's homeless services manager currently with the Housing and Community Services Department. Next slide please. So the purpose of the study session this afternoon is to review our existing programs, our programs related to COVID-19 emergency response and to receive direction from council on work plan priorities. Next slide please. This slide provides an overview of the study session. I'll touch briefly on our strategy. I'll cover tier one work plan priorities and progress that we've made in that area. I'll cover our existing and COVID-19 response programs and tier two work plan priorities. And the tier one and tier two work plan priorities that I'll cover today were shared with the council during a study session on July 7th. And then I'll be seeking direction from council on the tier two work plan priorities. Mayor Rogers, if it's all right with you, I would like to take some breaks throughout the presentation to take questions as we move through because I'll be covering a lot of material today. Yeah, I think that's for the best. OK, thank you. Next slide. So in 2017, Santa Rosa City Council adopted a housing first strategy in alignment with federal state and our local continuum of care. And the goal of housing first is to move persons experiencing homelessness in the housing as quickly as possible and providing necessary supports for them to maintain that housing. Now, to talk a little bit about functional zero and what that means. The goal of functional zero is that a person's experience with homelessness will be rare, brief and non-recurring. And it acknowledges that we won't end homelessness that people will continue to fall into homelessness. But our system of care is able to rapidly rehouse them with the goal of doing so within 30 days. Next slide, please. So work plan priorities. This is tier one. Again, this was shared with the council that was seated back in July during a study session and we covered or we discussed and prioritized our existing programs and our COVID-19 response programs, which I will be covering in the next couple of slides, as well as regional partnerships continuing to collaborate with regional partners and foster those relationships. Next slide. So this slide covers our existing programs and the City of Santa Rosa funds homeless services in five key program areas. Our current budget is approximately three point eight million dollars. That is for the programs themselves, as well as administration of the programs. I have, there are a lot of acronyms in this presentation and I will do my best to spell out all of those, both for the benefit of our accounts members and the community listening in. So I recognize the acronyms and we'll do my best to spell those out. In the first category, we have day services. And we have the homeless service center, which is operated by Catholic Charities. That's downtown Santa Rosa on Morgan Street. This is essentially a day service for persons experiencing homelessness. They can drop by the center, you know, have access to laundry, get their mail and be connected with services throughout the city. The homeless service center is also the sort of operation center for outreach team. And I'll talk more about that moving ahead here. And then the living room, which is on Cleveland Avenue Avenue, and that is a day services center for women and children experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness. The next category is emergency shelter. We have Sam Jones Hall and I'll talk more about the emergency shelter expansion in a couple slides. But that shelter is our shelter for single adults and provides up to 213 year round shelter beds. The family support center, that's downtown as well, just on the other side of the street from the homeless service center. And that's our shelter for families providing up to 138 year round shelter beds. Both of these facilities are operated by Catholic Charities. Moving on to street outreach and encampment resolution. The goal of programs in this category is really to meet people where they're at. So out on the street or in encampments, going out, engaging individuals, experiencing homelessness, trying to get them into services, shelter and ultimately housing. We have our outreach team, that's the homeless outreach services team operated by Catholic Charities. We also have two city interdepartmental teams, our encampment team, which is the homeless encampment assistance program. That's really our boots on the ground operational team organized around addressing encampments and includes representatives from across the organization as well as our outreach provider, Catholic Charities. And then hat, that's our opera, I should say our policy or leadership team and includes representation from across the organization plus our outreach provider. And the group is organized around coordinating the city's response to homelessness. Moving into the next category, housing support. The goal here is really to move people from homelessness to housing. Under our through our host program, we have a housing first one, which provides financial resources for individuals experiencing homelessness to access and maintain housing. So assistance with rent, security deposits, utility payments and also with application fees and transportation fees to apply for housing. We have landlord incentives to encourage landlords to rent to persons experiencing homelessness. So we have sign on bonuses as well as a risk mitigation fund or an insurance pool for nonpayment of rent or excessive damage to a unit. Next is the H.C. Family Fund that's operated by community action partnership of Sonoma County and that provides financial assistance with security deposits, rental payments, as well as with utilities. And under the umbrella of our Housing and Community Services Department, we have our Housing Choice Voucher Program, more commonly known as the Section 8 Program with vouchers set aside for persons experiencing homelessness and affordable housing, which has set aside units as well as permanent supportive housing. The last category here, community based solutions. This is our Community Homeless Assistance Program, otherwise known as CHAP and that allows for property owners to use their property for homeless services that's primarily via churches or commercial property. This is a relatively small program. We currently have three faith based partners participating in CHAP, providing safe parking and I'll talk a little bit more about that when I covered the safe parking program. Next slide please. Before I jump into our operating parameters as it relates to our encampment strategy, I just want to provide a little more background on HEAP, our encampment team. I know I touched briefly on it on the previous slide. Just want to highlight that HEAP is a multidisciplinary team, as I mentioned, includes representatives from across the city organization as well as their outreach provider. The goal of HEAP was formed officially in 2017 out of a growing response or need for addressing encampments throughout the city of Santa Rosa, but the goal is to mitigate impacts for individuals living in encampments as well as the broader community surrounding these encampments and host leads with services that's really our focus prior to any enforcement action. So coming back to the operating parameters in this slide, there are a number of things that we take into consideration before moving forward with encampment resolution. Of course right now with the pandemic we're looking through everything through that lens or following the guidance issued by the Centers for Disease Control, which recommends that you do not, you know, displace individuals living in encampments to reduce the potential spread of COVID-19 and also any orders from our Cinema County Health Officer. In terms of the encampment strategy, the council is very familiar with the preliminary injunction resulting from a lawsuit brought against the city and the county. And the preliminary injunction for the terms of that prior to an encampment resolution were required to provide individuals within an encampment with proper notice, adequate shelter and taking into consideration any disabilities or accommodations related to their disabilities and providing storage for personal belongings. Lastly, of course, not lastly I should just say lastly in the slide, we take into consideration the health and safety concerns within the encampments as well as impacts to the broader community. And there have been times over the past year where those have outweighed guidance from the CDC and we've had to move forward with resolving those encampments. Next slide, please. Couple more slides and then I'm gonna take a break for questions. So COVID-19 programs, the city has provided funding for COVID-19 homeless response programs in three key areas. The first is non-congregate shelter. You'll see that later in the presentation, the acronym is NCS. Back in, and that program is currently being operated at the Sandman Hotel. So going back to the start of the pandemic in March, we downsized the shelter by about 60 beds and relocated at risk individuals to the Sandman Hotel. Later on in the April to May timeframe and moving forward actually we continued to place at risk individuals from the shelter or from our encampments at the Sandman Hotel. The estimate for this program dating back from March of last year through June of this year is approximately $6.6 million and Council has approved budget for that program. This includes the cost for the hotel rooms plus our services contract with Catholic Charities to operate the NCS. The next is a safe social distancing program that ran at the Finlay Community Center that operated for six months between May and November. The cost was approximately $680,000 and that included the city costs for implementing this program. So the fencing that you can see in the picture on the slide, the tents, portable toilets, hand washing stations, we had a staff tent, we also set up a cooling station during the summer months. So that cost is for city costs plus our contract with Catholic Charities to operate that program. And then the emergency shelter expansion at Sam Jones Hall, that's the sprung structure which we're now calling the Sam Jones Hall annex. The construction costs are approximately $2.6 million plus we've identified an additional $500,000 for operating for the first six months of this year and that total is approximately $10.3 million. I'll be going more into detail about these costs in the next slide. Next slide please, thank you. So this is our COVID-19 homeless response slide. It's both sort of our costs and it identifies costs as well as potential funding sources. And I was in front of council back in October with the same slide and it has since been updated. I think one update I really wanna highlight here under potential funding sources for the FEMA PA. So that's the Federal Emergency Management Agency and PA stands for Public Assistance Program. We were just recently made aware by the Biden administration and through FEMA guidance that FEMA will now be covering up to 100% of eligible non-congrat sheltering costs. The slide that was shared earlier with council showed the split of 75% FEMA and 25% city general funds. So this is good news for our organization and I know that finance has submitted an application to FEMA. That process is underway but that's timely and we don't know yet when we will be reimbursed but the good news is now 100% rather than just the 75%. So for fiscal year 2019-20 these were our actual expenses and then for fiscal year 2021 these are fully budgeted and underway but not necessarily expended yet because this carries us through the end of the current fiscal year to June 30th. Moving over to potential funding sources under CDBG we have Community Development Block Grant that's a federal funding source. We have both our regular entitlement funds as well as the CV or the coronavirus funds. The city has been awarded these funds. So we have access to that money and we'll be using that to reimburse the city's general fund for expenses related to our COVID-19 homeless response from home Sonoma County. Early on in the pandemic our can continue with care approved $153,000 for our non congregate sheltering cost at the Sandman Hotel. So we have received that funding and then for the FEMA PA as I mentioned finance has submitted an application for I believe it's $4.75 million to initiate that reimbursement process. The last column city general fund you'll see $2.6 million out of the estimated 10.3 y that was for the construction or capital improvements at the Sam Jones Hall. Sprung structure and those costs were not eligible for FEMA. Okay, so I'm gonna take a break here and take any questions so far before we move on to the next slide. Thank you so much Kelly. I see Council Member Sawyer has his hand up to start. Thank you Mayor. There's a lot of misinformation out there in the community and there's a lot of frustration as well and I understand