 I'm not seeing anybody in the chamber interested in giving public comment. Are there any hands that raised on Zoom? No, there are no hands raised in Zoom, nor did we receive any written or voice message public comments on item two closed session. Okay. Then we'll go ahead and recess to close session. We'll be back for our study sessions in just a little bit. Thank you for joining us interpreter Pablo and Charles. I'm going to put Charles over into the Spanish channel. When we come back to the regular meeting, we'll make the announcement that Spanish channel translation is available. Understood. For those joining the meeting, live translation in Spanish 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, we recommend you shut off the main audio so you only hear the Spanish translation. Interpreter Charles, would you be able to repeat that in Spanish? Interpreter Pablo, would you be able to repeat that message in Spanish, please? For those who just joined the meeting, live interpretation in Spanish is available and members wishing to listen in Spanish, can join the channel. To join, click on the interpretation 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 interpretation in Spanish. All right. Madam City Clerk, I recognize a quorum. Can we go ahead and call the roll and resume the meeting? Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Tibbetts. Here. Council Member Schwedhelm. Here. Council Member Sawyer. Here. Council Member Fleming. Council Member Alvarez. Resume. Vice Mayor Rogers. Present. Mayor Rogers. Here. Council Member Fleming, have you joined us? Okay. Let the record show that all Council Members are present with the exception of Council Member Fleming. Thank you. And Council Member Fleming is joining us via Zoom. She was here for our closed session. While we wait for her to join, can you please explain to the public how they can participate in today's hybrid meeting? Yes. So after each agenda item is presented, the Mayor will ask for Council Comments and then open it up for public comment. The Mayor will first take public comment on those participating via Zoom or in the chamber as he chooses, then move on to the members participating in person in the chamber. The host and Zoom will be lowering all hands until public comment is open for the agenda item. Once the Mayor has called for public comment, he 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 9 to raise your hand. If you wish to provide a public comment and are attending the meeting in person, please sign up to speak on an item with the administrator at the top of the room. This process is in lieu of speaker cards in order to reduce touch points due to COVID-19. Julie will ask for your name, what item you wish to speak on, and for a one sentence summary of your statement for the record. The Mayor will then call on those in person who have signed up to speak on an item. Once all live public comments Zoom and in person 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 a voice message public comment, your email, e-comment, or voice message public comment will not be duplicated, read, or played during the meeting. Additionally, there are two public comment periods on today's agenda to speak on non-agenda matters at 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, an interpreter will be prepared to assist anyone needing interpretation services. 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 the interpretation channel 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. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Clerk. And I'll recognize the council member Fleming has also joined us. We have a full house of council members. And I just want to apologize. We're running about two hours behind both partially because council members had a robust conversation about our closed session that we can talk about later, but also because we had an unexpected fire drill that we participated in here during closed session. So with that, let's go on to our study session. Mr. City Manager. Mayor and members of the council, the study session this afternoon is on our one-time sources of funds, the American Rescue Plan Act, and our PG&E settlement funds. Jan Mazik, our chief financial officer, is going to be presenting a series of slides today. And we've broken those into segments. The first is the PG&E settlement funds and an overview of the existing allocations that have been approved by the city council. Then we'll focus on a list of potential projects for the remaining PG&E settlement funds. Then we'll give an overview of the American Rescue Plan Act so that you understand the restrictions on the use of the funds, as well as the eligible projects or types of expenses that are called out in the act. And then a list of potential projects for the community assistance funds and then some potential projects for infrastructure and grants. As you all know, today's session is both for the council to receive information on the eligible uses of the funds and to take public input on possible uses of those funds. And then following that for the council to give direction to city staff on how to prioritize those requests to help us prepare to return to you, probably in September with an agenda item to take action on allocating funds to those priority projects. With that, I'll turn it over to Jan Mazik, our chief financial officer. Good afternoon, Mayor Rogers and council members. Today we'll be talking about two programs related to the American Rescue Plan Act and PG&E remaining settlement funds for which their funds that some of them have been committed. ARPA has not been committed at all. And we'll talk about each of those. I would also let this time say there's an appendices full of requests regarding each of those funds. I also included with regard to the PG&E settlement funds, the summary that was taken last year when the public had input and that is included for your information as well as staff requests regarding ARPA funds. So I know that Alan Alton has been the face and voice of one time funds for the city. I'm pinch heading for him today. But before Alan left on vacation, we spent some time talking about higher and best uses regarding these sources of monies. It was also important for us to recognize other efforts to mobilize ideas and requests previously made to the city council. And those are included in the appendices with regard to the PG&E dollars as well as ongoing budget requests. There have been no commitments made by the finance department regarding any uses. Council is at liberty to do as it wishes, keeping in mind that ARPA funds do come with strings attached. If we can go to slide three, please. Next slide. Thank you. So with regard to PG&E settlement funds of a total of 95 million, 48 million has been obligated for general fund reserves, 40 million, and fire resiliency projects, totaling eight million. There have been funds that have been committed for red, $10 million and Roseland library, $10 million as well, with the remaining amount of 27 million that remains uncommitted. It is that $27 million that is up for discussion today as to how council would like to see those funds applied. Next slide, please. This has a little bit more detail of the current obligations and commitments sort of in the right column. We've talked about these, the 40 million, the 10 and the 10 for Roseland as well as red, vegetation management and wild land resiliency response strategic plan at five and a quarter and $2.7 million respectively. So although these assignments have been made or commitments have been made, they're not going to show up until after the official audit and the close of the fiscal year. And you will see them in the, at the end of the year in our financial statements. Next slide, please. So one of the, so from the list of projects that was put forward by the public last year, Allen had done a sourcing for 20 million, Hopper Avenue quarter, 6 million, residential street repair for 7 million and re landscaping and vegetation restoration for 7 million. When I met with him to talk about this, I said, tell me more, how did you choose these projects and tell me why? There was a lot of emotion behind his suggestion on these projects, which I supported. And so they are here purely for your consideration just to remind you that it is at your discretion how these funds are ultimately allocated. Next slide, please. Before we go on to talking about ARPA, let me pause here and ask, because that concludes the PG&E portion and of the 20 million that you would have seen committed there on the previous slide, there would be $7 million that would still remain uncommitted. So I'd pause here and ask if there are any questions before I continue with ARPA dollars. Members, are there any questions or can we keep going? All right, let's keep moving through the presentation and we'll ask all of the questions at the end, Jan. Okay. So our American Rescue Plan Act funds, we received these in two tranches. The first tranche we received, they are posted in a special fund. Those funds remain unappropriated and it is our recommendation that council consider a comprehensive spending plan for both tranches so that we can submit a plan to Treasury at the end of August. All funds are required to have been spent and accounted for and off the city's books by December 31, 2024. So the window for making sure that funds are expended within the wishes of the city council within a very short timeframe. Just a little bit about what the American Rescue Plan Act, I believe, was intended to do was one to offer some stability post pandemic to give cities the opportunity to sort of re-strategize as to overall objectives, be inclusive, forward-looking of the commitments are being made, meaning outward towards the community and opportunities for something different, whether for partnership across jurisdictions or just partnership within the community itself. Next slide, please. So there is specific timing and spending requirements, as I mentioned, consistent compliance and certification necessitated as to how the funds were spent when we're filing those expenditures. But just sort of continuing again on the overall goal of ARPA, I think it was really with the intent of turning the page COVID and sort of being resiliency looking, getting the community and our communities sort of back on their feet, recovering as much as possible from the economic fallout as far as governments go, making up for lost revenues, supportive policies and services that could help keep jobs in the community, support immediate economic stabilization for households and businesses alike and just local recovery fiscal needs for impacted industries, impacted businesses, for essential workers who were below a certain level of pay and the communities hardest hit by the crisis. As recently as today, however, there was a White House press briefing with the president and vice president. And it does seem that one of the things that have been considered to be added is sort of the violent crimes response from police departments. It was a press briefing shortly before we prepare to join the meeting. But I would also mention that because that's not been previously a discussion point. Next slide, please. I would admit that it's been unpredictably challenging for us to figure out exactly what could be done with ARPA monies. And so many of, in checking with some of my colleagues, CFOs and a few city managers around California as well. Many people turned to their CPA firms if they had established or attempted to establish a practice specialized in looking at ARPA funds given their compliance requirements. And the city, Allen did actually reach out to Hagerty who I believe has handled a lot of the federal reimbursements that the city has had. And we have asked their assistance in looking at these as well. I think a lot of it, we still haven't seen final guidelines. A lot of it has been interpretative. And so in having sort of that extra pair of eyes, we have no definitive answer from them as yet. Sort of the initial feedback was it's thoughtful. The revenue loss part is really a holistic calculation. It's not, I lost 4 million here, 3 million here. So it's 7 million. It doesn't work that way. It's on a totality basis. And it's also forward-looking. So with that in mind, in thinking about a comprehensive plan, a really what is across two and a half, three years, we've provided services to address. We thought about, we looked at funding homeless services, safe parking, that was a smaller amount. We suggested a million dollars over the next two years, homelessness across all three. Universal basic income, almost a half a million dollars, 1.9 million in utility bill assistance. These were for water utility subscriptions that have been more than 90 days past due, jobs program, childcare program. So we've grouped these really into categories, public health and economic impact is this first section, small business tenant improvements would be section two. It's missing the be there revenue loss category and then investments in infrastructure. The infrastructure is defined as being focused on resiliency efforts, broadband sort of in communities that have been particularly felt the impact of not having that exposure. And so most, some of these are across two years and it's phased out in year three. The one thing that I would comment, the homelessness, safe parking, those items have typically been general funded. If we are able to use ARPA monies, that would free up roughly 5.4 million dollars in the general fund this year, 4 million next year and about 3.9 in the following year. However, these would only be temporary and these funds would either need to be returned or these costs would either go back to the general fund in 2024, 25, or they would have to find other funding sources. Next slide, please. So the next two slides really reflect the spending programs over the next two years. 9.7 million dollars has been committed to total community assistance. Again, that includes homeless, safe parking, family programs, assistance to families including utility bills, jobs program. Then on the next slide, which is part of the overall 17 million, broadband in each of the two years for total infrastructure and grants programs of about 7.3 million. I mentioned that the funds particularly related to childcare programs and secure family funds and homeless services would go away in year two. Would go away at the end of year three at the end of the ARPA program. Next slide, please. So here are the timelines with it against which we are working. There's an expenditure report due to treasury on August 31st. It's perfectly fine if we say we spent nothing during the period which is what the answer would be. And then there's quarterly reporting thereafter until the expiration of the report. We only make report on expenditures that occurred within a specified period. Next slide. So as was mentioned by the city manager at the beginning of the presentation, we're looking for direction to staff. Certainly any changes, anything that you would like to see here that isn't here or if it's a complete overhaul of what is here, we can make those revisions and return to council with a revised spending plan. And there are two things I would add to the August report to treasury. We are still awaiting some direct feedback from Hagerty as to what has been proposed here. We are looking for direct feedback on the revenue calculation that's been the difficult component. And then with a submission expenditure report, there would be nothing to report for the first period ending August 31. That concludes my presentation. The appendices are here. There's all sorts of information in them. The PG&E summaries, I think go through slides 23, beginning on 23. It's all staff requests for ARPA funding. Thank you. Council Member Sawyer, are you going to start? Just a preliminary question and then I'll stop with this one. Jan, you mentioned the press conference or the strategy coming out of Washington. Could you elaborate a bit as to why you mentioned that and what the consequences would be for us as a city? I mentioned it for two reasons. One, over the weekend, I actually was doing some reading and there was something that caught my attention on crime prevention and ARPA dollars. But I couldn't remember where I read it and I wrote to the chief over the weekend and mentioned it to him. Today, to answer your question, I received an email suggesting that, yeah, I received an email regarding the crime prevention program but I also received notification regarding a White House briefing just in mail and I looked at it and there is a specific section, I think it's being refined. It was a White House briefing though with the president and the vice president saying that crime prevention is under consideration for use of ARPA dollars given the increased crime. I couldn't spend a lot of time reading it. There was more to reference there but I said what I could said to the chief was I would try to remember to bring it up at this meeting because I hadn't included it previously. Because it's a rather long document. Yes, it is a long document. And I guess what I'm concerned about is to your knowledge, did it come with funds? To cities. It did not seem to come with funds. I didn't take that. Now, what I can't tell you is if there's an intention to provide additional funds but it's specifically referred to ARPA. Okay, because it's under the title, it says fact sheet, Biden-Harris administration announces comprehensive strategy to prevent and respond to gun crime and ensure public safety. So I guess what I would have to assume and I know that's dangerous potentially is that over time there may be some funds that might become available under this program but we needn't concern ourselves with that this evening. Is that your take on it? I would say that's a safe assumption. I don't know that definitively what I will also say to you is that if you chose to look, it's I don't think it's once you said here's my spending plan for two and a half years that I mean, there's some things you're gonna commit to if you for instance decided to do broadband you're really gonna make a two year commitment to do that over a period of time. If you committed to something else that you thought you might wanna fund in the next year the reality is we still do have a file to file a spending plan. I don't think that you could, let me say it differently you still could make another decision a year from now. Right. I appreciate that. Thank you. Other council members? Council Member Alvarez. Thank you, Mayor. Could you clarify there was a statement that you made just a bit ago, Jen? It had to do with three numbers I believe the total was about 16 million and that they had to be spent between 24, 25 and if we did not spend them we would have to get the resources from the general fund or other funds. Does that jog your memory at all? Well, the total is 34.6 million that we're going to receive over a two year period. I think it had to do with the homeless issue if I'm not mistaken. You could spend ARPA monies on the homeless issue? Yeah, I believe there was three numbers that you stated that we had to spend between 24, 25 and if we did not spend them we'd have to get the funds from somewhere else. My question was, was the funds that we need to get from those other accounts retroactive or was it moving forward? And I'm hoping you remember. No, ARPA is definitely forward looking. Okay, very well. Right, and you would have to spend it by December. It has to be off our books by December 31, 2024. Very well, thank you. If I may, I think what Jen was explaining was the homeless programs and the overnight parking programs are currently proposed for general fund funding. And if it were the council's direction to fund them with ARPA funds that would relieve the general fund expenditures to be used for different purposes. That I believe that was the subject matter and it was 90 million, four million and two million of the... I think it was five, four and three something. And ultimately it's that the funds are obtained from other sources, but moving forward it's just whatever it's incurred. It's not retroactively what was already spent. Correct. Perfect, thank you. And I'm gonna piggyback on that really fast as well, Jen. The discussion about lost revenue, different impacts that the city's had to its finances, we obviously are in a very unique position as we've had the PG&E funds almost in a tandem conversation as well, moving parallel. We put 40 million into the reserves. I assume that it would be within the discretion of the council since the PG&E funds are a lot more usable than have fewer strings and restrictions attached to them. Could we look at that calculation and say, we're gonna put five million of the ARPA funds directly into our reserves as lost revenue for the city and then take five million from the PG&E funds that we had allocated to our reserves and use them more broadly than what ARPA allows? Well, ARPA funds aren't allowable for going into reserves. So that takes that off the table. The revenues, so there's a formula. I think all of us are unclear as to how the formula calculation has done as to what is lost revenues. Because if you say, I lost revenues from, I'm just picking things now, sales tax, two million, or real estate property transfer tax, two million and four million, that's not the way the calculation works because it's gonna be forward looking. We're not clear. This is one of the things Hagerty is going to be doing for us. And but to the extent that we get a bigger revenue loss calculation, that revenue loss calculation is certainly more flexible than other ARPA dollars if that makes sense. So that could be a possibility but it would come from the revenue calculation not from other ARPA dollars. Right, understood. Council members, what else? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First question I have maybe for you just our process because I have some specifics but I don't think Jan is probably prepared to answer like UBI metrics. How do you want us to handle those questions and how do you want us to frame it for staff to either come back with more information or how did you want us to handle that? Yeah, it's a great question and I'll throw something out there and I'll look to the city manager to tell me if he'd prefer a different approach. Most of what we're talking about are programmatic or are broader investments, like for example, the suggestion of the five million for broadband in one year and five million for the next year. We don't have any details about that. What I'm looking for I think today and I'll look to see and make sure that's what the city manager is looking for is broad general direction from the council to say we can talk about UBI that sounds like an issue worth exploring. Go develop the metrics in the program and bring it back to us for approval. I too, I have a couple of different buckets of money that seem to be missing that are not for a specific thing but for example, we have a DEI plan that's coming from seed and we have a climate action update. There's no money that's attached to either of those. Does the council want to just broadly set aside a fund of money to implement both of those plans as they come? I'd like to hear direction from council on that and I've got a list as I'm sure you do. So if that works for you Mr. City Manager, I'll have council members give some of that sort of broad perspective and direction and then what I heard was staff will then have the authority to go off and make the details and come back to us for final approvals. That fits exactly in our plans. Today we're only looking for what would you like to see included on the list and an approximate dollar amount in the way of a commitment to it and then we will go back and develop the specifics in terms of a program proposal for that dollar amount and return to you for review and approval. Right and I think because there's council members who have specific ideas of what they're looking for, I do think that it's appropriate to ask questions of council members just what they're thinking to flush them out a little bit more. Great, thank you, that'll be helpful. So we'll do our questions specific, get public comment and come back for final comments and just what you suggested. Correct, great, thank you. So Dan, given the information that you talked about public safety, I'm interested, might the new program that the police is in the police department budget, the 1.1 million for the in-response team, might ARPA funds be available for that since I wouldn't consider it supplanting, it's a brand new program? So I think that was a chief's question to me himself. Yes, okay. And the short answer is I don't know, but I will ask. One of the things about ARPA is that it has sort of steered clear of personnel related costs and seem to gone more program specific, but I think at just as long as everybody remembers, this is for a short period of time only, but I think we're happy to ask that question and get further clarity on whether that would be considered programmatic as opposed to personnel driven. Great, thank you, and I'd really appreciate that because I also see it as an opportunity to advance our three-year timeline for going 24-7 versus 10 hours the first year, 17 the second year, 24 the third, because I think that's the intent, most of my colleagues that I've mentioned, that sounds like a positive thing to do. If I can interrupt you really fast, Council Member, Mr. City Manager? I just wanted to add, if I could, the press conference that our chief financial officer mentioned earlier today, the presidential press conference, they issued a statement, and I'll just read the guidance they gave on using ARP funds to reduce violence. And it has three bullet points that it calls out in guiding use of the state and local funding for purposes such as hiring of law enforcement officials, even above pre-pandemic levels, or paying overtime where the funds are directly focused on advancing community policing strategies in those communities experiencing an increase in gun violence associated with the pandemic. The second one is additional enforcement efforts to reduce gun violence exacerbated by the pandemic, including prosecuting gun traffickers, rogue dealers, and other parties contributing to the supply of crime guns, as well as collaborative federal and state and local efforts to identify and address gun trafficking channels. And the third is investing in technology and equipment to allow law enforcement to more efficiently and effectively respond to gun violence resulting from the pandemic. Now, as I read those three, what's the common word that you heard other than gun violence, pandemic? So that's the guidance that we got from the press conference. This is not approval criteria or is it a spelled out grant program with a dollar amount or eligibility criteria? But the theme that we consistently here is linking it back to impacts that communities have experienced as a result of the pandemic. And so when Jan says we need to develop the program and proposal and then submit it along with help from our consultant to Treasury for review, that's one of the tests or thresholds we expect will be reviewed. Is it related, have they demonstrated the related impact from the pandemic? And that is gonna mean statistics that show pre-pandemic crime levels, post-pandemic crime levels and some analysis about why those changed and relating that back to the pandemic. The other thing just quickly that I'll share is it's very clear that much of the effort that's described in this new program is gonna be focused at major urban centers. Those are gonna be areas where they concentrate federal resources, task forces, assistance from federal agencies like ATF, FBI, et cetera. And they're major metro areas, Atlanta, Austin, Baltimore, Baton Rouge, Chicago, Detroit, King County, Washington, LA, Memphis, Tennessee, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Newark, Philadelphia, Rapid City, South Dakota, St. Louis, Washington, D.C. Just as examples of where the focus is being applied from this new initiative. Great, thank you, that was very helpful. So Jan, regarding child care programs, and again, trying not to get into two specifics, but I know this council invested $2 million in that and would the dollars that were set aside for the ARPA dollars be consistent with that program? Or do you know if you or Alan were thinking of a totally different program? I don't know. Jan, if it's helpful, I can answer that question. I know normally it would be Raisa who would be answering it, but she's not available at the moment. But she and I did have a chance to talk about it. This is proposed money for phase two of the childcare pilot program that the council passed last year. Phase one was specifically for the training and to stabilize the existing providers and train new providers. This pot of money is being proposed to assist new providers or expanding providers to make the infrastructure improvements that they need to on their properties to open their doors. So going beyond what we did last time but moving into phase two. Great, thank you. And then last question I had was on slide 26 in the appendices, we talked about loss of TOT. And my question is, and this might be for the city manager or the mayor, I know Hotel Azur was purchased by the county which resulted in the city losing some of the TOT. I know the county has also reimbursed another municipality who had a similar situation. Are the dollar figures that are on slide 26 inclusive of the loss of the TOT from Hotel Azur? This came from a department. I'm assuming it came from PED. Okay, I guess my- Clara Hartman. My question would be then maybe from the Mr. Senator. Have we been reimbursed or any commitments from the county who reimbursed us like the other municipality has for the loss of a hotel? Mayor, Council Member Schwedhelm. I talked with Cheryl Bratton when that question came up and she explained that no dollars per se were exchanged between the county and the city of Sebastopol. In other words, they were not directly reimbursed for a loss of transient occupancy tax and any other related revenues that formerly went to the city. Instead, what they agreed to do was concentrate more homeless services in an equal dollar amount in the area of the city of Sebastopol. So I guess I won't put you on the spot, but I would just express that we would be treated or ask that we would be treated the same way as that municipality given the same situation. And that is the exact response that I've shared with the county administrator. Great, thank you. I don't have any additional questions at this point. Council Member Fleming, you had your hand up. I just wanted to check and see if your question was answered or if you still had it. Okay, we'll go on to other questions. My question was largely answered. It had to do with a follow-up to Council Member Schwedhelm's question which provoked the city manager to offer more information. I was just curious to know if we're getting the impression from the federal government that the root cause of this increase in gun violence if there is any holistic approach to the lack of schools or services which to my mind are a huge part of it in addition to the massive influx in guns but or if they're very focused on the gun violence, the gun part of the gun violence. Mayor, if I may, there are sections in the press release that address expanded summer programming, employment opportunities and other service supports, especially for teenagers and young adults. Just exactly how that's going to roll out isn't clear yet but they do identify things such as hiring support personnel, nurses, counselors and social workers, paying court personnel and operation costs to return to pre-pandemic operation levels, providing expand employment services including summer jobs for young people and programs providing training and work experience for formerly incarcerated persons and other individuals who live in communities most impacted by high level of violence, expanding summer education and enrichment programs including summer camps, scaling up wraparound services such as housing, medical and mental care, trauma informed care, substance use disorder treatment, et cetera and establish or expand full service community schools. So it's quite broad. Also a youth workforce development fund section. Okay, that's very helpful. And then when you added the list of large jurisdictions I was just curious to know if you were suggesting that they might disallow smaller jurisdictions or that more money would be coming and then noting that you threw in Rapid City which is a population of 75,000. So I'm just wondering if there was a purpose or meaning behind that or caution for us as we consider expending these funds. No, this is only related to the comprehensive strategy to prevent and respond to gun crime and ensure public safety. There was a section in the press conference devoted to those major metropolitan areas and clearly communicating a coordinated federal response to those metro areas. Okay, thank you for the clarification, very helpful. All right, Councilor, are there any other questions? Council Member Sawyer. Thank you, Mayor. And this has to do with the PGD settlement funds and just gonna jump back to this question about our funding for the new fire station. And this probably needs to go back to our fire chief. I just wanted to confirm our commitment, the financial commitment to the rebuilding of that fire station. Because I remember the conversation a number of weeks ago when we were talking about the initial conversation about the use of those funds, but I want clarification on what our commitment was to the rebuilding of that fire station and then some recent events that might affect that funding. Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Council Member Sawyer, if I'm just, if I'm getting your question correctly, it's the funding for fire station five as relates to the initial ask for PGD funding and then the CDB, GDR and mitigation money. Yes, but the block grant that was received and how that affects our accounting of that disposition. Okay. So initially before the block grant funding was available, we had come to council with ask for the funding to build fire station five, rebuild fire station five at a total price tag of $23 million, $21 million in unmet needs. Then when the block grant funding came through with the ability to fund the entire project, that is now removed from the PG&E ask. Okay. So it's two totally separate pots of money, if that makes sense. So does that change? Does that still allow, I mean, I guess so what, so what's changed is that was the money that was originally dedicated to the rebuilding? Does that, is that able to stay in the fire department's allocation or did it go back into the available funds for the council to determine? For my understanding and the city manager can jump in here, but we never actually allocated those funds out of the PG&E settlement. The only PG&E dollars that the fire department took was the $8 million for vegetation management and will be 2.0. So it was never removed. And so that money is still available out of the PG&E settlement. There was no transfer of money. There was no approval authority with that money. So it never moved and the request was taken off the table once the block grant funding came in. Now a side note is, as we did put in, you'll see in the staff request of the appendices is that there's a request to build an additional fire station whether it be fire station eight, nine, six, or 12, whatever the case may be. So there's an additional request in there for another fire station, but the station five piece was removed and is now being covered with block grant funding. Okay, excellent. Because there are some, in your original slide from some time ago, and I would have to go back to the appendices to double check, but there appear to be some pretty important expenditure requests that would need to be considered, I think, given that it was originally dedicated to the fire department in the first place. The fact that you've got some reprieve with the block grants is great. But I just feel that it's worthy of a council conversation about considering these other potential priorities that have to do with the fire department. Absolutely. So all departments have a lot of different requests in there. If you recall a long time ago, directing that myself brought forward a presentation that showed the global wildfire problem and it came in at a $400 million price tag if I recall somewhere around $400 million. And we sort of hurried that down. And so that's what you see in front of you out of the staff requests is those smaller, for lack of a better term, it's not $400 million, but the smaller requests that we need to to solve some of our problems. So thank you very much, City Clerk. So for us in priority order, this was presented at the May 18th study session on the budget is $1.5 million for two new type one fire engines for a place of 21 and 24 year old piece of equipment. We currently have in service, it was $190,000 for the transition to a fire inspection database. If you recall, this ties into the state program. The $4 million capital fee replacement program funding, the initial investment, and then we'll have to fund at the $4 million price tag, we'll have to fund $400,000 a year but that replaces all of our equipment into perpetuity. And then we put $15 million in for a fire station relocation or new construction. So that's not station five, that's one of the other projects that we're looking at either to relocate a fire station or to build a new fire station. And then the $1.4 million for the HOTEOC, which we're very much on the track to have that funded out of earmarking out of the federal government. So yeah, so this is our list. And then we have in ARPA, we have the $500,000 for if you recall, with the plan review process being backlogged due to COVID. It's one of the things that we're asking for is the $500,000, which is a, the medium term goal to clear that backlog. So we can bring that up to speed. So we're not in that 10 to 12 week 400 plan backlog in there anymore. Thank you. Because it's easy for some of these requests to get lost in the appendices. So I just wanna make that, get that clarification because I was a little confused after I discovered the block grant and then that took some pressure off. But I still think, I just given the nature of the settlement funds, the fire department, does weigh heavily on my mind as far as a recipient of some of those funds. So I just wanted clarification on that. And I thank you. Thank you. Appreciate that. So also in those appendices are listed all of the department requests in addition to fire. So if the council is curious as an example, what PED requests are, those are listed, transportation, public works, those are listed. And I know our assistant city manager, Jason, that has been working hard with fire and all the departments to coordinate the capital project funding side of things. And I just wanted to see if he had anything to add to this discussion at this point. Yeah, if I could, thank you very much city manager Collin, council member Sawyer in response. One of the areas of concern in why there's still conversation around some of the disaster recovery aspects of the CDBG program is while the state has allocated the funds to the city of Santa Rosa, there's still an application and a delivery process associated with it. And there are potential hurdles that we still need to work through in order to be able to secure that funding coming into our community. So the $20 million that we have set aside for the fire stations to cover that still has some hurdles that need to be crossed. We have not actually submitted the application for either the two programs with CDBG. We are very hopeful that our application will be accepted and approved so that we can bring those funds that are delegated to us, to the community and be able to deliver that project as one. But I just, while we've shown it as being funded by an outside grant resource, I don't want to give the impression that there might not be other conditions that pop up over the course of the next 12 months that might not change the condition of where we receive the money from. So I just wanted to place a little bit of caution there because there is still a little bit of caution as we work with our state partners. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay, so I think what would be helpful, Mr. City Manager help me with this is before we go to public comment, if council members would throw additional ideas or things that they intend to bring up for discussion on the table. We don't have to discuss them. We don't have to ask questions about them. We can do that after public comment. But I think it would be helpful for staff to hear that and be able to better respond once we come back from our public comment portion. So I'm going to start to my left and see if council member Alvarez has anything to add. Well, for me, I think I have more questions and answers. For me, it's really the meeting that happened today at the federal level. And knowing that my district one is definitely seeing its increase in gun violence, how we can actually go for those funds. So I really do come with more questions and answers on this one. Okay. Council members, what else? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know, just one item and I don't know the status of it, but the fountain in courthouse square, have we found funding for that to complete the Ruth Asawa fountain? So I'd be interested in finding some one time monies to complete that beautification of courthouse square. So my understanding is that we have worked with the private sector to raise funds for reconstruction of the actual fountain structure itself. What we do not have funds for are the concrete panels and the reinstallation of those. Apparently they are not in very good shape. And there's a proposal to use the original design and artwork form a casting of those and then make them out of bronze instead of concrete and have them installed with bronze. That, the price tag I heard today was $300,000 for that. So that would be on my list. And I am very appreciative, it's pretty comprehensive list of projects to fund. So thank you. Okay. Let's go to council member Sawyer. Thank you, Mayor. I have questions, I would like some more clarification on the universal basic income. I'm curious about the efficacy about it in other jurisdictions. So I'd like more information on that. I'm pleased to get to the council member of Schwedhelm mentioned $300,000 for the Asawa fountain panels being produced in bronze. I think that's a great way to, and thanks to the private sector and Hugh Futrell, stepping forward and making that a much more available, affordable project. So thank you, Mr. Futrell, for your major participation in the completion of that square. I think, I do have, it's not, I don't see it anywhere. And I'm not sure, I think probably Mr. Knutt would know the status of the roof of the Berbank, Luther Berbank home and carriage house. It continues to be something that concerns me and the volunteers that are there. So I'm not sure, I would like kind of an update on whether or not there is a figure or a need of funds for the replacement of that roof. And like I said, I have not seen that pop up anywhere other than conversations from the past. Otherwise, I think that probably handles my specific questions before we go to public. Mr. Assistant State Manager. And Council Member Sawyer, the roof project, the design of the roof for the the Berbank home and gardens was actually included in the council budget that was adopted on the 22nd of June. So the first stage of that is complete until we understand what the design is, we don't have an estimate for the actual re-roofing. And so that will come at a later date. Okay, and that's what I was kind of curious about is whether or not we had any updates on the cost of the re-roofing. And if we did, I was gonna be asking for some of those funds from PG&E because my main strategy in the use of the PG&E funding is investment. And I think that that is worthy of investment. And I appreciate it. Thank you. Council Member Fleming. Thank you. Some of my desires have been listed out by staff and some have been listed by fellow council members, but I'll put emphasis on the things that have been mentioned as well as some other things. I wanna second or third the investment finishing the roof of Sawa Fountain in the way that it was designed in the tune of $300,000. I would like to work on expanding our capacity for 24-hour mental health services. And if we can't spend the money directly on staffing for that, if we can invest in the infrastructure such as bands and looking into with our consultants how San Francisco has their bands and their equipment as well as training programs for social workers and how we can integrate social workers into our police force as non-sworn officers and getting them up to speed, maybe developing a training program for mental health professionals to become adept at working within law enforcement effectively to reduce both our need for calling off sworn officers out to those sites and improving safety in our communities. So anything that can be used for infrastructure or consulting to expand those programs would have my support. I'd like us to also look at funding the items that we've already identified as important to our community or even started but haven't finished whether that's parks like a place to play or putting in bike lanes or retrofitting the most dangerous intersections in the city. I'd like to see us do that but to see us fund a down payment assistance program use the money where we can to seek grant funding for things like the overcross near the junior college in Coddingtown and in general making good on the promises that we've already made to our community and funding anything and everything that we can that the community is already like the downtown area specific plan any connectivity or improving bike and pedestrian flow throughout our city. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Tibbets. Thank you, Mayor. There's kind of two ways that I'm breaking this down. I think everything that we've discussed or seen in the presentation is definitely an investment that is going to yield some sort of socioeconomic returns but then there's also things that I really want to focus on. I've said this about the PG and you settlement funds but the more that we can do where we are actually making direct investments in something that actually yields a return for the city and then becomes a self perpetuating program to me is really where we should focus. Some of the programs that have been mentioned that I'm really a fan of that might not necessarily be directly sustaining but I think are important and yield great dividends are the safe parking homelessness program and being able to free up that money and the general fund for future investment and continuing those homeless services and safe parking years in advance. I think that's very important. The other one is the street response team. I definitely agree with Tom and Victoria that this is critically needed. It seems to meet some of the law enforcement goals under ARPA and it's just something we need in our community. Some other child care is another one that I'm interested in as well and then just talk a little bit about some of the ones that actually will continue to yield revenue for the city of Santa Rosa. I am interested in broadband following up on a council member Fleming. I'm really, really interested in a down payment assistance program. We've had some kind of general conversations amongst ourselves or as a body about it. And I don't know if many people know that our housing authority actually has a developed program within the housing authority that is ready to receive funds and start issuing down payment assistance to renters in our community who are already paying rents that would frankly carry a mortgage and now they get to build equity in a home, investments in their children's college, plan for older age, be able to age in place. And it's also the cheapest form of workforce housing we have. We can create affordable housing for somebody in the tune of $650,000 a unit on average or provide something in the form of down payment assistance for $100,000 or less and really retain a quality workforce in the city. So I would love to see something like that. The other thing is a mitigation bank. I don't think we've ever discussed this here deeply but not long ago I was on a panel with council member Schwedhelm who was mayor at the time and there was a conversation around it. But since affordable housing and housing is one of our goals, when we look at Southeast and Southwest Santa Rosa, these are the areas that have the most housing development opportunities. But part of the reason why we can't seem to break a lot of ground down there is the timelines associated with going to state fishing game to get approval for California tiger salamander mitigation. And if the city were to set up a mitigation bank, I believe that we could actually reduce that timeline because I don't know, I don't want to get into too deeply how a mitigation bank works, but it basically erases that three to five year timeline to get approval from the stakes. It's pre-approved land and you just set aside acreage for the acreage being developed. More importantly, you can actually sell that acreage for 150, 200, $250,000, which can then help the city pay for the personnel and funding we need in planning and economic development. I'm trying to see if I had any other on my list. Oh, I really like the guaranteed employment program that you proposed, Mr. Mayor. I would like to see that included as well. And I think that's it for me. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member, Vice Mayor. So I'm going to go down the list. I would like to see one time money they're not spent for ongoing costs. So if we can tweak the budget at all for that. And then I would like to see us have a balanced budget with a healthy reserve and the use of ARPA funds for the safe parking and to expand it to other areas beyond Southwest Santa Rosa and District Seven. Having a plan for housing and hopefully one day have an RV ordinance but have the plan of how we're supporting our own house residents before we put that ordinance in place. But I don't want to not look at the ordinance. Of course, I want to see the police auditor position fill however we need to do that. See that in response team go to 24 hours if we can do that and plan to have it funded for a few years down the road. Bike lanes, alternative means of transportation I think is important for us to invest in preventative programs such as childcare but even more specific for me is once someone doesn't meet criteria for a program such as four C's to have some subsidy seeing as though through the pandemic we have seen childcare costs skyrocket due to providers having limited children. Sorry, I told you I don't list. Summer jobs, I like that one. Money's put away to implement suggestions that are given by C collaborative. I would just like to have a bank of money already set aside for that. And all weather fields for maybe another one at a place to play and another one in Southwest Santa Rosa. Our homeless services, whatever homeless services we provide I would like to see that with wrap around or full case management. I think we have a, we get a better return on our investment when we do that and down payment assistance program. And with everything you would think we just have a lot of money, huh? But we don't. Yeah, certainly the money starts to look a lot less when we start to talk about what the needs and the wants of the community are. I appreciate all of those. I've been taking notes down for us to be able to discuss after the break as well. I did wanna throw a couple back on the table for discussion that seemed to have fallen off. One was the baby bonds program. Basically any time a baby is born into a low income family in Santa Rosa we do a baby bond. And for context for folks it's about 5,000 babies per year that are born in Sonoma County. So it'd be probably under $5,000 each year for the program. And then that money can't be touched and appreciates in that account but we could be added to. And when that individual turns 18 they have a source of funding for education or for down payment for a home. So I think it'd be a good program for us to stand up here in Santa Rosa. I wanted to make sure that we had on the table 1.5 million for parking assets. As we talk about our housing development in downtown obviously the critical component that we talk about is utilizing our parking assets to make those work. So from an economic development standpoint as well as from a housing standpoint I wanna make sure we shore up that fund particularly given some of our other conversations today. I wanted to echo the housing down payment program. I think that that's a really great investment. And then to me the two glaring omissions from what's been proposed both by staff and by council is the seed collaborative DEI work as well as our climate action work. And I think as I mentioned both of those have plans that are coming to the council later this year for implementation. And I think that would be wise for council to set aside money for both of those to start the implementation of both of those so that we don't get a plan pass a plan and then have no funding to actually implement the plan particularly when I look at some of the DEI work that's being done down in Marin County or some of the proposals that can be brought forward by our new staff who are working on this. I think that it'd be wise for us to make that investment since it is a priority for our community. So I'll put those on the table for discussion as well when we come back from public comment. Now I will acknowledge I think there's 49 public comment voice away higher. How, how did we end up at 72? Okay, so we have 72 voicemail public comments. So I'm gonna start with the folks who are sitting in the chamber to be able to give your comments first. We'll then do live comments on Zoom and then we'll finish that out with our voicemail public comments before we bring it back for discussion. I'm looking to make sure that works for staff. Okay, so we'll start with Jim and he'll be followed by Steve. That's here in the chambers. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm used to delays. I rebuilt my home in Coffee Park. So I'm used to delays. My name is Jim Scali. Live at 1898 Crimson Lane. Moved there when my son was four months old on February 7th, 1990. As we all know, the Tubbs Fire changed our community forever. And I am talking about the PG&E settlement, by the way. Thank you. Very emotional. It's interesting knowing I was gonna talk about this the last week. I haven't been able to sleep. It just brings up tremendous amount of anxiety and emotion. But first I have to thank the city of Santa Rosa, the firemen for all your efforts and what you did to almost bring our life back to whole. All the city that the firemen did to fight the fires, mitigate the scars that has happened, I can tell you the resilience center was a godsend. It was amazing. And I have to thank all of them. Now, of course that came with a cost to the city. Millions and millions of dollars. And if my understanding is correctly, city of Santa Rosa, and maybe I'm off with my knowledge, was made whole from FEMA and other agencies to replace those calls. I might be wrong with that. You can clarify me. Unfortunately, all of us fire survivors have not been made whole. And that's another story to tell another day. I wanna talk about the $95 million fire settlements. Already about more than 50% has been claimed for general funds and some fire mitigation. I also wanna congratulate, I don't know you, sir, but Mr. Alvarez, I'm so glad that something good is coming out of Rosalind having a library. I can tell you if something good can come out of this grief and pain, it's got to be that way. So congratulations. But what I really wanna talk about is what we're all. Really, all this rainfall of money came to be because of this. This house in the middle is my house. It was my sanctuary. And it's one of nearly 6,000 homes that were lost in the fire. When I appreciate all the different wishes and what can be said, but we've gotta remember where this money came from. My whole family, my wife and I have lost four years of our life. They've been dog years. In fact, I've got a punch card for my therapist because I see him go so much. So I wish I could have one more minute. I've been waiting three hours. I'll be very... 10 more seconds, sir, please wrap up. Yeah, I'll be, I'll wrap it up. Basically, what I wanna say is thank the city again. Can we please remember that our streets were whole before the fire. We're only trying to allocate just 20... Thank you, sir, I need you to wrap up. 20%. Please consider the money that should become for fire rehabilitation. Right, thank you. Thank you so much. We'll go to Steve, followed by Michelle Edwards-Heary. That's one person, that's not three names, I promise. Hi. So as Jim spoke, it's a little emotional, so I'll just, I'm gonna keep my head down and just read this. So my name is Steve Rom. I'm the current president of Coffee Strong and a nonprofit organization that was no pun intended forged out of the fires in 2017 with a mission to help our neighbors and our neighborhood. I am here to make public comment on item 3.1. I am here to show my support and ask you, the city council, to do the right thing and send a yes vote to fund the three fire recovery projects in front of you. Hopper corridor, sidewalk and landscape repairs, residential street repairs and re-landscaping the vegetation restoration. As you all know, all of these projects have been denied or not eligible by FEMA for reimbursement, but we have the funds. We have funds by PG&E who are only made available as a settlement to our community because of the 2017 fires. Therefore, projects like these should be funded without hesitation. These projects were created directly from the horrific night of October 8th or 9th, depending on when you ran. Although these funds are unrestricted, they were intended for the unmet needs due to the damage from the wildfire. These are without a doubt unmet needs. There is not a day that it goes by that I'm not reminded, excuse me, of the night when we ran. There we still see burned cars, metal garbage cans embedded in the curbs and gutters. I see sidewalks and streets damaged by FEMA and the fire. I see melted aluminum still attached to the road. It's all a constant reminder that my family should not have to be reminded of. Thank you for the mask so I can hide this. It has been almost four years that we relive the Tubbs fire every single day. This is not okay. The health of our community is counting on city staff and council to do the right thing. I'm asking city council to vote yes and fund these projects. The need is here and so are the funds. I recognize that there are many city projects that need to be funded and let's first address the repairs that the funds were intended for. We no longer, well, we no longer should have to be reminded in our daily lives about that event. We no longer want to be classified as survivors but community members. I just want to take the last 25 seconds. Thank you all for using these funds responsibly and this is the responsible thing to do. So thank you. Thank you, Steve. We'll go to Michelle to give it one second. Julie, I'll lower the podium for you. None of my tippy toes, but it's not good. Thank you. It's so nice to see you all in person and I appreciate you taking a minute. I'm here today to ask for your support for the use of ARPA funds to help us build a boys and girls club in the 800 block of Sebastopol Road in Roseland. You've each been sent a formal proposal that details our project and the work that we're trying to do. But if you think about these funds are designated for those that were most negatively impacted because of the pandemic, those who were economically impacted and the families in Roseland have not been thriving for many years prior to the pandemic, many years prior to the fire. And now with those things all condensing down into one, there's a high need for your support. Many of you have mentioned childcare and I just want to take a minute to say thank you for your childcare pilot program. You invested in boys and girls clubs and we were able to put kids directly in our programs during the pandemic when schools were closed. So thank you for that. And also thank you to Mayor Rogers and Council Member Alvarez who met with us to talk about our project. We're very excited to have purchased a one acre parcel to build a 25,000 square foot community center and childcare center for kids. Right now 63% of kids in Roseland don't have a spot for childcare. This is available at no cost to them but we are simply out of space and this building will allow us to enroll another 1,000 kids immediately. Community-wide we anticipate to serve 4,500 Santa Rosa residents with this facility. It's shovel ready. We've received most of the approvals through Santa Rosa and expect to break ground in the spring of 2022. This project was fully funded which you may have heard about prior to the pandemic. Unfortunately, our funder at the time changed direction and so we have a deficit. We've raised about half of the $20 million needed to build the building and we're asking that you invest with us. We now expect the project to cost about $17 million. It's a lot of money. We've raised about half so we're feeling excited about our progress. We absolutely are dedicated to making this project a success and we're gonna get started right away when we would love to have your support with these ARPA funds. This is an excellent opportunity to see exponential gains in childcare. There isn't another project that is this ready to go that will create this many spaces for families that don't have access to subsidies like council member Rogers mentioned and don't have the ability to pay and we wanna be a part of that solution. Additionally, the community center can be used as a shelter when needed, an evacuation center when needed and really serve as a gathering place in the community and really needs it. We, I would love the opportunity to talk with you more personally about it and hope that you'll consider funding our Boys and Girls Club in Roseland. Thank you. Great, thank you. Do we have anybody else in the chamber who'd like to make public comment? We'll go to our live public comment via Zoom. We'll start with Gregory, followed by Alex. Thank you, Mayor Rogers and council. This is the start of a months long process of wish lists and I know you guys work hard. You do a whole lot of things that aren't as fun as this but this is going to be fun, believe it or not because I wanna remind you that the 34 million that you're trying to figure out a way of spending is one 10 thousands of the amount of money that's going to the whole country. $350 billion out of that $1.9 trillion HR1319. Everybody's referring to this as ARPA but I'd like to see a few times you talk about it as HR1319. That's what people should put into Google. That'll give you the text of every dollar that's in this $1.9 trillion. And when you look at it, you'll see that the 1.5 trillion that is not on the table, is not in this 350 million that all the cities are getting, is also available. And so the point I wanna make is it's really important with this sort of societal change with federal and state funding coming down the pike that you do two things. You think about integrating your part of this into all the other parts that are gonna come down to Sonoma County. The schools are getting a heck of a lot of money and you should be working with the schools on all those things that you think you'd like to help schools with because they've got some money to spend too. The county is gonna have a whole lot of money in its human services. So try to take the opportunity to reimagine city in the county, in the schools, build a system that is truly integrated or else you're gonna miss the boat because the little 34 million you're spending is probably gonna be matched by 200 million coming into the county from the other parts of the bill. And so Hagerty and the rest of them are gonna obviously try to figure out how much you get, make sure they imagine how you can work with other parts of the bill. And then you got the trillion that's still on the table in Congress. Two and a half, your 2.9 trillion dollars is gonna flow down from the feds. And then there's the state. So widen your perspective, think about when you're talking about topics about how those topics can relate to schools into county, to agriculture, to economics. I mean, everybody's got a pie coming down and you'll have to be trying to figure out a way of making a full meal out of this because that's the opportunity. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, Gregory. We'll go to Alex followed by Shirley and Bob. Can you hear me? Yep. Okay, I was just waiting for the timer to start. This is Alex Crone, Santa Rosa resident. Thank you, Mayor Rodgers and council members. I just would like to voice my support for the broadband infrastructure that I was happy to see on the list for the federal funds. I think that would be a great community project. The pandemic has made it glaring how important digital economy and digital education is. And I just like to point out that the treasury department made it clear that broadband is defined as 100 megabits up and 100 megabits down. That's upload and download speeds. And wireless can't meet that standard. Wireless is third rate telecommunications infrastructure. The only thing that can make that standard is either coaxial cable or fiber optics directly to homes. And I think that investing in something like that, which is totally future proof because fiber optics has unlimited bandwidth, has a million times more data capacity to be transferred than wireless radiation, which puts it through the air versus fiber optics, which uses light through a cable. And I don't know what the numbers look like, but I don't know how many kids couldn't have access to affordable internet and how many people struggled to log in for work activities remotely due to the pandemic. So I would like to see something like that. I think it will give you a direct monetary return on your investment, as opposed to many of the other projects mentioned. And I think it's worthwhile for the city to do an analysis on what a project like that would cost to start and what the possible returns are on that. So thank you for your time. Thank you, Alex. We'll go on to Shirley and Bob, followed by Angie. Hello. This is Shirley Chio. I am speaking in favor, of course, of services to homelessness and particularly to safe parking. Five years ago, I think it was when CHAC was first established, a group of us at First United Methodist Church jumped at the opportunity to work with you on this and we set up safe parking and it is still happening. I can see and you can see, I'm sure that the need for safe parking and homeless services is not going to go away. I would like to think that when and hopefully you will set up safe parking, that there'll be some coordination between certainly us, but maybe all three of the existing safe parking programs that we can continue to work together and that maybe there can be some sharing of ideas or support and certainly some sharing of the wraparound services that are so greatly needed. I've said this before that we are willing, willing volunteers, but we are unskilled as far as housing location and things like that, which I think with the wraparound services, you will provide. So please think about us and how we can tap into this or how we can coordinate with you in any way at all. And I just wanna also applaud you guys for all you do. It amazes me when I sit and listen, Mayor and Council and the staff, your intelligence and the way you listen to everything that's going on and pick out many points of very much great interest for us the public. And I truly appreciate it and thank you. Thank you, Shirley. We'll go on to Angie. Angie, can you unmute? Here we go, can you hear me? There we go. Hi, good afternoon. Just wanna express my strong support and appreciation. This is Angie Dillon-Schor, Executive Director of First Five Sonoma County on behalf of the First Five Commission to the Mayor and Council members for the proposed investment of ARPA funds to support families with young kids as well as the struggling childcare sector. The emerging data around baby bonds and similar kinds of child and college savings accounts is really compelling that even a relatively small amount of money in a bank account dedicated for that child's future has the power to just change the trajectory of their life. In fact, studies have shown the positive impact on parents' changed expectations for their child that those can actually be seen as their child enters kindergarten more prepared. And we see similar impacts with targeting basic income programs for caregivers with very young children that those parents do put those discretionary dollars to the intended use, like things like seeking a better job, stabilizing their families and reducing the stressors of poverty and being more nurturing parents to their children, which has a direct positive impact on school readiness and later academic success. And I can thank you all enough for your partnership on the childcare provider relief funding during the pandemic, together with the City of Santa Rosa and the Community Foundation and First Five, we were able to invest over a million dollars to support struggling childcare providers and keep them open and providing, nurturing and safe care so that parents could continue to work, many of those parents in essential services, including healthcare. Really looking forward to the next phase of the city's investment in childcare infrastructure. The opportunities are ripe to make a huge impact. So thank you for your amazing leadership in public-private partnership around expanding access to childcare. All right, thank you so much, Angie and thank you for your commitment to Sonoma County's children. Now we will go to our pre-recorded voicemail public comments. So, Madam City Clerk, just really fast since I see a number of folks who have joined us in the chambers for our public hearings, we have 72 voicemails on this item. About how long will that take for those to be played? Approximately 90 minutes. Okay, and then we have discussion from council after that and then at that point, council will take a dinner break and I apologize folks and then we'll come back and do our public hearings first at that point. We'll come back to our second study session later. We'll do our consent calendar and items later. So if you were here for item 15.1, I'd say we'll be to that item at 7.30, around 7.30. So it's about two and a half hours from now. So if you're here for item 15.1 or 15.2, you might wanna come back at that point or you can join us for the remainder of this item as we listen to the rest of the voicemail public comments. With that, we'll go to the comments. Hi, my name is Linda Garcia and I live in the Coffee Park area. I'm calling on the agenda item 3.1. I'm calling to vote that the center of the city council utilizes the remaining funds of the 27 million received from PG&E for the fire recovery only. I just feel that those dollars should be used for fire recovery only and specifically for those, the items of the Hopper corridor, the residential street repair and the re-landscaping and vegetation restoration. We shouldn't have to live with the visual memory of the road scars, the failed and dangerous sidewalks in the missing landscape. We wanna have what we had prior to the fire and I believe we absolutely deserve that. Thank you for taking my vote into consideration and I hope that we do that remaining money does go towards those three items. Thank you, bye. My name is Stacy Hageman and I'm calling for the meeting regarding agenda item 3.1 and definitely I'm in favor of all of these. Hopper Avenue definitely needs work, our streets are a mess and it would, excuse me, certainly be nice to have some trees, landscaping, have it cleaned up around here. So I'm definitely in favor of the agenda item 3.1. All right, thank you, bye-bye. Yes, good morning. My name is Joe Albano. I'm referring to agenda item 3.1 and I'm commenting on the fact that us homeowners in Coffee Park have taken the time to rebuild and refurbish our homes and neighborhoods and are expecting the city of Santa Rosa to do the same. A lot has been done, PG&E, city of Santa Rosa but it would be nice if we could get all against our roads need to be fixed, our landscaping needs to be improved and our sidewalks are in bad shape. So please try to make us whole again and get us to a place where we can go outside of our doors and I have to think about the fire to appreciate that very much, thank you. Hi there, this is Sherry Sharp and I'm calling to reference agenda item 3.1. I wanted to make my voice heard. I'm a Coffee Park resident and I definitely believe that some of the funds should be allocated to the Hopper project for the sidewalks. It's very dangerous there. Coffee Park residents have always had flat sidewalks in that area prior to the fire and it is a hazard, it's an eyesore and it's quite frankly, it's a disgrace that it's taken this long and I would very much like to see the funds allocated to that project. I also have neighbors who have not rebuilt yet and as a result, there are weeds that are very, very high. I think that weed abatement is an important area for some of the funds to go as well. We certainly don't need to have more fires in the area. Thank you. Hi, my name is Denise Murphy and I'm a resident of Coffee Park and I'm asking that you put money into the, from the grant into Coffee Park because we were hit so hard as was oh, Felngrove, yes, thank you. Yes, we were still hurting over here. You know, we're just barely getting in. Our sideways, our hand can crack and you know, the fire did a lot of damage to the street, sidewalks, et cetera. So please consider to have some of that money come our way. Thank you very much, bye-bye. My name is Theresa Mora and I'm a resident with my family here in Coffee Park and I am calling for the council will be voting on the remaining $27 million of the PG&E settlement. And we're hoping that these dollars should be used for fire recovery only and specifically for these items for the Hopper, Corander, residential street repair, relays, landscaping and vegetation restoration including Barnes Road and parts of Coffee Lane as the sidewalks on the driveway were severely at extreme heat and they're literally coming up off the sidewalks and the driveways of residents are merely cracking and coming up from the street. So I hope my voice will be heard and have a wonderful day. Hi, my name is Pam 11, I live in the Coffee Park neighborhood of Santa Rosa. I'm calling in regard to agenda item 3.1 and I would like to advocate for the important work that needs to be done still to repair our roads and sidewalks in our Coffee Park area. The roads still have scars, cracks and damage not just on the fire, but also from all the heavy vehicles for the debris removal and rebuilding. And this is exactly what this fund was intended for some repair and help getting our streets and our homes and everything back to the way they originally were. And so what we really need is the priority of that because otherwise this kind of costly repair it just doesn't just happen. Also the Hopper Avenue corridor is a really unique and difficult situation, but it is a thoroughfare with a bus stop. It is a thoroughfare with very damaged sidewalks. It's a mess, it has this wall which our organization was able to erect along that way but it is not passable in any good way. People who are disabled and need wheelchairs or walkers have a very difficult time walking down there and it just really needs the attention of the city. It's not something individuals can do on their own and it's a major, it's a major throughway. So please, please, please let's get this fixed so we can move on with life and use this money for that Hopper corridor and please fix the roads because we need to be safe and we need to be made whole again and we have these funds specifically for that purpose and I just urge you to please make that the priority. Okay, thank you very much, bye-bye. My name is Kate Higgins. I'm calling in regards to agenda item 3.1. I very much would recommend that we spend the money on the remaining money that was provided back to the city back where it belongs in Coffey Park to reestablish our community the best that we can. Driving through