that. Our un housed community are under great pressures and are often misunderstood. So I have a couple of questions Kelly that tend to be misunderstood by the community. Do you have offhand the percentage of those that are offered services that choose not to take them? It would be anecdotal. It's not something we're tracking aside from what we're hearing from our outreach team and police. For example, the recent Greenway encampment closure a couple of weeks back we had about 20 people there the day of the closure of that camp and nine came in or nine accepted services. So I would say it hovers right around 50% in terms of acceptance and there's an important nuance there because you might have the initial acceptance of service or someone expressed a willingness to go into services but then working with them to get them into that shelter can change sometimes they change their mind but an initial willingness to go to shelter such as Sam Jones hall is about 50%. Now at the Greenway there were other options so it really depends on what type of shelter you're offering so in addition to Sam Jones hall Catholic Charities was also able to make referrals to Los Guilicos and then we did have a couple of people who met that risk criteria for placement at the Sandman Motel. So just that caveat there. There's a second part to my question. So you they are service providers approach an individual or a couple and no way know how do they wanna be in one of our shelters? They wanna be that it is their choice. I think I believe this is a fairly rare choice or an unusual choice but they wanna be on the street they don't care what kind of service we have to offer what happens to them. If they are camping in an area we offer them services and they say no way know how. So they will typically relocate to another area of the community and I would like to add that we've had greater success in getting people to come into services when we've had more options than just Sam Jones hall for example when we had the Finney program and then if there's an option for Los Guilicos or even a hotel room for anyone that meets the at risk criteria there's more of a willingness to come in when there are more options than just traditional congregate shelter like Sam Jones hall but there are always going to be those individuals that decide to pick up and move on elsewhere to the community. And I don't mean to be indelicate but is how well you probably don't know how often this occurs but is arrest although an expensive option to the community is arrest one of those options that we need to take advantage of on occasion. I'm probably not the best person to answer that. You know, I mean, I work closely with the police department on these things. I think that enforcement in that sense and the context of an arrest is a last resort and something the team tries to avoid. And in my experience with all of our encampment closures it's unusual for an arrest to occur. I appreciate that. And the reason I ask is because it is such it is so common when I get into a conversation about our homeless situation that the challenges on the community and so many others is well they're breaking the law they're camping where they're not supposed to be why don't you just arrest them? And that it's gonna it's hard to other than just other than one of the reasons is it's very expensive to go through an arrest process. It's probably the most expensive option that we have but I do find myself perplexed in being able to answer why we don't just arrest them when given the injunction if they are offered services and they refuse if they are indeed breaking a law I would assume that that is one of our options but it's hard to explain why there aren't more arrests in the community based on the attitude of some of our unhoused individuals. John, I'm gonna let the city attorney jump in here for a second. Thank you. Great. Thank you. And just to respond the rest as Kelly indicated arrests are the last resort and in fact over the last a year or so of addressing encampments there have been very few arrests and primarily for violations criminal violations other than our violations of our camping ordinance. In fact, I don't know maybe there's been I don't know if there have been any arrests specifically for violation of our anti-camping ordinance. There have been arrests for violation of fishing game laws for probation for other kinds of criminal activity. And for a couple of reasons. One is that, yes, what we're trying to do is to get people into services and really try to encourage that. So a host works very hard at conducting outreach leading up to a clearing of an encampment. Our police also try to encourage folks to go into service to accept services. The other issue is that arrest is not a particularly effective means of addressing homelessness and particularly at this point. Number one, as many people say you can't arrest your way out of homelessness but the other issue is that currently if an arrest is made in general it means that someone's gonna be taken over they may be booked but they're gonna be released. The jail's not taking people in at this point under COVID. In fact, a large number of inmates were released early on in the pandemic. So that resource doesn't actually or the option of arresting does not even really effectively take someone off the streets. It means that they're getting a citation. They're getting an arrest. There may catch to it individuals homeless. They often don't have the resources to pay those fines. It's just not a very effective solution and what we're focused on instead is really trying to have the services available, have the shelter available and really to work with people to get them to a point where they will accept those services and go in. Again, or we do have the ability to arrest people assuming we followed the protocols to the extent that they're applicable from the preliminary injunction but at the end of the day it's not a particularly effective tool to address homelessness. I really appreciate that because being able to explain to people the revolving door syndrome is sometimes it's not what they want to hear and it is bred from a high level of frustration especially if there is activity in their neighborhood and I really appreciate your clarifications. It's really an important one. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. State Manager, did you have a comment? I'm probably gonna follow up with the council members so I can better understand the data that the council member is looking for. I'm trying to work with the team to provide metrics. That obviously is not a metric that we're looking to measure in success and we're trying to get more programs underway that would require less presence of law enforcement. So I'd like to follow up with the council member as I will with every council member to better understand what metric we're looking for there so that we can provide an answer but to the city attorneys a statement that's our last space. We're looking to get people into services but if there is something out there that will help you when communicating, I will be visiting with each of you over the next few weeks to better understand how we can report out that information so it's a constructive, supportive conversation with the community. So I will follow up with you council member Sawyer but I also wanted to make sure that other council members are aware that I'll be asking that question as an ongoing so as we report on this issue, people are getting a more accurate picture of what we're doing and how we're doing it and what success looks like, okay? Thank you, Mr. McGlennan and that kind of information is really important to have because the more information our community has about our programs and why we do what we do and how we do it allows for at least a little more understanding about the challenges that we face as a community that are faced by so many more across the country. All right, thank you. Council Member Alvarez. Thank you. And to add to your comment, Councilman Sawyer it's also what impedes us from moving forward and with that in mind, Kelly, good afternoon. If you could touch on what challenges COVID presents to us addressing the homeless issue and as well as if you have or if anyone has an idea of what the vaccination program is doing for our transient community or when we're applying or giving the option. So I'm not to run Ms. Keikendall over because she can answer a lot of questions but these are some of the questions we're actually actively engaged and gonna try to get a better understanding from our county partners since they're leading the charge on this on a couple of these issues. But it continues to make a real challenge as we try to better understand how testing and vaccination work with the city's programs. That's why Kelly is gonna be working more directly with the city manager's office so that we can try to coordinate exactly an answer to your question, Council Member. These are deposited in various areas within the county so we're gonna have to spend some extra time managing to the county structure as opposed to where we sit today. We have a very different model where we work as a discrete team as you saw Kelly make the presentation. Some of these issues are deposited in various county agencies and so we're working with them to try to better understand exactly to your point how this works but the example I'll let Kelly tell about is what we learned over the weekend and this really does impact our approach so I'll turn it over to Kelly to discuss specifically about what we learned at Industrial Drive over the weekend. Thank you and Council Member Alvarez to address your question. So there were a number of challenges that COVID has thrown at our community right but as it relates to homeless services Industrial Drive, for example we had planned to move forward with resolving that encampment this week actually today and learn over the weekend of a potential outbreak there and that's been confirmed by the county health department we're working with them on that but just that's one example of some of the challenges we face and in rolling out our programs and responding to needs in the community COVID grows these things at us and we're working to try and reevaluate a timeline for that encampment. Another area that I could point out is just Sam Jones Hall with recent positive cases there and essentially having to stop intakes at that shelter for nearly a month that really limited our ability to address encampments and impacted really our county as a whole because we are the largest shelter in the county. So those are two examples of how COVID has been challenging from the homeless services side of things. Vice Mayor Rogers. Hi Kelly. So a question I had is you said when Sam Jones is one of the only options that people are given that poses a challenge. I also wanted to inquire about and I believe it's Sam Jones having a six month rule that people can stay there for six months. Six months, if you encounter someone out in the community that has already stayed for the six months what other options are there for them or am I wrong about that six month rule? The six month rule has been waived for COVID so and that's throughout the county individuals are allowed to stay past that six month window because of the pandemic and we don't want to push people out into the community unnecessarily. So and your question about as Sam Jones Hall is the only option it's not just Sam Jones Hall it's congregate large shelters certainly the outreach team will work with individuals if they want to go to another shelter in the county maybe with a gospel mission or cops in Petaluma but there's just a general sentiment in our street population that they prefer not to go to a traditional congregate shelter and we do try to have other options available for people but Sam Jones Hall is owned by the city so we have more flexibility and being able to use that shelter. Thank you. Councilmember Schwedhelm. Thank you Mr. Mayor and thank you Kelly for this presentation. I know we're not quite done yet there's a lot more coming. I had some questions regarding the existing programs that you would slide six. Now I know the city of Santa Rosa is managing those but I just want to confirm the first two columns day services and housing focused emergency shelter all of those are open to anyone in the county correct those aren't just for Santa Rosa residents. That's correct these are city sponsored programs but they are open to anybody in the county absolutely. Okay and so knowing that and I have a big interest I think majority of us do that we really need to be addressing this as a regional approach versus just the city of Santa Rosa y I know Santa Rosa and Petaluma are the entitled jurisdictions so I'm wondering if you could just share a little bit how you see from a staff perspective I realize I am our representatives on the continuum of care but working with county staff on this regional issue how does the