with all the remnants of the roads that are tore up, the sidewalks, the loss of vegetation is a constant reminder of what we went through. It actually has left us in the position where we have considered leaving because it is a constant reminder. Please, please put those funds back into our community, back into Coffey Strong specifically, fix our roads. They're terrible. The reminders of the melted garbage cans, it's just constantly there. We need our community cleaned up. We need things put back to where they were before the fire that PG&E caused. Remove some of the trauma, please. Thank you. Hi, my name is Bill McKee and I wish to comment on the discussion that's gonna take place on Tuesday regarding the allocation of the remaining funds, $27 million of PG&E settlement funds. I live in the Coffey Park area and I think my number one concern would be for the residential streets and surrounding streets. During the fire cleanup and the rebuilding process that has been going on for three and a half years now or so, there's been a lot of heavy equipment and a lot of heavy truck traffic, both in our neighborhoods and the surrounding streets, Hopper Avenue and Coffey Lane and other streets that lead into our area. And these roads, especially in some parts of the neighborhood are between 35 and 45 years old to begin with and they were pretty significantly impacted by all of that traffic. I think that if dollars can be spent wisely, it wouldn't be a bad idea to address the condition of the roadways. In our piece of the neighborhood alone, there is asphalt that is essentially coming up in chunks. It's already failed and it's due to most of the truck and heavy equipment traffic and contractor equipment and so forth. So if there's dollars to be spent towards that, I think that would be a wise investment. At some point, these roadways are gonna have to be addressed regardless and the fact that they were compromised due to the fire and the after effects of the fire, clean up and rebuilding. I think the money from PG&E for settling with the community should go at least towards the roadways if not other items that might be discussed. So thank you very much. I appreciate your time. My name is Barbara Baird and I'm calling regarding agenda item 3.1 and I'm calling to ask that the remaining $27 million for the PG&E settlement funds would be used for the fire recovery projects on the Hopper corridor, residential street repair, relandscaping and vegetation restoration. I would like these dollars to be used for fire recovery only and specifically for these items. And we should not have to live with visual memory of road scars, failed and dangerous sidewalks and missing landscaping. We wanna have what we have prior to the fire. We deserve that. Thank you. Hi, my name is Diane Green and I'm calling regarding agenda item number 3.1, the use of the PG&E funds related to the damage caused by the tub of fire. I lost my home in the tub of fire. I worked very hard to rebuild. I'm back home and there are scars from the fire everywhere that the city has not addressed. They are not taking care of the weeds. They are not taking care of the roads. They're not maintaining the park and I'm not happy that the city council has decided to use these funds for things other or at least first to replace and repair the damage caused by the tub of fire. If there's remaining money, I think it would be wonderful to spend on the city, but we really suffered there and it seems like the council has forgotten what we went through. We could, the money that the city got because of the damage caused to our homes should go to our homes first and to the rest of the city later. I don't want that money going up in a needle in someone's arm because of the focus on homelessness. We were homeless for two to three years and some people are still displaced, but those of us that have come home deserve to have that money put towards the rebuilding of Coffee Park and et cetera. That's what the money was given to the city for. It's irresponsible to do anything else. Thank you. Hello ladies and gentlemen of the council. My name is Maureen Rabilino and I'm calling in regards to agenda item 3.1. My husband, Steve and I live on Crestview Drive and have been residents of the Coffee Park area since 1984. Yes, we lost our home, our belongings, our cat and our sense of security. We would like to strongly encourage all of you to consider our neighborhood in deciding where and how to disperse the remaining PG&E funds that the city received due to the fire in 2017. We have been through so much and have put in a lot of time towards the recovery from this devastation. Wondering if any of you have driven our streets or walked on our sidewalks. There is so much damage that still needs repair. Please, please, please consider helping with our recovery and registration restoration by designating these funds to our corner of Santa Rosa. Thank you for listening and thank you for your service to all of us in this wonderful community. My name is Paul Goodwin. I live on the north side of Hopper Lane in Coffee Park area and I'm calling about agenda item 3.1. The monument needs to be allocated to repair the Hopper corridor, fix our residential street repair and landscaping and vegetation. This needs to be done ASAP right away. It should have been done with the $68 million that was already allocated for other items. We have been burned out of our homes. We have been burned out of our streets and area. All the construction has destroyed our roads. I literally cannot drive down my road without hitting a pothole, crumbling pieces of asphalt, all crumbling all over the place. This is a mess. This should be a priority. The streets need to be repaved. We are very, very upset. It needs to be done. If it's not done, then we will just have to vote you people out. It's that simple. This needs to be done as soon as possible. Nothing else should take priority over this. The fire destroyed our lives. You have money to fix this, make it so. Please do it. My name is Fila, P-H-I-L-A, Cole. And I'm calling about agenda item 3.1. I just wanted to let you know that we suffered from the Tubbs fire and lost everything. We have rebuilt our home on Skyview Court. When we drive into our neighborhood, we go through the Hopper Avenue, which needs sidewalks and trees. It is not what it used to be. FEMA ruined it. Can you please allocate money to bring back the essence that it once had? Also, our streets in our neighborhood, FEMA, when they removed the waste, with our big trucks have ruined our streets. We are in need of repaying of our neighborhood. We would appreciate you allocating some funds to improve the Hopper Avenue trees and sidewalks need to be replaced. The Coffee Park community was able to obtain some donations to replace the wall so the city doesn't need to do that, but we need sidewalks, we need trees, and we need repaying of our streets. Please consider that in your allocation of funds. Thank you, bye-bye. Well, this is Russ Perrier, calling regarding Agenda Item 3.1. Requested the remaining funds to be used to repair the highways and the roads that were damaged due to the fire and the rebuilding. Thank you, bye-bye. Hi, this is Eric Cole. Regarding Agenda Item 3.1, please fix our neighborhood streets and courts. This work needed to be done before the aftermath of the firestorm. Hopper Lane was erased of many beautiful crepe vernal trees. It looks so barren now. From the 101 exit area, including frontage roads, taking care of the weeds, shockingly has been very slow to non-existent. Please consider all of this. Hello, my name is Von Radke. I am leaving this voicemail message in reference to Agenda Item 3.1. As a longtime Coffee Park resident and Tubbs Fire survivor, I am somewhat incredulous that I find myself having to lobby for funds from the PG&E settlement that was in part compensation for the destruction of our neighborhood. I would imagine that most of the residents who chose to return and rebuild their homes in neighborhood would feel abandoned and betrayed if the city council denied them the funds to complete the rebuild with repaired sidewalks and the resurfacing of streets that still reflect the horror of the morning of October 8th, 2017. Coffee Park paid the price. Coffee Park deserves this consideration. Thank you. Hi, my name is Wendy and I am one of the standing homes that were involved with the Tubbs Fire. This is for Item Agenda Number 3.1 and I wish to lodge my encouragement to use the PG&E settlement funds directly for the people who were most involved and that is the folks of Coffee Park and Larkfield. I am looking at the agenda and I see that you are looking fortunately finally at street renovation because during that firestorm, the asphalt was seriously destroyed. Plastic was embedded into the asphalt, aluminum, all kinds of toxics were embedded in the asphalt that we drive on every day. I believe that the majority of that money needs to be in road repair in the fire areas. The other option also is to repair the Hopper Avenue corridor because it is dismal. It is horrific to see these beautiful homes and then to drive by those sidewalks and you can barely pass them and they are a huge, huge trip passers. I have one question to lodge to the community and that is who is responsible for maintaining Coffee Park, the new Coffee Park. It is now becoming a fire hazard because the grass is growing into the vegetation that was planted there. Thank you very much for your time and please, please repair Hopper Avenue sidewalks as street repairs for all of the areas that were damaged and destroyed by the test fire. Thank you. Yes, good evening. My name is Karen Curzon and my husband, Ed Curzon and I are Coffee Park residents in Santa Rosa. We are calling in regards to agenda item 3.1 and it is in regards to the PG&E settlement funds that were given to the city of Santa Rosa. We truly believe that those funds need to be used only for the fiery recovery projects which has to do with our neighborhood, our area where the tub fire occurred in 2017 regarding the Hopper corridor, the residential street repair and the re-landscaping and vegetation restoration of Barnes Road and parts of Coffee Lane. We truly believe that these funds need to be allocated to these projects so that our area can be redone and revitalized to what it was before the fire occurred. And we would just like to reiterate that that is our wish and what we believe that the city of Santa Rosa should do with the funds. Thank you very much. Bye-bye. Hello, my name is Russell Ernst. I'm calling about agenda item 3.1. I'd like to see the Hopper Avenue corridor work completed. We have so many things along Hopper Avenue that need to be fixed and our streets are still burned, especially in the Art Coffee Park area. We have damage to the curbs and of course the asphalt. And we'd like to see the landscaping work continue. Fireman shooting. And the fire money should be used for the fire-related items, specifically not for other things. Thank you very much. Yes, my name is Tom Felbaum. I live in Coffee Park. I'm Terry and Hopper on the corner. And this is for agenda agenda. Item 3.1. And I would strongly encourage the money going to Hopper Avenue corridor, residential street repair and re-landscaping and vegetation restoration in Coffee Park. And this area is in dire need of landscaping and street repair. I would appreciate your comments and I would appreciate it if that happens. Thank you. Hi, my name is Janelle and I live in the Coffee Park neighborhood. We rebuilt our house. We moved back two years ago. And I've been told that there was some estimate money from PG&E that was given to the city. And I was hoping that the city would repair the streets. I know there's an agenda. I think it's 3.1. And the streets are really crumbly and the sidewalks are pretty much been repaired by the people that live in the neighborhood, but the streets are rough and I've gotten flat tires and I have twins and they're in a stroller and I get flat tires if I go out on the street. And I know there's still construction being done but for the most part it's like pretty much rebuilt and to actually have a street be repaved could make it more like it's back to normal. Okay, thank you. Have a great evening. Hi, my name is Sean Coleman-Smith and I live in the Coffee Park neighborhood and just wanted to voice my concerns that looks like $68 million from the PG&E funds that's already been allocated but none of the streets here or sidewalks have been repaired since we rebuilt our house and it would be nice if some of those funds could be allocated to repaving streets and fixing the sidewalks. Okay, thanks a lot. Bye-bye. Hello, my name is Daniel Martinez and I am calling in regards to agenda item 3.1. So the reason I'm calling today is I wanted to make sure and I was part of the voice that basically spoke in regards to the $27 million that are upstanding from the PG&E money that was given to the city because of Tubbs Fire. So part of the reason I'm calling is because out of that money that's still available, I was concerned and wanted to make sure that those funds were used what they were intentionally designed for. Specifically, some of the projects that are still outstanding are part of the hopper corridor. In general, the residential street repairs that still need to be happening. I go on walks most evenings and I still have to be looking down because the sidewalks are just in need of a lot of attention and repairs. So from that standpoint, it's more of a safety hazard, especially with young children. A third item is the re-landscaping and just the general appearance of our lovely neighborhood here in Coffee Park. So once again, calling specifically for agenda item 3.1 and in regards to the three outstanding projects or focus measures that I had briefly discussed or I should say comment, excuse me. And I would just again like to voice my opinion on the matter and thank you very much for your time. And I hope the right decision is made for the funds that were allocated and that money goes towards that end and not for something else. Thank you. Hi, this is Hal Stone regarding agenda item 3.1. I really support the use of the money for repair to the Tubbs Fire Damage at the Hopper Avenue corridor, the residential street repair and all the sidewalks and landscaping that needs to be fixed, especially along Hopper. All right, thank you, bye. Yes, my name is Mary Lopez. I'm calling to leave a message for agenda item 3.1. I want to vote and say that the recovery funds from Pacific Gas due to the Tubbs Fire should be used to correct problems that are still existing in Coffee Park, mainly the streets and the sidewalks and the landscaping that was ruined due to the fire. And that includes all Hopper and Coffee Lane, Barnes Road, all of the surrounding streets around Coffee Park. Thank you so much for your help and let's get this, let's get us back to normal and back to where we were prior to the fires. Thank you, goodbye. My name is Sue Felbaum, agenda item 3.1. I live in the Coffee Park area and would like to see the remaining $27 million of the PG&E settlement to go to the Hopper Corridor, residential street repair and re-landscaping and vegetation restoration. These funds were received because of the Tubbs Fire and we are reminded every day with the devastation that occurred. Please use this money as it was intended. Thank you. Hi, my name's Annie Barber and I'm from Coffee Park. The I am commenting on agenda item 3.1 about the PG&E money. I feel very strongly that we need some of this money in Coffee Park to come to a complete recovery or as close to a complete recovery as possible. The scars on the road, the Hopper Corridor, which is a main entryway to Coffee Park. First, let me address the scars on the road. They bring back a lot of feelings for people. The PTSD runs rampant when people go out there and the wind's blowing and they see their garbage cans still, remnants still stuck into the street or burnt out cars. That's a huge deal for us. The sidewalks on Hopper, we have people that go down there with wheelchairs, scooters, walkers. So that I think is imperative to be taken care of. And the vegetation that was damaged is another thing. And I think you guys are already working on that, but all three items are extremely important. And the PG&E money was to make us whole. And I would appreciate it if we would be able to facilitate that. Thank you very much. Hi, my name's Annie Barber and I'm from Coffee Park. The I am commenting on agenda item 3.1 about- Hello, my name is Jacqueline Clamp. And I'm calling- Hi, my name's Annie Barber and I'm from- Hi, my name's Annie Barber and I'm from Coffee Park. The I am commenting on agenda item 3.1. Hello, my name is Jacqueline Clamp. And I'm calling regarding agenda item 3.1. I would like to ask that the city council spend the money that we have received from the PG&E settlement on the following items. The Harper Avenue corridor, the residential street prepare and landscaping and vegetation restoration. The reason that the city received this money is because the helms in Coffee Park burned down. And so this money should be used, part of the money at least should be used to restore things that were taken away from us during that fire. Thank you very much. And I hope you spend the money wisely. This is Constance Frederick. I'm calling regarding agenda item 3.1. As a Tubfire survivor, I'm pleading with the council members to remember who should be helped with the remaining $27 million of the PG&E settlement fund. The actual victims of the Tubfire, that's who. This money should be used for the fire recovery only. We should not have to be living with the visual memory of road scars, some of which are from our vehicles melting into our streets, failed and dangerous sidewalks, and missing landscaping. We should have what we had prior to this devastating fire. We deserve that much at least. You need to vote to pass these three important fire recovery projects. The Harper Avenue corridor, the residential street repair and the re-landscaping and vegetation restoration. Since the city has already allocated $68 million of the PG&E settlement fund to other city needs, the remaining funds must, must go to help the actual victims of the Tubfire. Thank you in advance for doing the right thing and passing these three important fire recovery projects. Hello, my name is Jamie Stagall and I want to leave a comment from agenda 3.1. I understand that you'll be voting on what to use the PG&E funds for. And I am a resident of Coffee Park and was here in 2017 and lost our home then. And I, we are now back, but there's still a lot of restoration that needs to be done in the neighborhood, including the Hopper Avenue corridor where the sidewalks are lifted and in desperate need of repair along with lack of vegetation and poor streets with potholes and cracks and things that just need to be restored. So if there's funds from the PG&E payout, I believe that they should be put solely back into repairing infrastructure that was damaged during those fires and should not be allocated to go anywhere else. That's why those funds were paid to the city was to restore the city and failing to put those funds anywhere else would be a failure to our community. Thank you. I am Alan Jerriman, homeowner in Coffee Park. This is for the July 13th, 2021 city council meeting agenda item 3.1 to determine distribution of PG&E reparation funds. After our house burned in the Tubfire, the most frequent question we were asked was, will you stay and rebuild? We love our community and felt so supported by our city government and the Coffee Strong Coalition. We could never have imagined that it would take three years to get our builder to finally finish the house and experience multiple emergency evacuations throughout that time. It has taken a heavy physical toll on me and my wife, both resulting in hospitalizations. We are now home recuperating and working with our builder to qualify for a final permit. Our backyard is the hopper fence and we were shocked and disappointed that our living in the house for 26 years, we were burdened with the maintenance and liability for the hopper sidewalk. The hopper corridor serves the traveling public into our neighborhoods. It is in dire need of safety repairs, including safe sidewalks, curves and gutters, and replacing trees to buffer pedestrians from swifter traffic. Unless there is a city plan and commitment, each neighbor will have to hodgepodge what they can do to minimize growth and labor. Please, please, please help us remove the scars in our neighborhoods by committing $20 million of the PG&E settlement towards three large infrastructure projects that will provide safety for our neighbors. Number one, safety repairs to the hopper corridor. Number two, most of our neighborhood sidewalks have been severely damaged due to fire, debris removal, et cetera. Our children, elderly, disabled and pets need to be able to access the sidewalk safely without this added risk. And number three, road slurry to fix the damaged streets. This rebuilding process is definitely a team effort of homeowners, coffee strong and the city. We are counting on your support to the better end. Please allocate $20 million of the PG&E funds to these three needed safety repairs, hopper corridor, sidewalks and roads. Thank you. Yeah, hi. This is Michael Wiswati, agenda item 3.1. In regards to the residential street repair, I believe that I would like to have the city Santa Rosa step up and focus on the roads there because of the nature of the construction, whether it was the cleanup repair and or the rebuilding repair, the roads have been compromised quite a bit. And it would be nice to see that handled as a priority to other things, not negating the needs for many. But my concerns would be is having the residential street repairs put back in a way that it will hold for the next 20, 30 years, hopefully. Okay, that'll be it. Hi, my name is Ed Soler. I live in Coffee Park. I honestly don't know the agenda number here, but this is regarding some repairs to the Hopper Avenue corridor and other repairs for the Coffee Park area with some funds that have been given to us, I think from a PG&E settlement for the Tubbs Fire. Basically, there's three listed, the Hopper Avenue corridor, the residential street repair and re-landscaping and vegetation restoration. The Hopper Avenue corridor is probably what sticks in my mind most, that whole area between those two new walls there, going from the freeway basically to Coffee Avenue is sort of lunar landscape. I mean, there's nothing there. It used to be pretty, there used to be trees and whatnot. And it is a constant reminder of what happened four years ago. So if there's any way to allocate that money to that particular part of the project I would advocate for it. The other one is the street repair. Sonoma County's just got bad roads everywhere. I'm not sure that roads in Coffee Park are any worse than anywhere else, but I mean, it would be nice if that could be done. The re-landscaping and vegetation as well, if that could be maybe even part of the Hopper Avenue corridor project because it's sort of the same sort of goal. Anyway, that's my inputs and thank you for hearing me. Talk to you later, bye-bye. My name is Gabriella Guerra and I'm calling to comment on the agenda item 3.1. I believe that the remaining money that was allocated due to the Tubbs fire should be used to fix the remaining issues that are left behind in the Coffee Park area. There are still several issues with the roads that need to be fixed. The sidewalk is cracked. There's a serious lack of trees and wildlife now that the fire has happened. And I believe that the families, including me and my family, that had to live through that traumatic event shouldn't have to be bothered with the visual after effects left behind by it. And that that money should be allocated to fixing it to the point of perfection that it was before the fire. Thank you for listening. And I really hope that that money is used accordingly because we really deserve to have our town and our neighborhood back to the original place that it was beforehand and we don't deserve to be reminded of the fire constantly every day. So I really hope that this is something that you consider and I hope to see something happen soon. Thank you. My name is Deb and I'm calling in regards to item 3.1. And I would like to request that the balance of the 27 million that PG&E, per the PG&E settlement is used for the items in agenda item 3.1, the Huffer Avenue corridor, residential street repair and re-landscaping and vegetation restoration. I'm asking city council to please walk in the shoes of the fire victims. I think you would feel totally different if you felt it. Of course, that's a very hard thing to do. And maybe some of you have, but I ask that you please do that and go along with using the money for what happened during the Tubbs fire. Thank you very much. Hello, council members. My name is Tracy Keske-Medy and calling on agenda item 3.1, urging you to allocate money to Huffer Avenue corridor, residential street repair and coffee park and re-landscaping and vegetation restoration. Our community was, as you know, hit extremely hard and we have come back from nothing and we need additional help. Please, please consider us at the top of your list. Thank you for the consideration. Hi, my name is Thomas Kilfwell. I'm calling about the coffee park area, Huffer Avenue corridor. I'd like to be included in the repair work for the money, the city estimate for the Huffer corridor, the residential street repair and re-landscaping and restoration. Thank you. Hi, my name is Heather Apons and