COC, the continuum of care and community development commission interact or support any of these existing programs that are identified on slide six. I know that the CDC the community development commission and the continuum of care fund a number of these programs so there is regional support coming in for them I don't have a breakdown of that support here in front of me today but for example Sam Jones Hall most of that funding for the program comes in from the city's general fund but we do get contributions from the county for operations as well as the community foundation contributes to that. I believe that they also funds provide funding for the homeless service center and the family support center so a number of programs are used regionally and are supported by the county as well. And how do you see for strategic planning purposes so that we're working together with all of our county partners how do you see that how does that planning process intersect with what we're doing here and all the teams, the host, the heap and the hat team here in Santa Rosa. Are you talking about like how the city and the county are working together or interacting? Is that your question? Again, I think if our ultimate goal is to get the functional zero having, you know, working together and talking about this because I think we're the city of Santa Rosa takes a leadership role in this but sharing what we've learned is sharing it not just with community development commission or the city of Petaluma the other entitled jurisdiction but county wide. I'm just wondering what opportunities for strategic planning purposes do you see from, you know operating these types of programs? Well, I definitely see that there's a need for regional collaboration on this issue as a whole. I know that's happening at the continuum of care and there's been some, you know governance and leadership changes there but I mean, there definitely needs to be regional collaboration on this issue. And I think, Shawn, I'm going to look to you to jump in here. I think that's one of the reasons why we're moving, you know homeless services over into the city manager's office is just to try and move forward some of these regional discussions. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, we are finding that there is a real desire on the parts of the other cities that are traditionally tagged as the, with the unfortunate nomenclature of urban county to get into a more active collaborative conversation. I'm in conversations with Ronard Park both around the models that we're working on as well as some of the other conversations that we've discussed on different approaches to response in the field. So we're moving forward in those conversations. I think there's a desire that we need to come together and figure out a regional approach and maybe it is a byproduct of the pandemic that these issues are now so much in the fore but there is an opportunity here to restructure our conversation both on leadership and involvement from all of our partners. And the way we're going to make a successful inroads is in this collaborative model. And so this is probably for you, Mr. McGlynn. Then it's my also my understanding that the county is part of that urban county received millions of dollars of emergency solutions grants, ESG, CV and then the CDBG CV funds. Are we engaged in any of those conversations of how we leverage our funding along with the counties? We are as I alluded to earlier, the county has lots of stakeholders through various departments and sometimes even within a department working on this issue, we're trying to better understand where the resources are, how the resources are getting allocated and how we can collaborate. That's why we're making some of this just we are. I'll be honest, it's a little opaque right now. Okay, thank you. And then Kelly, last question I have for you. I know that you're aware of the HOPE team, another acronym out there. Can you talk how that team and what that team is working on fits within the existing programs that are outlined on slide six? So, excellent point, HOPE. And I don't even know what the acronym stands for, Tom. I mean, excuse me, Council Member Schwedhelm, if you know what that is, you can share that with everybody. I think it's homeless outreach, partnership and engagement. That sounds about right. And it's not on a slide in terms of an existing program because it's not a city program but the city does participate in that. The best way I can describe HOPE is comparing it to HEAP, which is our encampment team or encampment strategy and that is focused on addressing and resolving encampments and HOPE is focused on an individual and resolving that individual's homelessness. And this really ties back to Council Member Sawyer's question about, what are we doing with these individuals that are refusing services, these harder to serve individuals and HOPE is really focused on those individuals and they're oftentimes frequent utilizers of multiple systems of care. So not just our homeless system of care but our criminal justice and our health system and our safety net services. So that is what HOPE's focus is. Great, thank you for that. Sure. I realize Council Member Rogers or Vice Mayor Rogers, you had asked a question about when people time out and of Sam Jones Hall that six month or 180 day. We've extended that but also people can come back in. So if there's somebody who's out on the street who said I hit the six month mark, they can come back in. There's greater flexibility around that right now with the pandemic. Council Member Fleming. Thank you, Mayor. And Ms. Keigendall, thank you so much for all of the work that you and your team do to serve our entire community through homeless services. It's really not lost on me that, with the exception of Santa Monica and Berkeley that there's no mental health departments on a municipal level anywhere else in the state. And so the work that we're doing is really stepping outside of the confines of what we would traditionally think of as city services because it's the humane, just and right thing to do for our transient population as well as the quality of life for everybody. So I thank you and I know that, I see some of the emails that come in and it can't be easy to be on the receiving end of that. So I think that you and your team deserve a really serious pat on the back. I have a couple of really simple questions. One is around rapid rehousing, which is how do you determine rapid rehousing? And specifically what I didn't understand is you said, you know, get someone to house within 30 days. So let's say I become homeless today. Would I be, would being in a shelter like Sam Jones qualify as sufficient housing or would it be permanent housing that would qualify for that designation? Thank you. So I think you're referring back to the strategy when I talked to you about functional zero. We're not there yet as a community or a system of care about our work and we're making some progress. And so shelter would not be considered housing or ending some of these homelessness. The goal would be they come into Sam Jones hall. They're only there for 30 days and then they're exiting to a permanent solution. Whatever is best for their needs. So a shelter is not considered, you know, a solution to their housing. It's an emergency response and a temporary solution. Thank you. The next one is we've talked about this before, but not since we've seated our newest council members. Why is the CHAP program limited to private to public institutional places like churches and other commercial uses and not expanded to accommodate private individuals who might like to be part of the solution and what might it take or what would be some of the pitfalls or opportunities therein? So CHAP, the Canadian Home Assistance Program was set up initially for properties that meet the zoning code designation for meeting facilities and churches fall under that. And I think the intent to allow for churches and other properties that meet that criteria is that they're already set up to accommodate individuals experiencing homelessness. They might already have programs that they're operating. They likely have, you know, access to bathroom facilities. They oftentimes have the support of their congregation to help the individuals, you know, to connect them with other services in the community. So that was the intent of CHAP is to make it available for property owners that can easily provide the service or already providing the service. And then later on it was extended to commercial properties. And, you know, we've been in front of council a number of times about that program. So if there's inches from the council and, you know, expanding it beyond, you know, a sort of current definition that something staff can look at if that's the direction of the council. Thank you. And then I can save my questions if you're gonna get to the numbers or I can ask a question now about homelessness numbers. Please go ahead and ask it in, you know, I think I'm at like slide, you know, I'm not that far into the presentation so I might cover it later in the presentation, but go ahead and ask it. In the interest of time, let me save my question. Okay. Thank you, Kelly. I think we're all, I think given, this is such a complicated topic, I think we all have questions that won't fall neatly into one category or another. So I appreciate you bearing with us here. I had a question really about the historical funding levels that California Santa Rosa specifically has been putting in on homelessness. We've talked about this being a tier one priority. We've obviously been under a homeless emergency longer than, let's see, one, two, three, four, five of the seven council members have been on the council. I was trying to find my notes from four years ago on this when I first joined the council and I couldn't find the number, but I had stuck in my head that Santa Rosa at that point was spending about $800,000 a year on homeless services. And I was hoping you could fill us in, and again, saying that we've spent $14 million so far through the pandemic on homeless services. Where did we start when this became a priority? So that you're correct. That's what I'm remembering too. I've been working in this position for five years and officially for three years as the manager. When I came into it, our budget was about $700 to $8,000 a year. And as I mentioned, our core budget right now, not even including the COVID responses at 3.8 million. And then we've added the additional 10.3 in COVID response this year. Okay, I appreciate that. And I think it's something for us to continue to talk about with the public. Through three years of fires and a pandemic, it's just huge emergencies. The council has continued to invest more and more and more into our homeless services. And so we can talk about how effective has that been and how can we do that better? But I do think it's important for this community to see that there has been a concerted effort to try to do more. With that, without any other questions from council, we'll move on to the next segment of the presentation. Thank you. I think we're at slide 10. And I just have one slide here and we'll take a little break for questions before I hand it over to Assistant City Manager. Jason likes to talk about a fabulous new program, our debris of response team. First, let's talk about the fabulous progress that we've made in tier one. So again, these were tier one priorities that were discussed or covered during the study session with the council seated on July 7th. As I mentioned, in addition to all the COVID response programs we've taken on, we've sustained our existing programs. We completed the Safe Social Distancing Program at the Finley Center. That's a first of its kind for the City of Santa Rosa. That was our first sort of endeavor into a managed camp program. We held a community meeting about that program in December and we also briefed the council in December. As I mentioned, the FEMA reimbursement process is underway. We've completed the emergency shelter expansion at Sam Jones Hall. That's the sprung structure here in the slide. There's a picture of it. And again, just want to mention that we're calling out the Sam Jones Hall annex. And now that that facility is up and running, we can look at scaling back on our non-congregate shelter beds at the Sandman Hotel. So this slide's just a quick recap of progress that we've made in our tier one work plan priorities. And I'm happy to take any questions before I hand over the next slide to Jason. Councilor, any questions or can we keep rolling? I'm Vice Mayor Rogers. So how many beds will be available, Kelly, if we're moving people from the Sandman? How many additional beds are available in our annex? So the annex will provide 60 beds and that restores our capacity that we lost back in March to ensure that we're complying with social distancing within the shelter. But if we are moving people from the Sandman, my question is if