this is for agenda item 3.1. And I just want to let you guys know how important it is for us to get especially the Huffer Avenue corridor sidewalks fixed. I have two small children and we have a double stroller that we ride with them in sometimes and it's very hard to navigate the breakages in the sidewalk and just weaving in and out of, you know, in huge weeds everywhere and yeah. And then also as far as, you know, the how crucial it is to get the street repairs done. So we don't have to see old scars of like, you know, where garbage cans had melted into the street. And, you know, it's just if the city has money for it, this is what it should go for. Replacing everything to hopefully as close to what it was before the Tubbs Fire happened. Same with the landscaping and vegetation restoration, especially along Coffee Lane and Barnes Road. It would just be really nice since everything else is being built up again that these last things that people really don't have money for to do on their own that the city could help step in with this extra money and help us out with that. Again, my name is Heather Apons and this is for Agenda Item 3.1. Thank you, bye. Hello, my name is Steven Hosmer. I'm calling about Agenda Item 3.1. The Coffee Park area still looks like a disaster area and due to road repair and just repair and lack of landscaping, this has a negative effect on resident morale and it's surely affecting the real estate values due to low curb appeal. I urge you to use all available funds to correct this long overdue situation. The bulk of rebuilding has been completed and there is no longer a large number of construction vehicles to damage any pavement. Riding a bicycle around Coffee Park is very uncomfortable and could even be dangerous. The area is becoming the pothole capital of Santa Rosa. Just drive down Miller or Stardew and you'll see. Hopper Avenue is not visually inviting. The returning residents of Coffee Park have done their part and the time has come for the city to complete the job. Thank you. My name is Deborah Frazier. This is regarding Agenda Item 3.1. This is regarding Coffee Park and I'm calling in support of the Hopper Corbor, the residential street repair and re-landscaping and vegetation restoration. We've lived here over 30 years and we would really like to see these projects done with the allocation of the money that PG&E sent. So thank you very much. Bye. This is Gary Bowers, Agenda Number 3.1. I'm calling about the PG&E settlement money that I'd like to see used in the burn area of Coffee Park. The main things I'd like to talk about are the sidewalk repair on Hopper Corridor and the paving of the streets back to pre-fire conditions. Thank you. Hi, this is Travis Garrison. I am calling in for Agenda 3.1. I would love to see support from our city council members in regards to the Hopper Avenue Corridor, residential street repair in Coffee Park and the re-landscaping and vegetation restoration. I'm a 32-year resident in Coffee Park and survived the tubs fighting. I would love to see this money utilized to bring the neighborhood back to where it was. It's not better it's where we were before the tubs back in 2017. It's almost four years later and we're still dealing with scars that we have to drive by every day in our streets. Some entryways to our areas and having to take care of a lot of the landscaping ourselves. I'd love to see this money be approved and get put back towards Coffee Park and disaster recovery. Thank you for your consideration. This is for Agenda Item 3.1. My name is Jeff O'Crepke. I am a resident of Coffee Park and I'm also the founder of Coffee Strong Neighborhood Rebuilding Organization. I'm calling because of these funds that we've received in the PG&E settlement. It's important to realize that Coffee Park is still a community that's rebuilding. We are not by any means all the way back. It may look as though we have proceeded fairly quickly and everyone is home, but that's not the case. Not everyone is home and not everything is fixed. It's also important to realize that this is not a windfall. This is not a windfall of cash that the city is going to receive and can go out to anything and everything. This money was awarded based off community losses and Coffee Park was one of those communities that experienced extensive, severe losses during the 2017 Tubbs Fire. Specifically, I wanted to advocate for the 20 million for the Coffee Park area, which includes the 6 million for the Hopper Corridor, the 7 million for street repair, which although I believe is a little light, is still important and then 7 million for the re-landscaping and vegetation. These unrepaired damages are the physical embodiment of our continuing trauma. Our residents go by these road scars, go by the damaged sidewalk on Hopper and are constantly reminded of the trauma they went through that night of the 8th and 9th of October, 2017. Preparing these will help heal some of the wounds that can be healed by the residents of Coffee Park. So I urge you to approve the 6 million for Hopper Corridor, the 7 million for street repairs and the 7 million for re-landscaping in Coffee Park. Fixing what's rightfully needed to be fixed can help heal our community and this money is awarded because of the losses and because of the damage and emotional and physical scars of the Tubbs Fire. So please direct that money back to the community that needed so very, very much. Thank you. Yeah, my name is Tom Tannarelli. My wife's name is Michelle Tannarelli and we live in the Coffee Park area and this is addressing agenda item 3.1. We have crumbling streets and sidewalks. We've got kids throwing pieces of asphalt around, major holes and the crumbling of the asphalt in the same area, tripping and falling down on the sidewalk on Hopper Avenue. I agree, we have the homeless problem in Santa Rosa but the last time I checked, they haven't paid taxes in years. I think one of the city's first priorities should be to the people who lost their homes in the Tubbs Fire, who paid taxes and had not received any financial support from the city council to repair the streets, sidewalks and landscaping in our neighborhood. Our problem is far more serious than you think and we should be compensated for our loss of city infrastructure. Thank you, bye-bye. Hello, my name is Karen Tannarelli and the agenda item is 3.1. I am a resident of Coffee Park. I am a senior and I walk Coffee Lane and Hopper Avenue frequently. And it's really disgusting to see the landscaping and all the work that needs to be done on the sidewalk. It is so dangerous to walk there, not just for seniors, but for anybody. You have to walk and keep your head down because there's raised sidewalks, cracked sidewalks, sometimes at evening, walk in the street where it's safer. So I hope that some of the money can be spent in proving things on Coffee Lane and Hopper. Everybody has brand new houses and it should look like the city cares and everybody cares for this beautiful area. Thank you, bye. Hi, my name is Janet Reisner and I'm calling regarding council item 3.1. I'm calling to leave feedback regarding the money spent from the fires and our house, it was in the neighborhood and our house was burned and the neighborhood that we live in was burned in Coffee Park. Our roads are terrible. We still have blue outlines where all the trash cans melted on the street because it was an early Monday morning. It's a reminder every day of the traumatic experience we went through and even though we have new homes, our roads are so bad that the asphalt just ships away at any slight bumping of it along Hopper between Coffee and Van Yen Road, where the Hopper Wall is. The whole, everything is just crumbling and falling apart. It's very dangerous for bicyclists. I just would like the monies to be spent on these things that the fire actually affected instead of other things that have nothing to do with the fire. Thank you. Good afternoon. This is Veronica Derriman making a public comment for agenda item 3.1. This is a plea for our city representative to allocate needed PGD funds for restorative repairs to the Coffee Park neighborhood as a homeowner with a backyard aligning with Hopper have invested interest in a comprehensive and long-term plan for this corridor that provides the automobile, bike and walking public entrance, exit and evacuation from our residential areas. For our recovering community, I am requesting a three-fold repair plan that specifically will protect and benefit our children, elderly, disabled neighbors and pets with the ability to access the sidewalks and roads safely. The Hopper corridor is in dire need of safety repairs including safe sidewalks, curbs and gutters and replacing the trees to buffer the walkers from the cars. Two, repair of hazardous sidewalks impaired by the fire and debris removal. And three, road slurry to fix the damaged street. To your credit, you've been with us from the beginning. Helping us restore our community's cars helps each of us with our personal recovery. Thank you for fulfilling your promise to stay with us until the end. Hi, my name is Cecelia Brown. I am calling about agenda item 3.1. I live in the, actually Sharon Park area, also coffee, also known as Coffee Park. And what I'd like to say is that the remaining $27 million that PG&E gave for the settlement funds for the city, I'd like to see doing the street repair, most of all, because all of many streets in our area are, you know, got badly burnt and well, there's lots of them that need repair. Also, the landscaping and the Hopper Avenue corridor, sidewalk repair, so keep our money, keep the money in Coffee Park where the most damage was done. Thank you, bye-bye. Hello, this is Kelly Moore. I live in Coffee Park. I'm calling regarding agenda item 3.1. I'm calling to give a comment on this agenda item as I'm urging the council to pass the road repair project with the PG&E settlement funds. These funds were meant to help make our affected area whole again. And currently there's still much to do. Many reminders of the Tubbs fire still exist in the damaged roads and landscaping. We should have what we had prior to the fire and it is my opinion that the PG&E settlement funds should only be spent on this purpose and nothing else. Coffee Park residents have been through so much and for those who chose to stay and rebuild, the city should use the funds to make the neighborhood as close to what it was before the fire. It's not right or fair for the funds to be spent on anything other than fire recovery. Thank you. Yes, hello. My name is Norman Sahagan-Rigosa, R-A-Y-G-O-Z-A. And I am calling regarding item 3.1. And I am calling because I really support the Coffee Park, the Hopper Avenue Corridor. The sidewalks to be redone. We rebuild after the fire. And it's been really hard to walk down that street. I have a, my mother is on a walker and we usually walk down that corridor and we can't seem to walk as safely as before due to the lifting of the sidewalks and everything. So if you can please help us out and issue that, you know, the grant to have that sidewalks repaired on Hopper. I appreciate it. If you'd like to call me back, my number is 707-217-7754. Thank you. Hey guys, my name is Gerardo Rualos. My property address is 1368 Holy Parkway. If my concern is about the streetlight on my property and according to PJ&E and, you know, CT will be the one responsible for that to fix it. Up to now it doesn't fix it. And now if this thing is not able to fix, can you please remove the lightning post on my property because I'm keep asking this for a long time. And I'm really frustrated about this issue. Maybe you can help me to address this issue. Thank you very much. My cell number 707-365... Hi, my name is Cara Lemieux and I would like to comment on agenda item 3.1. I appreciate the city council considering allocating the remaining PJ&E funds for neighborhood projects that were affected or adversely impacted by the Tufts Fire. And I just wanna advocate for following through on that, you know, I'm just committing to that so that areas like Coffee Park, Sound Grove can be made a little more whole by doing some of these public works projects that are so needed to further repair the damage that was done by the Tufts Fire. So I would assume that the city council would do the right thing and allocate these funds as needed for those projects but I just wanted to add my support to for these funds going to those much needed projects for Tufts Fire Recovery. Okay, thank you very much. Bye. Hello, this is Dale and Sandy Bells. We live in Coffee Park. We'd like to address agenda item 3.1. And urge you to fund the Hopper Avenue Quarter and the residential street repair and relapsing and vegetation restoration. Thank you very much. Goodbye. Hello, Santa Rosa City Council. My name is Jessica DiCremo and I am a resident here in the city of Santa Rosa. This is for agenda item 3.1. My husband and two young children and I lost our Coffee Park home in the Tufts Fire in 2017 and endured a long and painful rebuild, finally moving back in April of 2020. I am calling to comment on agenda item 3.1 with regards to the remaining $27 million of the PG&E settlement funds. This PG&E settlement money must be invested in areas of the city where there was damage and loss due to the Tufts Fire. We Coffee Park residents and other fire survivors endured trauma, loss and sorrow and we're reminded daily of the fires when we walk and drive through the streets of our neighborhood. There are scars in the asphalt where garbage cans melted, buckled in hazardous sidewalks and burned missing ill-maintained landscaping, all viewable out my own window. Fire survivors deserve to see the money from PG&E be allocated to repair the areas in their neighborhoods impacted by the fires. If this money were to be used for purposes other than fire recovery, it would be unjust and simply wrong. Please pass the Hopper Corridor residential street repair and re-landscaping vegetation restoration projects. In 2017, the love in the air was thicker than the smoke. Can you please honor what we all went through together by doing your part to complete the fire recovery efforts in our community? In a world where insurance companies didn't make many of us whole, contractors came into our town and fleeced us with shoddy rebuilds and fraud and material shortages have delayed rebuilds. Fire survivors are counting on you to be on our side. Thank you very much for your time. Hi, my name is Karen. We live in 1365 Holy Park away, San Rosa 9543. San Rosa 9543. I just concerned about sidewalk near San Miguel Avenue and hopefully intersection near by school, most of the school. The intersection sidewalk, a lot of the plus and the more it should be done by city, high-tech tree. I saw the business transmission box still there by Spain, haven't been removed yet. So I just concerned about re-lescaping and the vegetation restoration near by Coffin and sidewalk intersection San Miguel Avenue. Just my concern, it's really bad intersection for school area for kids walking to the school. Thank you. I want to be a 707-483-2A13, 707. Hi, my name is Richard Lane and I am a calling regarding agenda items 3.1 and I'm a coffee park resident. I'm calling to make sure there are sufficient funds in the budgeting of one-time monies for residential street repair now. According to the city of Santa Rosa study session, one-time monies published July 13th, 2021, there was still $27 million uncommitted from the $95 million of PG&E settlement funds. According to the study, potential projects only amount to an estimated $20 million, leaving $7 million unallocated. Per the study, the total project cost for street repair could be as much as $14 million. Currently, there was only $7 million allocated for street repair. Please allocate the unallocated $7 million to residential street repair to cover the shortage. If this $7 million is not allocated at this time, it is entirely possible that this work will never be completed. We are still living with road scars and want to have back what we had before the fire. It is impossible to walk or drive our neighborhood without seeing the shadows of destroyed cars or trash bins burned into our streets. We deserve to have the funds from PG&E applied to repair the damage caused by PG&E. Thank you for listening and thank you for your time. Bye. Hi, I'm Dwayne Mulder and I live in Coffee Park. And I'm commenting on agenda item 3.1. I think the money, the settlement funds should be spent primarily on fixing streets and sidewalks and other infrastructure that was damaged by the fires. That's the source of the settlement damage from the fires and so the money should go to fixing up streets around Coffee Park, especially Hopper Avenue Corridor needs some work. Thank you. Hi, my name is Susanna and I'm calling about agenda item 3.1. My family and I live in Coffee Park and my family rebuilt after the test fire in 2017. It would be incredibly important to me, my family and our neighbors to see our neighborhood brought back to its pre-fire condition. So please use these funds allocated for fire restoration. Thank you so much. Hi, my name is Dave Bailey, agenda item 3.1. I am concerned as a resident and taxpayer from the city of Santa Rosa from the fire rebuild on the agenda for I believe July 13th is the Hopper Avenue Corridor Resonance Street Primary Landscape and Vegetation Restoration. I really invite all the council members along with city manager and mayor to come out and walk the streets specifically Hemlock Street or Hopper and actually tell yourselves or ask yourselves if you're proud of what you have here. If you're proud of that, then you could live with it. Otherwise the money that's allotted from PG&E or given to the city from PG&E, the streets are completely unreparable. They need to be completely overhauled and new asphalt put in. The sidewalks and landscaping on the Hopper wall that was built has always been maintained by the city of Santa Rosa. Haven't assigned no stopping or parking along Hopper and also a big bullseye target on you when you're out there trying to do landscaping would be completely ridiculous as well as I believe would be a big lawsuit to the city of Santa Rosa. The city should be taking care of that as it's been for the last 40 some years. Cone it off, protect your workers and do the job and beautify the city as it should be. Take care of the streets that are existing and not repaired, but completely replaced. I thank you. I hope that the money is allotted into the right direction, into our fire rebuild that everyone is still, or not everyone, but a good church, church people are still doing their job and make it in Santa Rosa a really nice place to live. Thank you again for your time. Hello Santa Rosa City Council. My name is Matt Parrazo and I'm the resident of Santa Rosa to live here in Coffee Park. And my family and I lost our house in the Tubbs Fire in 2017 and we're finally able to move back three years later in 2020. I'm calling about agenda item 3.1 regarding the $27 million in funds that you received from the PGD settlement. And I would like to do that money used toward refurbishing years that were destroyed from the fire over here in Coffee Park, namely the Hopper Corridor, Street Repair and other landscaping and vegetation. Our streets around us specifically, I mean, there's still marks all over the ground of where cars had burned and trash cans had melted into the sidewalk. So it would be nice to kind of have those scars removed and just see this area look as wonderful as we moved in here the first time in 2016 when it was lush filled trees and just a vibrant, wonderful neighborhood. So even though we're slowly getting back there, it would be great to see that money used for the purposes of this area where we suffered the most. And I'm sorry, I know other people have had fire damages too in the last couple of years, but I mean, this area was hit hard and many of us are still recovering and dealing with issue with contractors that have caused problems in insurance companies too and in PGD itself. So to at least have that money used toward helping this area look like it once did would be a big step in helping. Okay, thank you very much, bye. My name is Sonya Benendite and I wish to address item 3.1 on the agenda pertaining to the PG&E settlement money. I strongly feel that the PG&E settlement money should be spent on fire recovery and fire recovery alone while there are still unmet needs pertaining to the various fires. Specifically, I request that enough of the settlement money, the remaining settlement money be allocated to Coffee Park to address various remaining infrastructure and landscape needs from the fire. I love walking around the neighborhood and when I walk around, I love seeing how much of coffee, how much Coffee Park has recovered how far it has come in the past four years. However, what I also see when I walk around in a few areas at least are some remaining scars from the fire, which have not recovered. What I request is that some of that money be allocated in order to heal those remaining scars. Where I see these scars are first along the Hopper Avenue corridor where new sidewalks and landscaping are necessary. The sand wall in this area has been replaced and it's really beautiful and there's an improvement over the old one. However, nothing has been done with the landscaping or the sidewalks at all. The landscaping that's remaining is very minimal and doesn't really do a whole lot and the sidewalks that remain are unsafe. They're uneven, they're cracked and they're trip hazard. Secondly, what I see a need is on the streets and the sidewalks within the neighborhood. These need to be repaired and replaced. Both the streets and the sidewalks be damaged by the fires as well as subsequent construction activities. Some homes have replaced the sidewalks in front of their houses, others have not. The old sidewalks that are remaining like in the Hopper Avenue sidewalks, they're cracked, they're uneven and like on Hopper Avenue, they're trip hazard, they're dangerous and they do need to be replaced. The last area where I see a need in the Coffee Park area is along Coffee Lane, the landscape areas that are north and south of Hopper Avenue. Before the fires, these areas had beautiful trees, beautiful large trees that provided shade. I would like to see those landscape areas re-landscape with and including some trees that would grow large and provide shade and help soften the concrete in that area. Coffee Park has come a long way in the past four years. As you know, most of the homes have been replaced. The park has been restored, thank you very much. It's really beautiful, the park that you've given us. I ask, my name is Colleen Doyle, agenda item 3.1. I want to have the money from PG&E settlement be paid for the Hopper Avenue corridor, sidewalk repair and other projects, residential street repair and re-landscaping and vegetation restoration. I live in Coffee Park and I think we deserve because that's what the money was set for. Thank you. Hi, my name is Nick Bellevue, resident of Santa Rosa Coffee Park neighborhood. And I'm calling regarding item agenda 3.1, which has to do with the PG&E settlement funds and allocation of those funds. And I wanted to advocate as resident of Coffee Park and having lived here for many years prior to the fire and having this be my first home and where I raised my children and that we need these funds to go towards the fire recovery, which includes the Hopper Avenue corridor and especially residential street repair, in my opinion, because the streets are very torn out from all the fire, Cal OES, all the construction that's been in the area and also just re-landscaping and vegetation restoration of the Coffee Park neighborhood. So I'm just going to leave it short and just say that I just want to have a key for that. I hope that the council moves forward with going on those items and approving of the funds for those things. Have a good evening. Kevin Johnson, agenda item 3.1. It is my understanding that the city is considering not using funds received from PG&E to repair damage caused by the tough fire. Since the fire, our community has come together in many ways to rebuild both our lives and property or to be together and donating time to rebuild the Hopper wall, working together to get our park back, supporting each other during this continuing process of rebuilding our community and lives. And now I hear this city is questioning where these funds should be spent. Has anyone from the city walked around this neighborhood? If they had, they would find streets that are crumbling, sidewalks that are missing sections of concrete along Hopper and the entire neighborhood that can't safely be walked on. The city reminders of the fire everywhere. The PG&E meter on coffee by the school that is still black and melted, trees dumps still black with ash and the burn marks, they're still on the street. We have landscaping in desperate need of repair. What really gets me is the amount of time and effort this community and particularly a coffee stone has done to get us closer to some sort of normalcy. But this city is considering not using the funding specifically designated for repair caused by this fire somewhere else. It's a shame that we have to speak up about this. Then we have to ask you to use the funds as intended instead of spending money on some other pet project to gain points to your agenda. Use this money as intended. Our community has worked together voluntarily to help get things somewhere back to the way it was. I would expect you members of this council would at least stand up and help us by not taking this funding away. Please do the right thing. Hello, my name is Kathy Porter. My message is directed to the Santa Rosa City Council members for the public meeting tomorrow. The agenda item is 3.1. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. My family and I lost our home, its contents, our car, and landscaping after living here for 29 years. Luckily, we were not hurt physically, but we were devastated. We finally made the decision to rebuild and we relocated into our new home exactly two years after the tubs fire. We are happy to be home again, but with some reservations. I understand that a portion of the PG&E settlement funds should be allocated for the reconstruction of the streets in and around Coffee Park. As you know, the roads are in horrible shape. For almost four years, the new construction and redevelopment of our homes has resulted in streets that are filled with bumps, chuck holes, rocks, and a lack of signage and markings. Our neighborhoods deserve new roads. Secondly, the Hopper corridor still looks bad. I was pleased to see the concrete sound barriers replaced, but the parkways need to be landscaped and revitalized. Finally, the families in our community would appreciate having the dead trees and vegetation removed. The sad trees are a constant reminder of the past. We want to look forward to our futures here in Santa Rosa. Please consider allocating the settlement monies to the survivors of the tubs fire for our renewal. Thank you. Hi, this is John Swanstrom, a resident of Coffee Park, whose house burned down in October, 2017, tubs firestorm. I'm calling about agenda item 3.1. I'd like to see the PG&E settlement funds received from PG&E due to the tubs firestorm be used for fire recovery only, and specifically for street repair, sidewalk repair, and landscaping and vegetation restoration. The streets in Coffee Park are especially in bad condition due to the firestorm damage. There are still scars in the asphalt pavement from burned cars that were parked on the streets, as well as significant roadway damage due to a large amount of heavy construction equipment using our Coffee Park residential streets over several years as our neighborhood was being rebuilt. It seems appropriate to use PG&E settlement funds to repair community streets that were damaged because of the firestorm, and unconscionable to use these PG&E settlement funds for purposes other than to repair firestorm damage. Thank you. Hello, my name is Alyssa Bellevue, and I'm calling in regards to agenda item 3.1. I am just calling to ask that the council use this money to make improvements on fire damaged areas. As somebody who struggles with PTSD from the fires, it's just a reminder every time I drive by and live in the area of Coffee Park of the fire and the damage that it caused. So I would really appreciate it if we could allocate some funds directly towards the Hopper Avenue Corridor, making repairs there, as well as the residential street repair. There are her scarred trash cans and ruined curbs. It's dangerous, and like I said, it can be a trigger for many of us in Coffee Park who lived through that fire. I would also like the money allocated to the re-landscaping and vegetation restoration within the area. We had a beautiful neighborhood, and it is definitely coming back, but these extra funds would really help get rid of all the fire damage that is still around us and really make our neighborhood more complete. Thank you for your time. Hi, my name is Shannon Peck. I am calling regarding agenda item 3.1. I am calling to be in support of the Hopper Avenue Corridor project because that sidewalks were never totally re-repared after the fires, and the other projects need to be done in that area. The residential street repairs need to be done throughout the whole city, but especially in our area and Fountain Grove, and re-landscaping and vegetation restoration. I think this would be a good time for the city to put forth even more native plant species and drought-resistant tolerant plants that other people would see and want in their yards. Thank you. Yeah, hi, my name is Monty Haddick, and this is for agenda item 3.1. I'm just calling to encourage you to do the right thing and use the money that PG&E has given us what I believe they intended to use it on, and that's to repair our community and to make it whole again, to make it what it was prior to the temp's fire. And I would just strongly encourage you to use that to repair our streets and our sidewalks and our curbs and our vegetation restoration along the Halper Avenue corridor. So again, I just want to strongly encourage you to use these funds for those reasons. I believe that that's what they're intended to be used for to repair our community especially in the areas where the fire has destroyed much of it. So thank you for your time, and I appreciate you putting this money in the direction that it was intended to do. Thank you. Hi, my name is Melanie Grossman. I'm a resident in Coffee Park area, and home after the rebuild, I'm calling about agenda item 3.1. And I just really, really hope that those funds are used to bring our neighborhood back, to make our streets and our sidewalks safe for our children, to make it an enjoyable walk to our new park, and really to make it the neighborhood that made us buy a home in Santa Rosa. And so I just hope that you have considered the needs of our community to get back home wholly and fully moving forward. And I really hope that those funds go to helping make that happen. Thanks, all right. Hello, I'm Becky Salady representing myself and my husband Doug Salady for agenda 3.1 in today's meeting. We both feel that the city council should vote to allot the remaining $27 million of the PG&E settlement funds received from PG&E due to the Tubbs Fire for three important fire recovery projects. The Hopper Corridor, residential street repair, and re-landscaping and vegetation restoration. We should not have to live with this visual memory of road scars, failed and dangerous sidewalks, and missing landscape. We want to have what we had prior to the fire. We feel we deserve it. Thank you. That concludes voice message public comment. Great. Go ahead and pull it back to council members. So before we go to our comments, Mr. City Manager, I'll go ahead and ask you to frame what type of direction you would like from council. Mayor, I will do my best to frame this in a way that makes sense for everybody. Sorry, one second. We already did all of our live public comments. Thomas will come back. Go ahead, Mr. City Manager. So I think first of all, we'd like you to review the two proposals made both for the ARPA funds that are in the staff report and the presentation that was made, and also the recommendations for use of the PG&E funds. And identify if there's anything that you wish to change in those recommendations. In addition to that, I've just been going through my notes trying to capture what I heard, and I'm going to run through those very quickly. The Asawa Fountain, $300,000 in interest in expanding our mental health response team program to a 24-hour model. The universal basic income program is included already. Down payment assistance program, that's a new item. Staff has estimated that at around $3 million to have a significant impact. Under the homeless services, we would like you to consider using a portion of the savings that we'd realized by putting ARPA funds into that, to fund bathroom improvements at Samuel Jones Hall. We are currently relying on porta-potties at that site. So we need about $2 million to make permanent restrooms and shower improvements to the facility. There was an interest in exploring wrap-around services with our safe overnight parking program, and just kind of a general note, more wrap-around services for homeless. I don't have a cost estimate of that currently. Parking assets to help stimulate future development in the downtown, $1.5 million. Funds to follow up on DEI investments and recommendations from SEED Collaborative. Staff is estimating the next step to that would be the Community Empowerment Plan program, and $150,000 for that. Climate Action Plan implementation. We don't have a good estimate of that yet. We're not far enough along and to know what the recommendations are for that. That was on the list. Expanded bike lanes. There was support for broadband that is already recommended in the expenditure plan. So are the jobs programs. There was a concept about a baby bonds program, we don't have a good scope on that as to what would be a significant initial investment. And park improvements, expansions, was also something that I heard mentioned, and I think that is the list that I heard. If I missed something, please let me know, but it would be like feedback as to whether there's consensus from the council that these things are all of interest to the council. And then we would go back and try to program them based on the available funds over the next three years. And the reason I say three years is ARPA comes out in a different series of funding funds. And then we also have, if we stick with the current recommendations, we'd have $7 million in PG&E funds to use as well. And that's a one-time funding source. Thank you, and I heard two additional ones. So I wanna make sure I put them on there. One was making sure that we've adequately funded our vegetation management program. And that was the first tranche of money that we've already allocated, but making sure we bolster that now that we're actually into the program aspect of it. The second one that I heard from Council Member Tibbets was a mitigation bank or development of a mitigation bank. And then we had the requests from our nonprofit community. We heard one here today from Boys and Girls Club. We've also received requests from the food bank as well as other nonprofits as well. So I wanted to make sure that that was listed for discussion for council members. Is there anything, Vice Mayor? Any manager, I heard you say a park improvement expansion, but specifically all weather fields. Those were just improvements or ideas that I heard mentioned during the council discussion. And I'm not sure what the particular focus of those was. Well, I suggested it and I wanted specifically to, or all weather fields. All weather fields, okay. Yes, thank you. Great, so I'm gonna have Council Member Schwedem kick us off. Gosh, thanks. I mean, I figured since we just listened to 400 of your constituents, I figured I'd let you go first. It only felt like 400, Mr. Mayor, thank you. So let me just start with that PG&EM, 100% supportive of what staff recommendation is for the $20 million without question. And then regarding the ARPA, so on slide eight, all of those listening there, there's nothing that I would want to remove, but I definitely do want some additional data on those items and basically the metrics for success. You know, we talked a little bit about the UBI or the jobs program, even the broadband projects. So that's $10 million over two years. What does that mean? So I just need more detail of it. But on that slide, everything works for me. Additionally, the Asala Fountain, you know, it is something that we committed to our community to make that happen. So I'm still supportive of that. And the same thing on many of the projects, Mr. Colon, that you had mentioned, I just want more data on it, like the Baby Bond Program. We invest this, here's gonna be the return on the investment when. So just some additional information on that. And then regarding with the Seed Collaborative DEI work, I'm also really interested in, yes, I think we should have some funds there, but also some data collection tools, because I really think in this arena, the data needs to drive our decisions. So that's a little bit more specific. Yes, I want to set aside some money, but I'd really like to be able to have some data collection tool capabilities included in that, what that looks like. I don't know, but I'm anxious to hear and see what the Seed Collaborative might have to say about it. And I really think, yeah, a lot of wants. It was interesting going back to some of the tendencies where we have $400 million in ask, and there's really, one can make some pretty strong arguments on all of them. But I like the starting conversation on slide eight, and then let's continue working. Thank you. So Council Member, from the rest of the list that the city manager suggested, did you want to walk through those? And I'm happy to repeat them. Or are the ones that you identified your highest priority? The ones identified are my highest priority. And again, I don't disagree with what any of my colleagues have said. I just, it's gonna be a cost-benefit analysis for me when it comes back. Okay, for X number of dollars, we get this. Okay, what if we kept that figure in half and applied it here? I just need more information on it because there's not a lot of specificity here. I like all the topics. It's just putting the dollar amount to it. Yeah, and I did want to ask you specifically because you mentioned it before, the mental health response. Is that one of your top priorities? Absolutely, for the ARPA funds. Yeah, I just wanted to make sure because I didn't have it down in your comments, but I thought it was. Yeah, and again, it's with a caveat that Jim was mentioning, if it's an available expense, my interest is getting 24-7 as quickly as possible, even though we're going with the pilot program, if they're available for that, I definitely would want to consider that. Great. Okay, we'll go to Council Member Tibbetts. Thanks, Mayor. Everything looked good to me, except I did not hear the guaranteed employment program, which maybe I missed it, but I think that's really important. I think it's really important too because we had a conversation, I think about two or three weeks ago, about using essentially temporary health power parks, and I had a great subsequent conversation with Assistant City Manager Nutt, where he has some really good ideas about providing work opportunities for people experiencing homelessness, and so I think that dovetails really nicely with your plan, Mayor, to do guaranteed employment, so I hope that's on the list, if it's not already. I'm similar to Tom, I'm supportive of UBI and Baby Bonds, I'll just be curious about programmatic details and what the financial impact is for those people in the long term. Everything else that was mentioned was great. Thank you for throwing in the concept of mitigation banking, Mr. Mayor, and yeah, that's it for me. Thanks, guys. Oh, actually one question. My question is for staff, so of everything you just listed and you kind of did an estimate of pricing it out, what remains in the PG&E funds currently after that assessment? Seven million dollars currently. Seven million remains. Okay, you know, I would also be curious. I know there's still other needs in the city that we haven't discussed today, but I think looking at some of these fire recovery and also fire mitigation measures in the future, I didn't bring this up today because I didn't want to delve into provincial politics and district politics, but something that's been a great concern on my mind is the community of Oakmont and the district that I represent only has two exits currently that serve about 7,000 people and they go, they face one way onto a two lane highway and Channel Drive is absolutely an opportunity for us to work with our state partners to create a better exit, which is also going to serve our fire department better in terms of getting assets into Oakmont to respond to a fire, particularly the growing concern there is fires in Annandale Trinity State Park. So that's been on my mind a little bit. I may not try to push on that too hard today because I know there's a lot going on, but it's something that I want to bring to the council's attention because I think it's a very significant public safety issue up for the people who live in Oakmont. All right, thank you council member. And I'm not, I promise I'm not trying to drive the conversation too much. I just want to make sure for the things that are not currently listed in the staff's proposal that council members give prioritization to. So I just wanted to verify with you council member what I heard from you in the previous discussion was prioritizing the down payment assistance and the increased vegetation management. I just wanted to confirm with you that those are priorities that you'd like to see put into the proposals from staff. I didn't specifically stipulate vegetation management. I am very supportive of it, but I would say that my primary priority would be down payment assistance that you mentioned. And if the opportunity exists, emergency egress on channel drive ingress and egress, but that I guess could be a facet of vegetation management, but I'll leave that to you. Okay, I may have had the wrong council member for that note, but thank you. Let's come back to the day as council member Alvarez. I go a little closer. I do agree with the staff proposal. I do want to support the baby bonds as well as the guaranteed job. I think it's important for us to look deeper into that and see what the return on investment or at least dab deeper into that. I definitely do suggest that we use the lens that focuses with equity in mind, opposed to just a materialistic improvements to our city. That would be just the general recommendation. In regards to the DEI seed collaborative, I would like to see those reserves put in place. Sam Jones, again, this is for the public safety. So I definitely am aligned with that. But again, I just want to reiterate one more time when it comes to baby bonds as well as job guarantee and other things that help those of the future, I definitely want to look deeper into them and see how we can create those programs with the greatest efficiency and effectiveness. Okay, thank you, council member. We'll go to council member Fleming. Thank you and thank you to everybody who participated in expressing yourselves and putting this plan together, which is a heck of a lot of people. I'm not going to reiterate what everybody said. I'm going to talk a little bit more about perspective and philosophy that I'm looking forward to hearing from the staff when things come back. I know that we're asking or many council members have already expressed a desire for increased data and information. And I think that that's valid. I think that oftentimes, because it's difficult to pin down exact predictions around outcomes of new programs that the staff has made me worry to give us information that turns out to not be accurate. So I would suggest that we put forth three ideals which is economic welfare, which isn't to me just about dollars and cents, but it's about the principle that a rising tide raises all ships, equity and sustainability. And if staff can rate the proposals that we've heard today, those three things on just a simple scale of one to 10, like how a nurse will triage you and say, you know, what's your pain on a scale of one to 10? It's okay if it's not perfect, but what do you guys think on those three counts? And then, so I'd like to see these things rated essentially as what is gonna be effective in your minds. And then I understand that some things may not have a direct economic or equity impact, but are just things that we should do, like finish the Salwa Fountain. And so for that, I would just put a star next to them. On a personal note, the things that really speak to me are buttressing our parks so that we can have increased parks programming. When I take my kid to Camp Uchi, they're closed on Friday, you have to pick your kid up at five. I mean, the programming that we have is wonderful, but it is not really effective for working families. I'd like to see what we can do to increase our capacity to serve seniors and children through our own services, which are, for my personal experience, really, really fantastic, but not large enough in scale. The down payment assistance program speaks to me because of the obvious returns, both immediate and stabilizing renters, and long-term in that it can be a revolving fund, and especially because it's something that the housing department has already developed and set up and has been simply waiting for the city to fund. And then finally, and probably not surprisingly, making sure that our mental health response team is available 24 hours a day is going to yield us returns on increased services to our residents, decreased strain on our law enforcement, and I believe improved quality of life for residents and law enforcement is something that is difficult really for anybody to argue with as just a standard of excellence that we have the ability here to adopt. As far as the things that people here have my council members and people have suggested, there's nothing here that strikes me as a poor idea or poor use of funds. I think that it's a real tragedy that we don't have more, and in response to Gregory here on in particular, it is not as fun as it looks to distribute money because it's more money, more problems when you don't have quite enough. It looks like we're loaded up here, but we really don't have enough to do anything. I mean, as much as everything is what I'm trying to say, I wish we could do to get every eucalyptus tree out of the city. I wish we could hire tons and tons more firefighters and make this build thousands and thousands more units, but this is what we've got. So I hope that we are able to use this money to the most effective highest and best uses, and I look forward to when this comes back to the council. Thank you. Council Member Sawyer. Thank you, Mayor. Well, I really have to agree with council members Fleming and Schwedhelm, and for different and similar reasons, I'm gonna bounce around here a little bit. After hearing that the neighbors talk about the monies dedicated to the improvement of the neighborhood, where the monies were caused or the need for the money was caused by the fire, and I think it's really important to me to separate, although we've already blended some with the Wilson Library using the PG&E funds, and I'm totally supportive of that. That was 10% of the funds right there. So we've already kind of broken through that barrier only using those fire funds for fire damage. I'm totally supportive of the staff's recommendations. I would recommend that we be careful on vegetation restoration. If you were to have asked me three years ago whether or not we should be replacing vegetation in any one neighborhood, I would be looking at it with a little jaundiced eye in how we replace that vegetation, how we irrigate that vegetation. So I think it's important that we look at our current reality when it comes to some of those, that one piece of the 20 million. So just throwing that out there that things have changed. I'm not saying that we're not gonna, I'm not recommending that we not spend $7 million, but right now $7 million for landscaping and vegetation restoration, when we're going through a drought and things have changed, I would wanna be looking at that very, very carefully. I love the idea of the litmus test on those expenditures that will give the best return. I'm very interested in hearing more about some of them, especially the social programs. We can, the money, keeping the expectations of the community in front of us is really, really important keeping in mind that we will potentially have money to, the ARPA money to spend once over one or two years max, and then it's gonna go away. And I think it's, I think we need to be careful about really being really clear with the community about expectations because that money is gonna, that money is potentially going to go away, although the federal government is seems to be pretty flush or they can print as much as they want. So there seems to be right now an unlimited amount of cash coming out of Washington and quite frankly, I hope it keeps flowing because we can certainly use it. So I'm really, I think as far as my, things that are important to me, that 1.5 million for the parking assets to protect those that we had in conversations at an earlier time, I think is really important. I would say any of the social programs I want more information on, the jobs programs, the baby bonds, the other one, I have to go back to my slides, sorry. Childcare? Childcare, well, childcare, you know what? We have a lot of momentum on childcare and I don't want to compromise that in the least, but that's ARPA and I'm trying to separate PG&E from ARPA as clearly as I possibly can. But I think that any investments that we make in childcare are well-spent. So I'm looking to maintain that momentum. I think most of these have already been touched on. I'm just looking for more information in those social programs and keeping the fire, those monies that were derived from the fire, I think should be kept in fire recovery. I was a little bit surprised to have Mayor, you mentioned vegetation management. Is that a different vegetation management than what's suggested in the PG&E settlement funds? No, as I understand it, it's bolstering the vegetation management program that we've already allocated some of the PG&E settlement funds for, just as we get into fire season and as that gets into full swing and we better understand what the need is from the folks who are on the ground doing the work that we have funds available for them to draw on it. Excellent. Well, I would totally support that. In my opinion, anything that we can do right now to support our fire department is going to pay off in the long run and vegetation management is a part of that. And as would be their equipment, if there are extra funds available, I know that they have a high need of equipment in the fire department right now. And