we're moving people from the Sandman and let's say that there are 30 people in the Sandman and that only really leaves us 30 additional beds. So my question is about how many beds do we have for new people to come into the shelter system versus us relocating people from one to another? A good question. And I just want to point out that we're not moving anybody yet. We're, it's just something we're looking at now that this facility is open. And so the sprung structure provides 60 beds or restores that capacity, but we have 91 hotel rooms at the Sandman. So if we were to close all of those, we would fill all 60 beds and then there'd be like 31 people that wouldn't have space at the shelter unless there was space within the existing facility. And vice mayor, just part of the reason we're approaching this strategy is because we're, there's an incredible drain right now on the reserve levels. Part of the reason that we constructed this sprung structure was to restore capacity so that we invested that $2 million so that we could alleviate the drain on the general fund that was happening through the hotel spaces. So there, we're not moving yet, but that was the overall strategy. It is, there is no time, I just want to repeat for council wise, 100% reimbursement. There is no timetable for the federal reimbursement. So while we've filed the paperwork, we have no idea when the reimbursement will happen. Thank you both. And Sean, just to follow up on that point, the Sandman hotel, the 100,000 we're spending each week on those types of services, that's 100% reimbursable. What about the 3.1 million that we've spent on the annex here? I seem to remember that most of those funds were through the state for some of this purpose or repurposed funds. Is there some additional reimbursements that are available from there? The 2.6 was out of the general fund. So there are some that for operational considerations that are reimbursement, but the actual sprung structure itself because it's a got a longer life than the COVID response. And this is sort of where we get stuck is as every step forward, there are things that can be reimbursed. And as Kelly was just correcting me yesterday, there is a lot of differentiation between what qualifies at the Sandman because there's also issues. Those folks have to be in a high risk category for us to utilize that resource and get the reimbursement. So there's these nuances even within that structure which make this really, really challenging to manage and really, really a difficult task for us to do alone and it attracts back to the conversation that council member Schwedhelm, we would love to know on more readily available what resources are coming to the county to help us as one of the high population centers to address these issues long term because it's $100,000 a week and eventually we're gonna have to start dipping into PG&E funds to stabilize as you will see later, stabilize the organization to get through this with uncertain return on when reimbursement is happening. There's a major financial crunch happening at the same time as we're trying to do this very, very important work. All right, thank you. And thank you Kelly, let's go ahead and move on to the next segment. Good afternoon, mayor and council members, Jason, that assistant city manager. Starting this week, we, the transportation of public works department launched a new team. It is a debris response team. It is a four member crew. I know I have two members up here as we've evaluated over the last week we did decide to increase the number of staff members assigned to this particular crew based on the unknown demand that we might expect. So we do have a four person crew with a supervisor that are assigned directly to work throughout the city, both in a proactive and a responsive way to address debris related issues. Debris could be homeless related debris or it could be just roadside debris and litter. The goal of this crew is to begin focusing and improving the aesthetic, improving the safety and improving the livability of our area. This team will operate Monday through Friday during normal business hours. They will arrive in the, at six o'clock in the morning, they begin and work all the way through until four o'clock in the afternoon and the phone is available until five p.m. The community members have three different methods of being able to submit requests to this team. One is phone number by calling the transportation public works main line at 543-3800. There is a designated number that you can use in the phone tree, which is number seven and that will take you to a live person during those hours of operation to be able to develop and issue a service request for service. We also have established an email which is called cleancity at srcity.org. That email will be monitored daily and will also be a place where service requests are generated and sent directly to the team for response. Lastly, the My Santa Rosa app, which exists on the city's webpage, has also been updated to incorporate a place where folks can identify areas of debris that need to be picked up and removed. We'll be spending quite a bit of time over the course of the next several months as we're training the staff, not only through the benefit of their typical work with bloodborne pathogens as well as hazardous materials. This is very common for maintenance employees, but we'll also be working with our police department and other agencies on identifying what type of community sensitivity trainings they might be able to do because they will be the first line of interaction with homeless individuals. And we wanna make sure that they have the tools capable to be able to deal with those as the first point of contact when we happen to interact either by cleaning up in the general area or by working with them as part of a larger program. The intent of this team is to work in collaboration with the Housing Community Services Department as well as police, fire, our host team and our county in order to make this a comprehensive approach beyond just our day-to-day active debris cleanup. So we're excited to see this start. We'll be collecting data and information so that we can provide updates along the way and hope that we find that this helps improve the community aesthetic around San Rosa. And I'm happy to answer any questions before turning it back to Kelly. Thank you, Jason. Can you give us that phone number one more time for the public that's listening in? Absolutely. In the phone tree you'll be requested to use number seven to get you to the debris cleanup team or the debris response team. Okay. Council Member Sawyer. Thank you, Mayor. And thank you, Jason. This is a great program and I really appreciate the time it took to put it together and I'm sure the team will be busy. What I'm wondering is not to make any assumptions about how Recology might play a role in this, but I guess my fear is that instead of calling Recology, a person just puts a large chair out on the sidewalk and call the city and have us take care of it. Were there conversations with Recology and are they willing to play ball with us because they tend to be good community members? So we have had discussions with Joey Henowitz who's our liaison with Recology. We do have a program through our contract with Recology that allows for them to pick up bulky debris items and the team that's gonna be doing this will coordinate directly with them if their items that fit within the program that Recology is ultimately responsible for. We will continue to have conversations to ensure that we're working together as opposed to an opposition to one another. We wanna make, you know, we're trying to do the best that we can with the limited resources that exist out there. So they'll definitely be collaboration along the way. Excellent, thank you very much. Council Member Sweatham. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you so much for this Jason. I know there's a whole team that put this together. This has been so surely needed in our community. So thank you, thank you, thank you. I'm interested about the community expectations. Now that this is public because Council on a regular basis gets information about this. What would be some reasonable expectations that if I as a member of the community call up right now, when would we see some movement? So for typical items that occur during the work week, it's our intent to try to respond to this within a 24 hour period. So that's 24 hours from the time we receive the call and the issue will work, the service request. If it happens on a weekend, we will be dealing with this starting the first business day. There may be times where there is something that is a severe concern and we would consider an emergency. The public works line does include a weekend hotline for areas of severe concern. If there is a debris location that the community has identified or a community members identified as a severe concern and issue to them, it will be notified to our weekend on call staff. They will investigate and make a determination whether it's something that they should be cleaning up or whether it's something that can wait until the cruise shows up on Monday. But generally expect that we'll have a 24 hour turnaround on most items. If there are large bulky items or it's a larger area that needs to be cleaned up, it may take a few additional days to remedy that situation, but we'll do our best to try to address it in as short a term as possible. Great, thank you so much. And then I also noticed that, so that we are consistent with the temporary injunction. Anything that potentially could be the property of another person. It sounds like this team will be taken into custody of it. What I was surprised and I saw that apparently the police department would arrange for the return of that. I'm wondering why that department was chosen to return property. So we have been coordinating with the police department over the last several years. Police department has historically logged into evidence those items that are identified as personal belongings. And even though they're stored over at the corporation yard, the police department access the liaison between the community member and the public works team that's storing the equipment to ensure that that property gets back to the appropriate person. And so the police department has agreed to continue that process. We will be working with them to ensure that this is a, that we continue to look at the mechanism to make sure that it fits their staffing model and their needs as well as it does the public work needs. Okay, thank you for that. Great. Council Member Alvarez. Yes, thank you, Mayor. Jason, if you could run by the process one more time, it was music to my ears to hear that, that we have developed a, and by we I know who do the work. So thank you that we have developed a program where a neighbor can call and hopefully within 24 hours the process is initiated on larger issues. It will take more time, but could you very quickly if you could explain to our residents from the beginning of the call, what even the number that they must dial, which is a, which I believe is 543-3800 extension, number seven, if I'm not mistaken. Council Member Alvarez, that's correct. That phone number is accurate. To give you an example, if a community member identifies that someone has dumped a load of tires on the side of the road near a property or an intersection, they would contact this line or send an email and within 24 hours, 24 business hours, a the debris response team will be issued the service request and they will incorporate that into their daily routine to go and address. If the number of tires, for example, exceeded their ability at that particular time, it may take multiple days or additional hours to come back with equipment that would be able to address the situation. But it is something that it is our intent to try to address these things as quickly as is possible. And that's why we've dedicated a team as opposed to what we've done historically, which is we've identified staff and those staff will do it as an, as available basis. We just found that we weren't able to keep up with the volume and we believe that this will help us be able to manage and maintain this proactively into the future. Thank you once again for such a great effort. And I know my brothers and sisters from South Park, especially, will be happy to hear this, to thank you. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. I was just going to ask really quickly, what type of vehicle or and or vehicles will they be in to pick up the debris? Cause I see a lot. So I'm just assuming they're going to have a lot of trips to the dump. Yeah, we have a, we have a number of vehicle types available to us, as well as a bunch of equipment. Most of the time the team is going to be driving around in standard work pickups, but we do have a 10 yard dump, as well as some rear dumping equipment. And then what typically this team will use is a trailer that has a dump component to it. And so they'll utilize their standard vehicle to pull the trailer that has the dump. If they need additional equipment, we've got some skid steers, we've got some back hose, we've got some other equipment that can support. As you've seen, when we've done other larger debris cleanup missions around the city in the last couple of years. And so it's going to depend upon what it is that they're being asked to pick up. Thank you. So Jason, and if you, I apologize if I missed this, when will that number be operational? When will this team be up and running? The team started officially in their capacity yesterday. The phone number is operational right now. The email will be operational here shortly. And my Santa Rosa, I believe, is already up and running as well. And so that is, so we anticipate that this is ready to go ahead and proceed with as of right now. And the information that you see on the screen is accurate. Right, thank you. And because this is in our tier one that we're talking about, has the funding already been identified for this? Or bumping up from the dedicated two-person crew to now the dedicated four-person crew, is there going to be an additional ask of council for resources? So what we have done in an effort to address this as a tier one priority is we have shifted staffing and funding from other portions of the public works organization, both from street maintenance and parks maintenance in an effort to address this specific team and support them. This will result in some changes in our ability to respond to other requests that may come on the streets or the park side. We believe, however, as a priority one, or a tier one priority, that it is more important at this point in history to be able to address our debris issues, the way that we're outlining it in this program. And we will continue to do our best to address our park and street issues. But that's where the funding and the staff hours are coming from, is a shift of resource from already existing programs in those two divisions. Okay, great. And if you can track that data so that we can see what calls are not being addressed as a result, so we can try to make some of those adjustments in the next budget season, that'd be really appreciated, I think, from the council. And we intend to track it as best as we can. I appreciate that. Okay, Council Member Sawyer. Thank you, Mayor. Just one really brief comment. On behalf of so many residents in Santa Rosa that have unofficially adopted parks in their neighborhoods and have been dealing with issues around debris left in the parks, which affect the quality of life, not only of them, but of all of our all Santa Rosans, this is going to be a highly embraced program. And I really thank you for putting it together. It's sorely needed. And I can't imagine any downside to a program like this. Thank you very much. I appreciate that, Council Member. This has been a great team effort to develop this. There have been a lot of investigations at how other cities have addressed this type of situation. And this is a component of what may be to come moving forward. This is one piece, but it is a big piece that will be visible in our community. Yeah. All right, thank you. Kelly, are you taking back over? All right. Yes, and I believe we're at slide 12 now. Okay, so let's get to the subject of the study session, right? There's a lot to cover, but this is really what we're focused in on. Tier 2 prioritization. And this afternoon I'm going to focus on our short term priorities. So there are four here. I'll go into greater detail as we move through the slides, but just to give you a quick overview of those, we have the spark structure or the annex. We've identified phase two capital improvements that are needed as well as ongoing operational costs. Safe parking and alternative shelter. We have for safe parking identified some potential sites and I have estimates for both safe parking and alternative shelter and RV parking ordinance is also one of the short term priorities and Rob Sprinkle with Deputy Director with Public Works will be covering that slide. Want to note here under alternative shelter this is new from what was covered in the study session back in July with council. Since that time, we've had the benefit of implementing the Safe Social Distancing Program at the Finlay Community Center and we wanted to add that in here for council's consideration within the context of safe parking and alternative shelter. So next slide. Sam Jones Hall annex. With the council so far you saw in a couple slides back that you've already invested about $2.6 million to get the shelter up and running plus we've identified $500,000 en operacional cost for the first six months. That happened quickly in order to get it up and running to restore our shelter capacity and get that facility operational in the short term as part of our overall COVID response to ensure that this facility is fully operational, fully functioning in the long term. We do have additional investments that need to be made and that includes the navigation center model that's been previously presented to the council where we had planned within the existing footprint of the shelter to create a separate dorm for individuals coming in from encampments or those with special or higher needs to have a separate space within the shelter to receive specialized services with the scrum structure we're now able to do that in a separate facility. So there's the short term need that's been addressed the shelters up and running but we have identified additional costs. We have a construction estimate for phase two estimated at $3 million. This includes a permanent bathroom facility. So right now we have portable toilets and hand washing stations available for the annex and interior improvement. So the installation of two offices for staff. There are also permanent utility connections that needs to be made and deferred expenses that will likely be triggered with phase two improvements that includes the potential for California Tiger Salamander mitigation credits. And there are also additional needs within the existing facility that should be addressed. And speaking with the public works sort of construction project management team of the $3 million identified to would be for you know required or necessary improvements and a million are for additional needs but potentially optional not necessary. Not necessary. And then as I already mentioned we've identified $500,000 in operations for the first six months of this year. We have that budgeted and funded with community development block grant funds but that does leave ongoing operational expenses for this facility in the upcoming fiscal year. Again, just want to iterate that we've invested to get this facility up and running in the short term to make it fully operational in the long term including that navigation center programming component there are additional investments that need to be made at that shelter. I'll take a break here before I jump into safe parking and answer any questions that you might have about the Sam Jones Hall annex. Anything from council seeing shaking heads so let's jump into the next part. OK, so the safe parking program I have six slides for this one. And I just want to clarify real quick safe parking is different than alternative shelter which I will be covering in the next next group of slides. The program proposed this evening is overnight only whereas the alternative shelter which is similar to the Finley program or a managed camp program is 24 seven and that could include a safe parking component but just want to be very clear that the program for safe parking being proposed tonight is overnight only in terms of these program models I'll go more into detail on them in the next couple slides but this was council direction given to staff last January, January 2020 that the council wanted scaled options that included a basic program sort of a intermediate program which I'm calling a program operator and then a more robust housing focused program so scaled with these three options and then the assumptions that we used in putting together the program models as well as the budgets again that it's overnight only that it would be scattered site potentially one site in each of the seven council districts and that was at the request of city council up to a hundred spots so we built the program model as well as the budgets with these assumptions in mind I'm not saying that we have one spot with a hundred or one program site with a hundred parking spots I'm saying a hundred spots scattered across potentially seven sites and then again the size of each program site is going to be subject to the unique sort of opportunities and constraints of that site for smaller parking lots we'd recommend five to 10 parking spots for larger ones possibly 15 to 20 and if council is interested in moving forward with this program we would go out for a request for proposals to seek a program operator a couple more couple more points on the slide before I move on in terms of why do we need safe parking I think we have all a scene that vehicle encampments are a persistent issue throughout our community it's definitely become more visible over the past few years sometimes in smaller groups scattered throughout the city we thought we've also had large vehicle encampments namely in the area of Corporate Center Parkway and most recently out on Industrial Drive one other thing I want to point out in terms of why we need this program or why it's important or necessary is the 2020 homeless count identified approximately 28% of unsheltered individuals are living in their vehicles and that's approximately 476 people throughout our county I don't have the breakdown for Santa Rosa Next slide please So for this slide these are the three program components that I discussed in the previous slide I want to point out this is really based off of a program that Catholic Charities operated a few years ago for the county of Sonoma under the basic program this would not have a program operator or the benefit of the liability insurance of a program operator that could be extended to the city it's essentially here's a city parking lot you can stay here overnight in your vehicle or your RV and we would provide basic services such as sanitary facilities and private security the estimated cost for that program annually is $165,000 again that's potentially one site in each of the seven council districts up to a total of a hundred spots and those are the assumptions for each of these models this estimate for the basic program does not take into consideration staff time related to the administration of the program and without a program without a program operator I could see that staff could potentially spend a lot of time administering or providing oversight for this program the next model is a program operator this wouldn't necessarily need to have private security that role could be fulfilled by the program operator via a lot monitor that could monitor the sites throughout the evening also via a hotline for any after hours concerns would provide the sanitary facilities and then in addition to sort of the basic program model a program operator would be able to or the benefit there would be to link individuals in the safe parking program with services and again want to reiterate liability insurance provided by the program operator and the benefits that could provide the city since we are self-insured the estimate for the annual cost is $315,000 moving on to the next housing focus program this is sort of the top tier the most robust of the safe parking program options it includes everything in all the services in the program operator plus intensive services so specialized housing staff and case management geared at moving individuals from this program into housing and the estimated cost there is $530,000 before we move on to the next slide I just want to reiterate that if council is interested in this program we would go out for a request for a proposal and this is again an overnight program not 24-7 next slide please so as part of the agenda packet there is a list of all the properties that we evaluated in coming up with potential sites so we did look at 100 city-owned property and that includes and our focus was on city-owned property those that we have control or say over we looked at parks, facilities in our parking district and utilize a number of criteria for evaluating the sites including the number of spaces so if we had a city property that didn't have had limited parking or only street parking that was taken off the list for consideration we looked at hours of operations so for public safety, police and fire those are 24-7 operations and there's concerns around safety with vehicles entering and exiting the parking lots throughout the evening as well as just noise and disruptions for individuals within the safe parking program we looked at proximity to neighborhood schools and childcare facilities lighting invisibility ability to accommodate large vehicles environmental concerns and community benefit that was largely related to our parks and our recreation facilities fire risk, proximity to services and geographic distribution we also looked at former and existing safe parking sites ¿Quién es el siguiente slide, por favor? Así que este es el slide que compartimos con el consejo durante la sesión de estudios en el mes de julio hay tres districciones de consejos donde no hemos identificado el sitio potencial para el parque safe y la dirección que recibimos recibimos desde el consejo en el momento en que por favor, vamos a volver y evaluamos los sitios y regresamos al consejo con al menos un sitio identificado en cada de los 7 districciones de consejos y hemos hecho así con el siguiente slide, por favor así que quiero recordar aquí que estos sitios no son ideal pero son las mejores opciones en cada de los districciones de consejos y si el consejo se siente que estos no son ideales para el parque safe y quiera mover con el parque safe podemos ciertamente llegar a nuestros parque de comunidad para identificar sitios más altos que estos aquí en el slide también quiero mencionar sé que hay alguna preocupación en recibir comentarios públicos sobre estos sitios potenciales quiero mencionar al menos de la perspectiva de los staff hoy es menos sobre estos sitios y más sobre si el consejo quiere hacer un programa de parque safe si nos movemos adelante con eso y identificamos cualquier de estos sitios para el parque safe vamos a estar haciendo un parque de comunidad y también buscando input público entonces hoy es sobre un parque safe y el staff es simplemente seguido con la dirección de el consejo para identificar sitios potenciales dentro de cada de los sitios entonces déjame un segundo voy a poner mi info para los sitios de parque de comunidad para que pueda viajar un poco, un poco un poco algunos de los sitios pros y cons de cada de estos sitios con ustedes entonces para el consejo 1 hay 7 sitios que hemos visto en julio, hemos identificado el former Bennett Valley Senior Center pero la ciudad se ha entrado en, desde ese momento un acuerdo exclusivo de negociación con el desarrollador para el futuro desarrollo de ese sitio así que no es más disponible la siguiente mejor opción fue el parque de comunidad del sur no voy a viajar los sitios pros y cons de cada de los 100 sitios que hemos visto simplemente los que se identifican en el slide entonces para el parque de comunidad del sur en términos de pros tenemos una visibilidad buena no es directamente agresiva a la escuela o a los sitios de parque de comunidad a la risa de fuego y su habilidad para acomodar los vehículos grandes en términos de cons certamente impacta el beneficio de la comunidad y eso sería el caso para algunos de nuestros parques y sitios y no voy a listar ese con con cada de los parques que se identifican aquí pero justa, justa que es una preocupación que tenemos que tomar en consideración impacta a las facilidades que están utilizadas por la comunidad en términos de beneficio de la comunidad y también en el parque de sábado en el parque de sábado es no necesariamente cerca de nuestros servicios de coro en la ciudad de downtown y luego de ir a la ciudad 2 hemos visto 12 sitios en esta ciudad y el grupo recomendó el centro de la Bricuad y la ciudad de la Bricuad en términos de la Bricuad el centro de la Bricuad tendríamos que coordinar con las operaciones de la existencia del centro de la salud y hemos llegado a ellos llegados a ellos para darles un pedazo de que podríamos discutir el sitio esta noche en términos de pros para este sitio no es directo adhesivo a una escuela o una facilidad de carácter hay un riesgo de low fire la proximidad para los servicios es un beneficio aquí y también no es un parque así que no estamos preocupados sobre los impactos de la comunidad esto es un pequeño sitio y así no podríamos acomodar grandes vehículos y probablemente sólo 5 sitios podrían ser acomodados allí y kelly la ciudad de la Bricuad solo para la claridad decir que eso es la Bricuad ¿correcto? no la ciudad de la Bricuad así que la ciudad de la Bricuad es la ciudad de la Bricuad a través de la Bricuad la ciudad de la Bricuad es a través de la Bricuad de la Bricuad pero en en la ciudad de la Bricuad hay un poco de un sentimiento es por algunas oficinas de negocio y la Bricuad ok, gracias perdón, no tengo un visual para ti yo tengo un mapa en el próximo slide pero es difícil ver este lugar particular en ese mapa pero eso es kelly, creo que solo para entrar creo que a la mayoría de las personas no saben que ese parque existe ok es un es un es un es un poco absurdo es es, y es muy cerca de la 7 pero no es la 7 es alrededor de la ciudad sí en términos de pros por el sitio hay un poco de riesgo y tú sabes el beneficio de la comunidad minimal no es un parque cons tú sabes es un no es un no es un no es un no es un tú sabes el beneficio de la comunidad no es un no es un no es un no es un no es un no es un no es un no es un no es un no es un no es un no es un no es un no es un no es un no es un no es un no es un no es un no es un no es un no es un no es un no es un no es un no es un no es un no es un no es un de los vehículos, en términos de cons, es right next to a school in a residential area, a community park, and far out on the east side of Santa Rosa is, you know, not the best site for proximity to services. Moving on to District 4, we evaluated 16, or we looked at 16 sites in this district and Franklin Community Park was identified as the best option. I has good visibility at least a la parte de la ciudad, y a la parte de la ciudad. So, I'm going to be doing a lot, and low fire risk, but definitely concerns around community benefit, this is a park, there's also a preschool that's operated there and is close to residential area. It's also a small lot, so it would be hard to accommodate larger vehicles. Kelly, I have a quick question. What impact around PSPS? And adjacent to that question is do, would the expectation be that everybody would pack up during the day? I know you said it's overnight only, but so you sleep there and then you move your RV or your tent during the day. So this is for vehicles only. So vehicles and RVs are trailers, not for tents, and it is overnight only. So with a sort of traditional safe parking program, the program that Catholic Charities operated a few years ago and then a very well known program in the Santa Barbara area operated through a nonprofit called New Beginnings, they are overnight only. And they have been very successful programs, but the expectation is that you leave during the day and I'll touch on that as an overarching concern about an overnight only program. But in terms of PSPS, that's not something that we took into consideration with their evaluation. If we're going to move forward with any of these sites, we would definitely have to look at that. Thank you. You're welcome. District 5, there were 34 properties in this district to evaluate and we identified three potential locations in this area. So starting with Finlay Community Park, we certainly know that we could operate a program there based on our experience with the Safe Social Distancing Program. But the parking lot that is closer to the park is a better option for this program. There's good visibility. It's not directly adjacent to a school. Low fire risk and having it in the parking lot close to the park, minimizes the impacts to the community center. And then ACON, definitely, you know, the Finlay Complex offers a lot of services for our community. So we have to weigh the community benefit impacts there. Then I have Northwest Community Park. There's good visibility there at least on the front lot. That street facing, there's low fire risk and ability to accommodate large vehicles. And in terms of cons, it is close to a school residential area and is a park. So again, the concerns around community benefit. I'm almost done here. Let's see City Hall is the last site identified in District 5. And again, good visibility, not directly adjacent to school, child care facility or a neighborhood. Low fire risk. We could accommodate large vehicles there. And then in terms of cons, just geographic distribution. It's proximity to locations in District 2. And I'll point that out in the next slide with the map. District 6. We identified Youth Community Park for its visibility, ability to accommodate large vehicles and it's not directly adjacent to a child care facility. However, it is close to school and a residential area. And we have had issues with encampments at that park and increased fire risk. Lastly, District 7. We looked at 14 properties in this district and identified 2. Going back to the July 7 council meeting, we initially identified Sam Jones Hall as a potential location given co-location with an existing facility that offers homeless services and shelter. However, that's no longer an option given that the sprung structure was 8,000 feet was constructed on the parking lot and could not have safe parking there now. But we did identify a place to play for its visibility, ability to accommodate large vehicles and it's not directly adjacent to school or child care facility. However, it is a park and so there's the community benefit concern. It's also a staging site for emergency operations. Lastly, the utility fields office. This site has good visibility can accommodate large vehicles and is not directly adjacent to school, child care, residential. However, we do have to take into consideration emergency operations at that site and geographic distribution given its proximity to District 5 and the Finlay Community Center. Just real quick overarching concern that the group raised with the safe parking program and to your point, Council Member Fleming, the safe parking program as proposed this afternoon is overnight only not 24-7 so there are concerns just with daytime use and daytime impacts to our parks or areas surrounding these potential safe parking sites. I do feel that we could address those and the team is willing to work through those concerns but I did want to raise that as an overarching concern. Next slide please. This is my last slide for safe parking and then I can take a break if you have any questions that you might have about this. I'll just throw it out there that this slide is much better live or using your web browser this is a screenshot and has some limitations but it does at least give you a visual of the sites that I just covered in the previous slide so the orange dots those are the potential locations one in each of the seven council districts I want to point out the red district in this slide is district one however when I scaled it to fit the slide I lost the district and a couple other things so you can see in district five there's a concentration around a number of sites there we have city hall, we have east street lot six and the brookwood health center so something just to take into consideration about sites in that area and then the utilities field office looks like it's in district five but it's actually in district seven it's just right on the border there but those sites the UFO and family community park are very close to one another another couple points to make in this slide before we move on to questions about safe parking would be the green dots as I mentioned we do have three faith based partners participating in the community homeless assistance program offering safe parking we have the first united Methodist church and they're in district seven they're probably the longest standing safe parking program in Santa Rosa they previously worked with Catholic Charities and Catholic Charities ran that program for the county they offer up to ten spots at their church property they've downsized that church sorry they've downsized their program during the pandemic up in council district five we have redwood forest friends that's a relatively new program safe parking program coming online I think in the last six months and they offer six safe parking spots there looks like our clerk is trying to zoom in here thank you and then lastly we have Christ United Methodist church and they offer three safe parking spots we did have a site in council district six it was McBride safe parking that was made available by a private property owner and homeless action and that provided 20 safe parking spots but that site closed down as that property is slated for affordable housing and just one more quick point here there was greater participation from our faith based community with safe parking when there was a program operator so under Catholic Charities program there was greater participation from the faith based community and they've expressed a willingness to participate in this program moving forward if there were a program operator to assist with that with that I'll take questions on the safe parking program before we move on to alternative shelter alright let's start with council member Sawyer thank you mayor and thank you Kelly for again a great presentation two things I'm going to be curious to hear how the success was achieved in the other area in California that had a program not unlike this one number two is there will of course be situations where someone is able to bring the vehicle in and because of one reason or another we've all experienced breakdowns one description or another and they can't remove it the next morning is the one does the 165 contain within it the potential for having to tow vehicles out of these various sites in the morning it's an excellent question and it does not and something I've thought about adding as an afterthought as well as a fund or resources to help people repair their vehicles if they need help with that but that 165 is the baseline budget just to have a safe place to sleep and have access to sanitary facilities okay thank you did I answer your question about the I think you might have had a question about the Santa Barbara program yeah unless you want to do it as a closing but I am curious what made them successful yeah so I think you know I don't have their program outcomes in front of me but having read through they have a program manual they put together that other communities are looking at it's really about simply providing people a safe place to stay the night in their vehicles so you know they're not victimized while they're living in their vehicles but also so that they're not asked to move along and then you know with the ultimate goal I know that they have had some success in getting these people into permanent solutions so into housing that living in your vehicle your RV is not the end all and I think that's what the success of the program really is and then also managing concerns around where are they going to go in the daytime and how is that going to impact the surrounding community and based on reading through their program manual and also speaking with Catholic Charities there are program agreements that you can have in place with clients that are participating in the program that require them to essentially be good neighbors and based on Catholic Charities experience people wanted to participate in the program and were willing to comply with those program rules and be good neighbors well given the relative affluence of Santa Barbara I was particularly curious as to how they not only sold the program to the community but continued its success that is a it would be a challenging community to come up with a successful program so I appreciate the information it just tells you and when given the right tools Council Member Fleming Thank you Mayor and thanks again Kelly for quite a comprehensive review of locations throughout our city it's always neat to see where our assets are distributed and where they make sense to go I do have a question which goes back to it's not about PSPS but it is about the ongoing nature of fires in our city and I get the urge to want to distribute these evenly throughout the city and certainly my district is one that can accommodate something like this without it being in the way or too far on the east side of town but I do start to wonder about the wisdom of placing these and I know that you're responding to a council request but one of these in every district I'm wondering if you have any thoughts about and this might be a fire marshal question or something like that about you know would we perhaps in a year or two years hopefully we'll never have another fire again but look at this as like what were we thinking when we put a whole bunch of extra vehicles on the east side of people living in them rather than you know easily evacuated areas and the second question would be if we do do these would your team be prepared to have evacuation routes and prep the residents on how to best evacuate and would people be in stable locations and I'm peppering you with a lot of questions and they don't all need to be answered right now but with the residents I see you Sean hold on one second would the residents then be able to be in stable locations so that they don't have to learn a new evacuation route depending on the day go ahead Sean so I think these are really legitimate questions councilmember I think we need to go back and do some additional analysis based on that I think staff was doing what you suggested back in July legitimately trying to get it through a exercise where we would provide that spread but I would you know actually since July we've had the second incursion within the city limits I think we're all really conscious of that and I would request that that we actually really look at that particular issue in lieu of the glass fire I don't think we've asked enough questions about it and so I would ask that we take this for what it is which was what Kelly said it was which was a very preliminary exercise but we need to ask those questions and this is in no way meant to diminish the amazing work that's been done here but just to put out like that you know since we gave direction a while ago you know we've had much more frequent devastation and it just seems hard to justify going forward we as a staff concur and I just want to make sure that we'll look at that and I'm going to say right now we need to do that work Thank you Council Member Sweatham Thank you Mr. Mayor Thank you for this Kelly because it is has been mentioned is exactly what we're looking for again going back to the regional approach to this and I know this wasn't an ask of you but have there been any discussions with county representatives regarding county property located in the jurisdiction of Santa Rosa Santa Rosa I'm going to step in here because I was having this conversation with the city manager earlier today and I'm going to ask him to take it So I was specifically we've asked this question on repeated occasions about the availability of the fairgrounds the answer that I was given was that the right now that that would require the Board of Supervisors on staffing and resources and the location and that the Board is not scheduled to formally address issues around homelessness on its calendar until August so I that was the answer I was given I think that that may have been an abbreviation I think there are other issues on going on but I was told the next formal conversation will take place in August of this year Great, thank you for that information and thank you for all this information Kelly for you and your team because I think it's not only great information for the seven of us before our entire community because I think all of us receive the emails about why aren't you doing this, why aren't you doing that and I think you've just outlined some of the challenges with any of the city property so I really appreciate this investigation and we're going to continue this discussion thank you I'll piggyback on the city manager's comments just a little bit I did ask that that request be made prior to this study session because I know that that is something that all of us have questions about or get questions about from the public and if the council would like in advance of that discussion in August for the Board of Supervisors I'm also happy to formally write a letter requesting that consideration from the council I believe it would be the third mayor in a row from Santa Rosa who has written that letter but I'm happy to do that again with that I'll go on to the vice mayor Hi Kelly again thank you for the presentation thus far I did have a question about the safe parking program and the different programs that were outlined between basic program operator and the housing focus program have we ever thought about into something that could be possibly a hybrid with the basic and the program operator having a peer a peer run kind of a program it's one of the options that we're presenting here this evening but if council is interested in moving forward with a safe parking program we would go out for a request for a proposal seeking a program operator so we're not tied to these budgets or these program models these are just estimates we put together based on our knowledge of safe parking programs so an agency is welcome to submit a model which sort of aligns with what you're suggesting here with peer support but I think in order to get funding from the city of Santa Rosa you would have to be at least a non-profit a 501C3 ok, thank you councilmember Fleming did you have more to add? yeah, I really just I know that this is not the time for comments but I can't wait for that they're not taking this up till August is that what I heard? again the communication I received was that the next formal scheduled to talk discussion item on this on their calendar was in August at this time ok Mr. Mayor you made a suggestion of sending a letter to them ahead of that August meeting I would like to express my desire to have us all send a communication way sooner than that asking for them to take this up or at least give us a response to this I know that this gets into some other territory we can talk about that during the regularly scheduled meeting but I will be recommending something along those lines I think that this is ludicrous so and I will work with staff to get that letter out here in the next week thank you Mr. Mayor councilmember Alvarez I agree now I believe this conversation was carried forth from July I as Natalie were not on the council then but I myself and I can't speak for Natalie were more than happy to jump in during that conversation was the topic of 24 hours ever discussed during that conversation or safe parking the first step of inquiring the process on how to help the RV campers so councilmember Alvarez I'll be discussing alternative shelter in the next slides and that's a 24-7 model what we're looking at right now is an overnight program but you can certainly have a 24-7 safe parking program thank you alright thank you councilmember and then Kelly I just want to thank you as well I was chuckling when I saw the list particularly for district 5 having 34% of the sites to evaluate I completely get that it's because it's downtown and that's where the city owns property and that's what you were asked to do and it was nice to see that there's many many many options in that district or right around it I hear you councilmember Fleming about PSPS and about fire potential I think we absolutely do need to evaluate that but I also just want to point out to the council that when we talk about socioeconomics in this city and disparities that exist and in particular when we talk about the location of our homeless services there's always going to be good reasons to push that into southwest Santa Rosa where it has always traditionally been and that doesn't mean that that's where we should continue to go as a council so yes we need to evaluate it but at the same time I want to make sure that we're cognizant of those disparities that have been created that make this easier for us to go that path and try to really chart a different course for our community where we're not asking the same places that have shouldered the load to continue to shoulder the load and yes that means that we might have to end up with some less than ideal placements with evacuation planning or other types of resources to make it work for those couple of months but I really want to hold this council to the commitment that they made that they are going to start to spread this throughout our community and also we're going to hold our partners, the county and other jurisdictions accountable for their commitments to do their part as well to spread this throughout the county because it is a regional approach so I did want to throw that out there as well Councilmember Alvarez did you want to make a comment your hand popped back up there I do actually, I appreciate the comment that you just made and I was going to reserve my question so after a public comment but seeing that I've been given the opportunity to make a comment I'll do so I was taking a look at the list and I was going to suggest that sites that we're looking at aren't closely connected to a creek or waterways or parks such as even the youth center and district number 7 I believe 6 I believe and the reason being is during the days I'm happy here that our transient folks are looking to be good neighbors but from experience and seeing that there's a large open area where we can explore during the day I would hate to see the detriment that could be caused to the environment and surrounding areas 5, 6 y 7 with the parks that they have adjacent to the property or sites that you identify thank you alright thank council and with that I will send that letter as was requested if it works for the council I'll formally ask for partnership or even just utilization of the space at the farm excuse me the county fair site the veterans hall and the county complex and ask the county for if not partnership and funding at least allowing the utilization of that spot for the program that we're considering here in Santa Rosa so can I can I ask that there's a couple meetings taking place this week including one with your representative member Shwedum moving into an ad hoc with the other cities can we at least get through those conversations before we pin the letter because it may be a more expansive ask than even just a property conversation it may be a baseline collaboration conversation that's part of the reason we've re engineered where Kelly and her fabulous group of two herself and her colleague work in the city manager's office to try to get some of these things addressed and I would like to include that in the conversation so I'm just requesting that when we pin the letter that it may be a wider ask about a conversation about how we work together as a region if that I'm seeing works for everybody I'll circle back with councilmember Shwedum first and then work with the city manager and his team on that okay Kelly do you want to keep going sorry go ahead councilmember soya really fast really fast you know although I'm incredulous as to the response if I wouldn't want to do anything today that would jeopardize our communication with our regional partners as much as I would love to I think it's important that we show that kind of participation and not letting the waters while we try to do the good work on the other side but it certainly would give me no small amount of glee to send that letter out yesterday and that's part of what I'm asking is that we assume there's a lot going on there's a lot of challenges that everyone's facing right now I just I think it was an unfortunate response to the question and I don't I want to make sure that we're walking in assuming good intent and maybe calling attention to an issue I think I just received a a engineered response to a question maybe not a full when we talk about it fully since councilmember Sawyer's point I just want to make sure that we're walking in with a good intent because I think there's a lot of positive energy out there. I'm glad to hear that I'm just going to jump in and say really quickly that my intention is not to pillory the county here it is just to move things along in a way that's effective for the community and your input on how to do that without you know anybody losing face and with us gaining collaboration is much appreciated I appreciate that as well and I might I might ask the city manager for now supervisor Corsi's letter that he wrote when he was mayor and we can just re address it back to him I think with that go ahead Kelly I said one more comment on the state parking program before we move into the next slides and I recall this after councilmember Sawyer's question about the Santa Barbara program and what success looks like how is that program successful and some feedback we've received from them is that having a program operator is key so staff recommendation for a state parking program if you want to move forward with that is that at the bare minimum we have program operator for that program next slide please ok slide 20 we're at the home stretch here I promise alternative shelter so this is 24-7 unlike the state parking that I just presented which was an overnight program and this would be something similar to the Finley program you know where it's essentially a managed camp and I'll go more into detail in the next slide about that but we looked at a number of program models when coming up with the estimates and that included our experience at Finley the state social distancing program I've reached out to the county in St. Vincent de Paul to learn more about Los Galicos village and the trailers that are available at the fairgrounds we did a site visit a couple years ago to Oakland to learn more about their bridge communities I do know that they have one that has both temporary structures and state parking component and I've reached out to staff there to learn more about how that program is running and I'm waiting to hear back from them so alternative shelter the assumptions here is that it would be a single site unlike the scattered site proposed under safe parking again 24-7 operations and management the size and the scope of that is going to be subject to which site we select and its unique opportunities and constraints of that site we have not identified sites for alternative shelter we could certainly go back to that list of 100 properties that we looked at even the potential locations identified that I shared with council this afternoon but safe parking overnight and 24-7 are different programs so it likely wouldn't be the same list that we shared with council for safe parking in terms of cost now this is based on our experience operating the finley and then again reaching out to the county about their programs we're estimating $150,000 per month and up to 1.8 million per year for operations plus any site or capital costs so with the finley program for example which was pretty bare bones are done on a shoe string we use tents and we don't recommend using tents moving forward we'd like to look at something all season all weather and that could be the pallet structures that they have at low-skillicles or it could be travel trailers like they're using at the fairgrounds but there are going to be costs for setting up that site for the structures as well as the site itself for example at finley we had the fencing we had tents, we had portable toilets and hand washing stations there was a staff tent and in addition I'm just trying to emphasize that in addition to monthly operational costs there will be costs associated with the site and capital improvements and if the council is interested in this program then we would go out for a request for proposal it could be a combined safe parking and alternative request for proposal subject to your direction in terms of you know why this program is important or is needed I'll just share with you again the success of the finley program more than 200 individuals were served through that program during the six months that it operated providing a safe alternative to encampments during the pandemic we also learned through that program that individuals that were less willing to accept shelter in a traditional setting or congregate shelter like sam jones hall were willing to come into the finley center for the first time for many people we also are hearing more recently from our outreach team and our police officers who are engaging these individuals on a daily basis boots on the ground that individuals living out on the streets and encampments are more willing to come into shelters like the finley program or Los Galicos or the trailers of the fairgrounds so with that I'm going to hand actually I'll pause here answering questions you might have about alternative shelter before handing it over to Rob Sprinkle to talk about the RV parking ordinance any questions from council councilmember alvarez Kelly is there a program that's hybrid in this case of RV overnight as well as alternative shelter because I did see the difference of cost but I'm also seeing that this is going to be for the outdoor camping or alternative system but do any of the sites or any assumptions entertain the idea of both an area set aside for RV I mean they're already equipped with their own camping material or equipment right so you know we have not operated a site like that in Santa Rosa the finley program was for tents only and the county has the Los Galicos which are the pilot structures as well as the trailers of the fairgrounds Oakland has a number of bridge communities with temporary structures and last I checked with them they do have a site that has a safe parking component so you can absolutely have an alternative shelter site that includes temporary structures and a safe parking component so for individuals living in their vehicles or RVs that could be part of this again this is 24 7 so there is a significant cost difference between an overnight safe parking program and a 24 7 alternative shelter program councilor are there any other questions about this councilmember Sawyer thank you mayor very quickly the answer may not be as quick I'm really concerned about costs the variance in the cost is there a way to start out at one level and reasonably enhance that from a from the more conservative to the alternative shelter or is that do you have to really go after one or the other and stay the course I think we have some flexibility here but the budgets that I covered for the safe parking program again are just for overnight and so it's not going to be as expensive nor as intensive as a 24 7 program so again if council is interested in this we can put it out for RFP and see the responses we get and we can also work through in the RFP specifically what council might be looking for I understand your concern with costs the family program was relatively inexpensive for six months but if we're going to scale that up to include something other than tents which I really think we should do it's going to cost more thank you Kelly is there an ability to include the community in the construction of the palette shelters the non tents that you're describing or are there liability issues from the city side as well as well so as Kelly's not in construction I'm going to say we can take that and look at it but I don't know if we have an answer for that particular question mayor this evening I don't want Kelly to venture into construction rules and regulations that's not her area but we happy to take that on I definitely I can appreciate that I do hear frequently from folks in the public that they'd like to help and don't really know how and that might be if this is a direction that the council does choose to go that might be a way to gain some buy-in from community and to show an ability for the community to help one another in that construction and it'll save cost we can absolutely look at that model and I will work with Kelly and the team on that front to see what we can come up with I'm happy to swing a hammer so Kelly let's go ahead and keep going then okay so next slide and I'm going to turn it over to Rob Sprinkle he's a deputy director with transportation and public works good afternoon mayor Rogers vice mayor Rogers and council members Rob Sprinkle deputy director of traffic engineering me afford relating to parking options I want to get some feedback relating to the potential of an RV parking ordinance this is something that several jurisdictions to the south of San Rosa have implemented to minimize the number of RVs that park on the city streets these efforts have reduced the trash and other storm drain violations as well the congregation of RVs in commercial and industrial areas which we've heard from business owners have impacted their businesses and really transformed some of the areas around their businesses as the RVs congregate there so the concept of an RV ordinance is to restrict RV parking citywide on all public streets it's doesn't segregate or discriminate for those who own RVs and need to park them on the city street for a short period of time they would be required to get required to get permits to park in front of their houses or their residences if you have a visitor who wants to come and visit you and stay in an RV at your home they would also have to get a permit to do so and these permits could be obtained for several days with the sponsorship basically of the resident proof of registration for the RVs would be required in both instances of either your own or a visitor and there's a multiple variety of options that we could do as far as the number of days that people can have an RV at their home for a year or the number of visitors they can have for a year and all these definitely need to be vetted but the reason we wanted to bring this tonight to you was basically get your comments from the council on whether it's something that you would want us to consider in moving forward with the program would require management as well as enforcement other agencies have been successful in setting up online applications for this to help minimize the workload and that's what I would propose as well this is roughly estimated about $100,000 a year to operate and there would be initial investment of about $15,000 to post signs of the ordinance as you enter the city throughout throughout the city during the various locations on the city streets so that I'm willing to take questions or if we want to if this is the last item Kelly I want to make sure that I can take questions now I see a couple of hands pop up councilmember Alvarez is it possible to go for a more of a complaint based approach opposed to requiring a permit will be the pros and cons I think this probably will be generated by complaints and I think it will be upon the program manager to take those complaints and move forward with them and help educate residents on the process and and as things move forward that's what I would propose doing if I may a y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y