that makes the difference between how many homes they can save if we were to have another fire or how many lives they can save. So I'll just stop there. There are so many possibilities. I can't argue with a single one of these expenditures at this point, they're all good. I just, to fill us off with you speaking, I really wanna make sure that we separate as much as possible the PG&E settlement funds from the ARPA. And Council Member, I heard earlier from you a priority for the fountain, but I didn't hear it in the second segment. So I wanted to give you an opportunity there. Yes, I definitely am looking forward to completing that project and having that piece bronzed will elevate its importance and its stature in the art community and in our community in general. It's deserving of the extra funds, especially when we consider the participation of the community. So that is something that I would very much like to tag and check that box and complete that fountain and get it operating. It'll be, it's a major element to the center of our city. I look forward to it being completed. All right, thank you, Council Member. And you said you were gonna look at things through a jaundiced eye and pardon the pun, but I think that's how any scrutiny from Council Member Sawyer is gonna be received from here on out, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. So I won't go over my list again, but hearing the importance from my fellow Council members about the fountain, I think that that is important to get that definitely completed and to look and see how we can make the Boys and Girls Club a part of the childcare. And then of course everything I said before, unless you would like me to repeat it all, which I can read my list again. I'm good if you want to just refer staff to your previous comments. I think they get the direction. Please refer to my previous comments to understand the projects that I am passionate about. Thank you. All right, excellent. And I'll try to be really quick on this. I do have some specific ones that I wanted to highlight. I had obviously the proposed fire projects to not complete, but further getting folks home and back to normal after just devastation. And for folks who are watching from home because the study sessions can be a little bit difficult to understand what's happening, you just had unanimous consent from Council members to move forward with those staff recommendations. So that'll continue to move forward. There was in the appendices, there was an ask of $80,000 for the enhanced infrastructure finance district. I wanted to punctuate that one. That one's particularly important, I think for our downtown. The 1.5 million for parking, absolutely, because that allows us to do other things. Some of the social programs, the baby bonds, the UBI childcare and the guaranteed jobs program, I think all are winners. And I think our staff is gonna do a great job of moving those forward. Enhanced vegetation management, going back to what Council Member Sawyer said, whatever the fire department needs to make our community feel safe, to not just rebuild, but not to be terrified every single year, I think is well worth the expenditure. And so I'd like us to make sure we're setting aside not just what has been asked for already, but what's gonna be adequate once we start doing the work. And then I look at some of our other, and I do want to punctuate also the housing down payment fund. I think that Council Member Tibbets has been talking about this for five years. I think that the impact would be far beyond anyone who's currently working at the city if we establish that program and we'd see those returns over decades. Outside of that, I wanted to talk about categorization of funds. I do think with our DEI work, I hear 150,000. I actually suspect when we get into the plan it'll cost more to implement. So I wanna make sure we have access to some of those funds. Nobody has mentioned climate action yet, which is a tier one priority for the city. I wanna make sure we have some funds that are set aside to be able to implement that plan. Again, it's not a priority if you don't put funding towards it. And then there was an ask for fire station maintenance and repair. And I understand that that may or may not be necessary given some of the other funding that's come in. But if there is still a need to move forward to update some of our dilapidated fire stations, I want that on the table for discussion as well. And with that, Mr. City Manager, you've got direction from seven council members. Is everything clear or do you have any follow up questions? So I suspect that the list is longer and more expensive than we have funds to totally address just based on what I heard. So I think we will come back after we've had a chance to flesh these out a little bit more, get some of the details on some of the programs that were just kind of single word descriptions so that we can have a better understanding of what we're proposing and the associated costs with those. And then I think it's gonna be more of a prioritization exercise where we're gonna need further guidance because I'm not sure everything that's been listed can fit into the available funding we have. And I think that that's fair. And I think that the next step is to come back with that list based on the priority that you heard from council members. Six of us wanted the fountain, for example, where would that fit in terms of the priority list with an analysis from staff of which ones would have what impact and then allow council members to say, well, okay, I put this as a priority, but probably this is more important ultimately and I hadn't listed it and give us a chance to sort of move it around a little bit. That sound fair to council? So that sounds like another study session then. I think if you bring it as a report item for allocation since we've done the study session, we could make amendments to it from a council perspective, which I think was what we were intending to do in September, correct? Yes. If that's the direction you'd like to go, we can bring it back for action in September. I think so. Okay, and with that, council is going to take, council member Sawyer, did you have a quick comment? I do, thank you, Mayor. Emphasis on the quick. Yeah, very quick. Victoria mentioned kind of a litmus test on things that move the needle and things that don't. And maybe you could articulate it again for us, Victoria, but I like the idea when you come up with the list and I know we're spending more money than we have or we're looking to spend more money than we have, but there would be something, I believe that I would benefit from staff's assessment of some of the recommendations as far as their value to our organization. Those that affect our organization specifically, especially. But Victoria, maybe you could articulate it again, because I think it will help me when we're sitting around the day as deciding what to move forward with. Yeah, sure, my thought would be to have a 10 point scale. I'll keep it really simple, that let's not make a research or analysis by analysis out of this for staff. Let's take the principles in my mind of economic, economy, equity and sustainability. And I'd say get all three of the assistant city managers and maybe the director of economic development each to rank the 30 or 40 proposals on a scale of one to 10. And then produce an average of those and we could see a ranking of them. Now, some of these things like the, like I said, the Asawa Fountain will just, we can't, who knows, we should just do anyway. But if I could see, like childcare, we call it social program, but we know is the second highest economic driver after building housing. So if we could get staff's guesstimate, really like it's okay to just do your best assessment of each of these projects or proposals and come back and let us, it will help frame the prioritization of, probably 30, 40, 50, all really deserving projects. So. Is that acceptable? Mr. City Manager, does that sound doable to you and Mayor, can you support that? And I just think it would be very helpful for our discussions next time. I think that what I'm hearing is that that data would be helpful. I'm seeing some thumbs up from council members. Let's bring that, but I also want to make sure that, like the fountain is a good example, I'd like them to come back to us ranked based on how many council members said that it was a priority. And then once we have that with that other information, we can then make determinations on what the list looks like or how we shuffle the list. That's a reasonable condition, I believe. May I add one thing to that, Mayor, which is that out of concern for time and not repeating myself, I didn't go over and council member Rogers didn't go over every single thing that they listed. So I think that it's a useful tool, but I think that we ought to be mindful that there are certain, I like it to be considered that there are certainly many things. Like I didn't say vegetation management that are incredibly important to me that when you're looking at so many things and we've been going since 10 a.m., it's hard to catch everything. And so it's one aspect of a tool. I think that combined with a ranking will be really useful. Yep. So I think we would have some difficulty in identifying how many specific council members supported some of the specifics that we heard tonight because we didn't go through every one of them and raise hands or ask for support. We will do some kind of a ranking process and evaluation. We've heard that that's possible for us to do. And we'll try our best to come back to the council with a clear set of recommendations, better descriptions, a ranking based on those criteria that were identified. And we'll be talking to each of you to see whether we've done a good job as we go along through this over the next couple of months. Great. And I think it would be helpful and I'll come to council member Schwedhelm in a minute. I do think it would be helpful. I know we typically try to have our documents available for the public well ahead of the meeting, but if we can get that in place for people to view a little bit longer because to council member Fleming's point, there is a lot here and there are a lot of trade-offs that we're asking people to be willing to make. And so the sooner we have that sort of available for council members and the public to have honest conversations about it, I think it would be helpful. Council member Schwedhelm. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I'd also offer if maybe we could uncouple the PG&E dollars with the ARPA dollars, because what I heard you say I wasn't doing the count, but it sounds like we're unanimous in support of that project. Just something a little bit easier to achieve some direction and action. Yeah, I think that was clear. There's a set of these proposals that there's unanimous support for. We'll separate those and then we'll have a list of the supplemental program ideas and project ideas and we'll try to rank those and give additional information. Right. Right, council. With that, we are going to take a 30 minute dinner break. We'll be back at 740 and we'll be taking our public hearings, which are of high interest to our community. Items 15.1 and 15.2 when we come back from that dinner break. All right, I'm going to go ahead and bring our council meeting back into order. Madam City Clerk, can you please call the roll? Yes, thank you, Mayor. Council Member Tibbetts. Here. Council Member Schwedhelm. Here. Council Member Sawyer. Here. Council Member Fleming. Council Member Alvarez. Present. Here. Is that you, Council Member Fleming? Yes. Thank you. Vice Mayor Rogers. Present. Mayor Rogers. Here. Let the record show that all council members are present. Okay. And as I announced before the break, in accordance with our open government sunshine ordinance, we're going to take the agenda a little bit out of order. We'll go to our public hearings, which are items 15.1 and then 15.2 as they are of the most public interest with the remaining agenda items. Mr. City Manager, before you introduce the item, should I have council members disclose their ex parte communications on item 15.1? I'll start down here, Council Member Schwedhelm. Is that the, I don't have it up at Brush Creek? Yes, Brush Creek. Yes, I did not have any. Okay. Council Member Tibbetts. No communications to report. Council Member Sawyer. I spoke with my planning commissioner and that was all. Okay. Council Member Fleming. Yeah, I'm just pulling up the item here. Is this the cannabis appeal or not the cannabis appeal? This is item 15.1, the 1900 Brush Creek Road appeal. I did not have, I may have heard a while back from the constituents involved in this, but did not learn anything that was not part of the publicly available information. Okay, Council Member Alvarez. Thank you, Mayor. I have nothing to report. Okay, Vice Mayor. Nothing to report. Great. And myself, I had correspondence with my planning commissioner about the item, but nothing that was not available in the public record. And with that, do you want to introduce the item? You're Rogers and members of the City Council. Item 15.1 is a public hearing regarding the 1900 Brush Creek Road appeal. Andrew Triple, our acting supervising planner will be presenting the staff report this evening. Very thank you, City Manager. Good evening, Mayor Rogers, Vice Mayor Rogers and council members. The evening's 1900 Brush Creek Road appeal public hearing is an appeal of the planning commission's decision to deny appeal and uphold planning director determinations for a project located at 1900 Brush Creek Road. This decision by planning commission was made on March 25, 2021. Next slide, please. 1900 Brush Creek Road is a residentially developed parcel located south of Brush Creek's intersection with Boundary Grove Parkway and Mendocino Boulevard. Next slide, please. In 2020, without benefit of required city-issued permits, property owners modified the subject property by removing a redwood tree and constructing a 12-by-30-foot, 360-square-foot addition on the north side of an existing residence. Code enforcement case 20-0139 was opened for unpermitted tree removal and unpermitted construction. Next slide, please. The chief building official planning director and city attorney's office worked together to determine that the appropriate pathway to resolving the code enforcement violations would be to submit a building permit application. Chief building official Jesse Oswald is available to discuss the importance of addressing potential for health safety issues involving otherwise unpermitted construction. Planning review of building permit applications is typically conducted when the project is subject to zoning code regulations or other city code regulations administered by planning division. Next slide, please. Regulations to which this project's building permit application is subject include the city's tree ordinance, zoning code development standards for R-115 zoning districts, the scenic road combining district and final parcel map number 609. Following planning review, these preliminary determinations were made. First, that the planning director would approve the tree removal subject to mitigation as required by the tree ordinance. And second, that the planning director would approve new construction as compliant with applicable regulations. These preliminary determinations were appealed to planning commission. Next slide, please. On March 25th of this year, planning commission denied the appeal and upheld planning director's determinations. Planning commission chair Karen Weeks is available this evening to present the commission's process and decision to council. For planning director determinations, the zoning code specifies planning commission as the final review authority. However, decisions about tree removal are regulated by the tree ordinance and this ordinance establishes city council as the second and final review authority for appeals of tree removal decisions. Appeal to city council was filed on April 5th, 2021. Next slide, please. The city council appeal application identifies six grounds upon which the appeal is filed and six actions which the appellant wants city council to take. These are fully described in the staff report or meeting item attachments. Based upon planning, staff's review of the tree ordinance and zoning code review and appeal authorities, the only appealable issue to be considered by city council is whether or not the planning director's processing of the unpermitted tree removal and its subsequent mitigation as upheld by the planning commission complies with city regulations. Appeal of planning commission's decision to uphold director determinations regarding unpermitted construction is not authorized by the zoning code. With regard to the summaries of grounds for appeal presented, ground for appeal number one is summarized as a prejudicial abuse of discretion. Staff analysis concludes that a portion of this appeal does not have standing because the decision made by the planning commission to uphold the planning director's determination that new construction complies with the applicable regulations is not appealable to city council. Reference made in ground for appeal number one to processing of the tree removal is discussed in ground for appeal four and later in my presentation. Ground for appeal two refers to planning division's handling of the first appeal application. The zoning code states that appeals from the determinations or decisions of the director shall be addressed to the zoning administrator, design review board, cultural heritage board or planning commission as applicable to the decision and filed with the department. Also, appeal shall be accompanied by the required filing fee in compliance with council's fee schedule. Planning staff dated the appeal application received on December 14, 2020, when it was forwarded to PED by the city manager's office where it was initially submitted. Payment was not made until December 16, 2021 when the appeal application was invoiced by PED staff. Grounds for appeal three considers processing of public records act requests. Public records act compliance is not germane to an appeal that the city's tree ordinance was incorrectly applied. For this project, the city received seven PRA requests and spent more than 25 hours responding to these requests. All requests have been completed. With regard to ground for appeal four, for this ground for appeal to be valid then city council would have to first find the city staff's decision to resolve the code enforcement case through submittal of a building permit was not consistent with tree ordinance violation remedies. It would be inconsistent to seek to establish that the process is not valid and then assert that a mitigation resulting from the process is grounds for appeal. I will address this in greater detail in later slides. Next slide, please. Grounds for appeal application five concerns a complaint about installed outdoor lighting. Outdoor lighting was not identified as a grounds for appeal in the planning commission appeal application. Therefore, the appeal period has expired for this issue. Exterior lighting installed as part of new construction is required to comply with the city's outdoor lighting ordinance and code enforcement action can be taken to ensure compliance with the outdoor lighting ordinance. Finally, grounds for appeal six alleges an abusive process in that the staff member serving as director for purposes of rendering a decision is the same staff member who prepared and delivered the staff report to the planning commission. The appellant argues that as a practical matter the staff members incentivize to defend his own work and affirm just determinations already rendered. Staff responds that planning divisions administrative policies that would guide presentation of meeting items are not regulated by the zoning code. Planning staff are expected to act in an objective fair manner at all times including during presentations before review authorities. Next slide, please. Based upon planning analysis of the entirety of the item before council this evening, appeal of the director's decision to approve the tree removal subject to mitigation is the only issue before council for its review. Next slide, please. The removed tree was a split trunk coastal redwood tree with a co-dominant stem. Total tree height was approximately 55 feet and total diameter at breast height was 74 inches. Next slide, please. The tree classifies as a heritage tree and removal is subject to the tree ordinance as well as the scenic road combining district. Removal of a heritage tree is allowed with approval by the planning director subject to mitigation as described in the tree ordinance. Building and planning division practice is to process a tree removal proposed as part of new construction concurrently. In these cases, planning approval of the building permit application effectively permits tree removal in accordance with the tree ordinance. Required mitigation is determined and provided to the applicant through the issued building permit. Here, code enforcement directed the property owner to legalize the improvements by obtaining a building permit. Therefore, the tree removal was reviewed during planning review of the building permit consistent with a tree removal permit category two for removal on property proposed for development. The planning director's determination was that the tree removal is approved subject to mitigation requirements. In accordance with mitigation for trees approved for removal, two 15 gallon trees for each six inches of trunk diameter of the same genus and species as the removed tree or another species if approved by the director shall be planted on the project site. The total diameter of the removed tree is 74 inches. The mitigation required is planting of 26 coast redwood trees. If the property is inadequate in size to accommodate the replacement trees then trees can be planted on public property. Upon requesting with approval of the director the city may accept an in loop payment of $100 per 15 gallon replacement tree on the condition that all payments shall be used for tree related educational projects and or planting programs of the city. The total payment in Luffy would be $2,600. On January 4, 2021, the property owner requested that the planning director accept and approve mitigation in the form of payment to the city's tree fund and the amount of $2,600. The planning director has approved this mitigation. An optional approach to mitigation which would be consistent with the tree ordinance for trees not permitted for removal would be to double the mitigation requirement. Next slide, please. The tree ordinance directs decisions about tree removal and specifies mitigation requirements to the review authority for all instances and therefore functions more as conditions of approval than a mitigation under CEQA. Additionally, the city's issuance of a building permit involves only the use of fixed standards or objective measurements and is therefore a ministerial action that is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Next slide, please. It is recommended by the Planning and Economic Development Department that the city council by resolution deny appeal of planning director determinations made during planning review of building permit B20-6871, thus affirming the planning director's determinations and allow processing of the building permit application to resume. Next slide, please. I'm available for any questions as our interim deputy planning director Bill Rose, chief building official Jesse Oswald and planning commission chair Karen Weeks. Planning staff have been informed that the property owner representatives and the parent representative are available in person or via Zoom to provide presentations and to respond to questions from council. Thank you. Great, thank you so much, Andrew. So council will go to our planning commission chair for a brief overview of their discussion. We'll then have the applicant presentation, then the appellant presentation, then the applicant has an opportunity to respond back to the appellant's presentation before we open our public hearing and have our deliberations. So we'll go to the planning commission chair, Ms. Weeks. Thank you. Mayor Rogers, vice mayor Rogers, members of the city council, my name is Karen Weeks and I am the chair of the planning commission. I'm here this evening to provide your brief overview of the commission's actions as it relates to the item before you. On March 25th, 2021, the commission reviewed this item. Six of the seven members were present at that meeting. As you know, the planning commission is charged with carrying out California planning and zoning laws in the city of Santa Rosa which includes implementation of ordinances and policies relating to land use matters. At the meeting, we heard from staff, the property owner and the appellant as well as representatives of both parties. Questions were asked of staff about the process that led to staff's actions regarding this matter. Commissioners question staff about the setback determination and the mitigation fee as it related to the tree removal. After lengthy presentation and questions from the commission, we voted six to zero with one absent to uphold staff's determination. The planning commission fully understood that our decision to uphold the director's determination didn't mean that only the tree removal was appealable to the city council. Members of the commission also expressed confidence in staff's application of the policy and that it was fair and objective and the commission is confident in our decision on the two issues. And I'm happy to answer any questions if you have it. Have them. Thank you. Great, thank you so much, Madam Chair. Let's go ahead and go to our applicant presentation. I've got Rose, I apologize, Zoya, if I'm saying that incorrectly. And you'll have 10 minutes. And I do see a hand up from our attendee if we can go ahead and promote Rose. I am here. I can't tell if you all can hear me. We can. Excellent. All right, thank you, Mayor Rogers and you pronounce my name perfectly. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to present on behalf of the homeowners, Amber and Daniel Leachow. My name is Rose Zoya and I am their counsel in this matter. I'll take a few minutes here and then I'll turn it over to Tony Cabrera to add some further information. We'll stay within our time limit. First, we would like to commend staff for the really excellent staff report and presentation today. It was very concise and tight and precise and also really thank counsel for their endurance today. Thank you so much for hanging in there. More than a year ago, the Leachows mistakenly took actions without first obtaining permits. Those actions were the subject of a complaint to code enforcement. So code enforcement required that they apply for and obtain a building and tree removal permit. The planning director determined that those actions taken by the Leachows would have been approved if they had sought permits. In other words, they would have been granted the ministerial permits in the first instance. As Ms. Weeks stated, the planning commission by relatively unanimous vote six out of seven with one absent agreed. The Leachows purchased their property two years ago. The parcel was approximately a half acre and it was developed with a 1,836 square foot residence. When they purchased it, they planned to add a small addition to accommodate a master bath and bedroom and their family of four, which by the way is soon to be a family of five. They hired consultants to assist them and assure compliance with procedures. Those consultants communicated with staff regarding the siting of the addition and we're assured the addition needed to comply with the setbacks and city code section 20-22.050, which it did and it not with any information shown on the supplemental sheet of the final map. Sheet four of the final map applicable to this parcel map issue has this following language. This sheet is for informational purposes only describing conditions as a filing and is not intended to affect recording interest. The setbacks in the city code on the other hand are definitive and applicable here. The Leachows proceeded and then discovered the planning department was physically closed during COVID-19 and were informed by a contractor the city was providing limited services. They were then further assured by a neighbor they did not need to obtain a permit upfront but they could build the addition according to code and then obtain the permit afterwards and as built permit to the uninitiated this was plausible instruction during an unprecedented pandemic. The Leachows had no prior experience with building a home or an addition with seeking permits or with dealing with a governmental land use authority. They had no reason to believe the neighbor was incorrect or would steer them wrong. They intended on seeking the permit post construction which is evidenced by the copious photographic evidence of the process that is attached to their application. Once the addition was nearly completed an individual submitted a complaint to code enforcement. The Leachows immediately began correcting the violations by submitting a thorough application for a building permit and agreeing to pay the in lieu fee that Mr. Tripple spoke of. They also made a voluntary donation by the way to the Redwood Forest Foundation which would allow the planning of 10 redwood trees. In short, the Leachows realized they relied on misinformation and accepted they made a mistake and promptly worked to correct it according to staff's directives. As Mr. Tripple explained, the tree mitigation decision is the only issue appealable to this council. Appellant lists her ground for appeal for the tree mitigation issue as follows. The city also abused its discretion by approving an in lieu fee petition as mitigation to the illegal heritage tree removal permit and this is from her appeal. She requests that the city enforce chapter 17 by requiring appropriate mitigation for the tree removal and states this measure of mitigation may come in the form of, among other things, in lieu fee. The city imposed the in lieu fee. The removal of this single redwood tree will be mitigated with a payment of $2,600. Appellant's insistence, which is based on her attorney's presentation which was uploaded to the city's website this morning, that section 17-24.040 applies is misplaced. That section applies where no additional development is proposed. As stated, the Leachows purchased the property with plans to add on. In appellant's presentation that I just referenced her attorney highlights sentences from the Leachows September 2020 letter to the city in which they state their initial concerns with the tree were the root system encroaching under the foundation as well as limbs hanging over their roof line and damaging shingles. Appellant fails to highlight the sentence in which the Leachows state secondly, we are in the process of applying for a permit for an addition to our home on this property that also would have required the removal of this tree. The city fairly and accurately considered the tree removal as part of a development project and correctly applied 17-24.050 IE the in loop fee provision. Appellant further requests the city impose a two year moratorium on any additional permits on their property including the already partially built bedroom addition. The tree removal would have been approved on a pre-construction building permit application process and thus there is no quote violation of the tree ordinance. As explained by Mr. Triple in his staff report, staff did not separate out the unpermitted tree removal activity as a violation of the tree ordinance. In any event, a moratorium cannot logically and fairly be applied here. It is a remedy that is out of proportion to the situation. Also the addition would needlessly remain empty and unfinished for months longer and potentially creates safety issues based on its un-maintained and really what could become a potentially dilapidated condition. In some, the Lichows are in agreement with and support the city's determinations. They are prepared to move forward with complying with all requirements and finalizing the construction of their modest addition to their home for their growing family. Thank you so much for your attention. Thank you, Rose. Is that the end of your presentation? It is, however, Tony Cabrera would like a few minutes of the time. Okay, and I see Tony's hand has popped up. Let's go ahead and allow him to speak. And Tony, you've got about three minutes left. Tony, you need to unmute here. Can you hear me? There we go. Okay, I hope I got my time back here. Mayor Rogers and council members, I'm Tony Cabrera with Cabrera and Associates representing Lichows. First, I want to commend and thank staff for their diligent clarity and patience with me and all of my questions. Specifically, I'd like to acknowledge Jesse Oswald, Chief Building Official, Andrew Triple, Supervising Planner, Bill Rose, Deputy Director of Planning for their consistent response and clear explanation of the process. I'm not going to go over the code issues as I believe staff has clearly and thoroughly covered these issues before you. What I'd like to do is describe the ordeal the Lichows have gone through over the last year. They bought this house for their growing family. They had the idea of putting on an addition. They spoke to their friends and their neighbors and they got ideas and discussed this. And they hired consultants. And these consultants spoke to the city and got ideas and how the process to work and direction on how the process to work. After all this, that's when the Lichows decided to proceed with the addition. They informed their neighbors of what they were planning to do and then they were told that due to COVID and the fires that the city was way too busy and they were not requiring, the city was not requiring building permits and they would do as-built permits and just take a lot of pictures and you can go ahead with your construction and you'd be fine. Not knowing the process, being naive to the whole how government works, how local government works, they thought it made a good idea and they proceeded. Then they received a letter from code enforcement for a violation of the tree removal. In that letter, they were directed to petition the director for the tree mitigation. The very next day, the Lichows sent the letter to the director explaining their thought process and the reasonings for removing the tree and building the addition. They asked what they could do for the tree mitigation. They admitted they made a mistake, that they didn't know what was going on. They didn't know it was required to get a permit. Subsequently, they submitted an application for the addition and the tree removal mitigation. The director approved that and the Lichows were made aware that that decision by the director was being appealed to the planning commission. Staff went ahead and set multiple dates for the hearing and each date, the appellate was not available. The Lichows made themselves available for every date in that hearing that was proposed. Now, this is not just going on to your calendar and writing it down there and say, yeah, I'm gonna be available. What the Lichows has to do is they had to request time off from their jobs. They had to move schedules around. They had to ask others to cover their shifts. Only to find out after going through all this several times, they only to find out that again, the appeal date was moved back because the appellant, the one who wanted the hearing was not available. And I apologize, Mr. Cabrera, but I do need you to wrap up. Oh, okay. The planning commission unanimously approved, unanimously denied the appeal and approved the decision by the director. This appeal was an appeal was then filed on that decision on April 5th and now we're in July about four months later. And the only reason I mentioned this is the Lichows endured all unnecessary stress for almost a year. And what I'm asking you tonight is to uphold the planning commission's decision, deny this appeal and end this ordeal for this young couple that have been subjected to this for just trying to do the right thing. Thank you. All right. Thank you so much. We'll go on to the appellant presentation and I have Chris Skelton as an attendee. Let's go ahead and promote him to be able to speak. Good evening, council members. Can you hear me? This is Chris Skelton. So one moment, Chris Skelton. We have somebody here who says that they are starting first. However, identify yourself for the record and then we'll come to you when it's your turn. And you'll have 10 minutes, but please go ahead and identify yourself for council members. Council members, thank you for the opportunity to be here. My name is Kathy Parnell and I filed the appeal for 1900 Brush Creek Road. I live next door to its owners, Dan and Amber Leehow on a shared private road and just wanted to take a couple of minutes to address this council before my attorney Chris Skelton takes you through a presentation. I'm asking the city to preserve the integrity of our laws, neighborhoods and scenic roads. It's my hope that the city council will review all the details and materials of this appeal including what I just submitted by email to the city clerk. Even if it necessitates taking this under submission and act in the best interest of the city, the citizens of Santa Rosa by enforcing its city codes and approved maps. I believe there's been bias by the city favoring the Leehows who knowingly disregarded the city's tree ordinance and did not seek a permit before cutting down a healthy 70 foot redwood heritage tree. And then six to seven months later also did not seek permits prior to their illegal build a 12 by 30 foot home addition which violates a building envelope and was built out to a shared private road easement. Planning staff made a gross error in fall of 2019. Six to seven months before the unpermitted build began when a counter planner told the Leehows that they didn't need to abide by the setbacks or building envelopes on their supplemental map or as detailed in the map approval minutes the lands of dinner, which specifically required a 10 foot separation between the existing house at 1900 brush creek to the edge of the shared driveway. Instead, they were told to they could use current zoning setbacks. This was not a formal review after a permit application was submitted but a cursory conclusion from the counter planner about the envelope. Even in late fall 2020, Mr. Triple emailed the same planner and asked how she came up with this determination. When I was surprised at the city's decision in December I asked how the build could happen and be approved. Chief building office official Jesse Oswald told me that it related to the Tubbs fire and that building envelopes were essentially negated in certain build cases as part of resilient city that they could build outside their envelopes but brush creek road isn't fountain grove and it's not a resilient city rebuild. I believe an error occurred here. Now we're being told the supplemental maps are not enforceable and their create a pathway will be created for the Lee house to legalize this. If the city is going to arbitrarily negate building envelopes on supplemental sheets how can this be done without a map amendment or public notice? The Lee house didn't contact the city for permits prior to the build and assume the risk. They erroneously applied a 10 foot interior side setback from their North property line. This setback then falls within the private road itself rather than apply a setback from the private road easement to the house. City planning has stated that the Lee house correctly applied setbacks. I disagree. The setback in question was never discussed at the planning commission meeting to the extent of reviewing it as a corner setback. A corner setback in essence in a quarter lot encompasses two streets that run near the property. This is covered under section 20 dash 30.110. The corner lot as you read into it discusses that it's a lot at the intersection of two streets. A street is defined as a public thoroughfare and any other thoroughfare except an alley as defined by the subsection including this is in the definitions and alleys defined is provided as well. Here the private road is not an alley. It provides vehicular access to the front of three parcels having no other public street frontage. I'm simply asking for a fair and equitable treatment here in the city. I'm just asking for a proper review and enforcement of the maps and minutes that were approved 20 years ago and where the basis in which I purchased my home. I believe that this should be reviewed as for and looked at with honesty for what it is a coverup. The city should not reward homeowners who violate the city code consciously and deliberately. If permitted, the message here is billed first and then if you're caught just seek forgiveness. You're going to get permits later. These were all excuses used by the Lee house to garner sympathy and to justify their conduct. The city wasn't closed down and was taking permit applications in May of 2020. They knew better. Dan Lee Howe is a deputy sheriff and apparently has started a construction company and worked on the Unpermitted Edition with experienced consultants and builders during the stay at home order. City staff timeline in the presentation is misleading. The code enforcement case cited there in February 2020 was completely ignored. No one followed up on it is what I learned. It wasn't until August that they began to review this matter. At this point, I would like to turn this over to Chris to review the presentation. Okay. And Chris Skelton, you have been approved to speak. You've got a little over four minutes remaining. Council members, can you hear me? Yes, go ahead. Thank you. Mayor respectfully request that we be given the same amount of time as the applicant. I believe that they're going to be afforded an additional five minutes for a total of 15. We'd like to request that we be given the same equal 15 minutes that they have. Now the rules are clearly established in our processes. You get the same 10 minutes for the presentation and then they have five minutes to respond. Even though we were the appellant in the matter. Yes. Okay. Well, then I will be judicious with my time. In December of 2020, this council described an appeal of a project called the flats as a watershed moment. In that hearing, the council declared that its decision would send a message about supporting the policies outlined in the city's land use and development tools. This project at 1900 Brush Creek could not be a further juxtaposition from the flats. In that there was almost zero advanced planning and the process can fairly be characterized as Kathy previously shared as an ask for forgiveness instead of permission strategy. However, this appeal also represents a watershed moment for the council's enforcement of heritage tree protection policies as well as enforcement of subdivision map conditions of approval, which exists throughout the city. These map conditions contribute to the look and feel of the local built environment. The staff report compels the city to only consider the appeal in terms of the illegal tree removal and disregard the merits of the illegal construction under the guise that the construction is not an appealable action from the planning commission. In all of the staff communications, the violation of the tree ordinance has been folded into an inextricably intertwined with the illegal construction. This is explicitly confirmed on page A of the staff report where it stated that the appeal could not have been processed on December 9th, since there was no decision to appeal as of that date. The building permit that was the tool for legalizing the tree removal was not filed until December 11th. Yet the heritage rebuy tree was removed in October of 2019. It was complained about in February of 2020. It was identified by staff in a notice of violation of the tree ordinance in September of 2020. Therefore, it's impossible to reconcile staff's desperate attempt to insulate the illegal construction from further review by this council. Further, it's disingenuous and painfully unreasonable to suddenly bifurcate these two issues at this late stage. Recordingly, I respectfully request that the council take up both of these issues as detailed in the appeal and presented this evening. Please also note that despite the prompt filing of the appeal from the planning commission, this issue of non-appealability was only first identified upon release of the staff report this past week. So next slide, please. The decision to retroactively permit the illegal heritage rebuy tree removal is fundamentally flawed and amounts to an abuse of discretion. Next slide, please. The city applied the incorrect standard to review and I wanna go into this because it was brought up in the applicant's presentation and I am pointing out that 1724.040 is the applicable standard because at the time the tree was removed in October of 2019, there was no application, there was no design, there was no development. There was simply the removal of a tree, all right? So we must look to 24.040 for the appropriate tree section. There are specific findings required under that appropriate provision that have been consistently ignored and unresolved throughout this process. The second element is that despite early and often requests by city staff, no arborist report has been produced to support the illegal tree removal. You can thumb through the many hundreds of pages of administrative record that have been produced. Nowhere in there will you find a qualified arborist report. In the absence of such documentation which is commonly produced under any development application process, it's impossible for anyone to make an informed decision on the merits of this retroactive permit. Third and finally, similar to the developers inability to produce an arborist report from a qualified professional, the justification for removing the heritage regal tree have spread across the full spectrum including root intrusion in the home's foundation, damage to the roof, risk of fire, risk of health and safety to children playing in the backyard. The incoherent messaging begs a question about the veracity of the applicant's materials. Sir, I do need you to start to wrap up. Okay, next slide. Let's cruise seven to 10 slides please. I do wanna show you, keep going. I'll talk while you're cruising through. I do wanna show you the impact of other parcel map conditions and how they have been consistently enforced throughout the city. And in particular in the adjoining neighborhoods. Continue on please. I'm sorry, I'm gonna give you about 30 more seconds. Thank you, keep going. And one more stop here. So back one slide if you may. One more, thank you. Parcel map from 1997, clearly outlining on the supplemental sheet, additional information sheet, building setbacks. Next slide. You can see here, there are opportunities for accessory dwelling units and development. They have not been pursued because these are areas outside of building setbacks. Next slide. Parcel map from 2002, I wanna highlight lot four. Next slide. Aerial image of lot four. Next slide. Here's the clause from the agency required supplemental additional information sheet on the parcel map. Residential construction on lot four shall be limited to one story. Next slide please. Here's a Google. Sorry, your time is up. So I will, there will be an opportunity for council members to ask you additional questions after the next presentation. Thank you. So we'll go on to the applicant response. It'll be five minutes. Rose, if you're still with us, I think I have you listed as being the respondent. This is Tony Cabrera. Unfortunately, Rose has lost her connection to the Zoom call. What Mr. Skelton has provided, the information he's provided is nothing new. We still agree with staff that they did their job correctly. They interpreted the code correctly and they applied the code and did the policies correctly. And we'll turn it back to the council on that. Thank you. Okay, thank you, sir. So council, I'll come to you for questions. Looking at the day as first. Any questions via Zoom? Council member Fleming. Thank you. I understand that our scope here is limited to the tree removal. So my first question is of staff. Can you lay out for us the specific findings that we would need to make in order to either uphold or deny this appeal? First, so the findings to be made would be that I guess in summary, the city council would have to find that staff acted within the tree ordinance and correctly applied the tree ordinance in this matter and arrived at both the approval and the mitigation requirement consistent with the tree ordinance. And does anything around the claims, around the status of the planning department in the wake of either the Tubbs Fire or amid the COVID closures, does any of that speak to you or warrant anything that you concern or anything that you'd like to comment on? Well, I think that from a planning perspective, planning was brought into this matter as part of the Code Enforcement violation and began working with the chief building official and city attorney's office. That was in September of 2020. At that point in time, planning division and much of that in fact was operating at full capacity, either virtually or in person at City Hall. And so I feel that while I do understand that Code Enforcement was delayed in responding to complaints because some of those complaints came in early 2020 as we were going into shelter in place and work from home environments that there was delay in the Code Enforcement action and responding to complaints. But then as we moved into fall of 2020, then I believe that we were all communicating effectively and consistently and we're able to fully process what would be required to legalize the unpermitted activities. Okay. And is this retroactive approval consistent with city policy generally speaking? I would ask for chief building official to comment on review of an as-built building permit application. Good evening. Thank you, vice mayor and council members. Jesse Oswald, chief building official. To answer your question, council member Fleming, the approach for Code Enforcement in the city of Santa Rosa is historically in the history of Code Enforcement in what we call voluntary compliance method as opposed to a punitive compliance method, which there are no regulations in any city codes that allow for us to find or persuade other than coax compliance other than recording violations on properties and things like that. So it is consistent to approach every single Code Enforcement matter in the city in a compliance, a voluntary compliance and the assistance with compliance is what our target always is with all violations. That does bite the question. What does, for my information, what do we do when folks, not this situation in particular, refuse to comply? There is a long chain. It's much like your typical legal proceeding. There are communications didn't like any other action. There's a period given to react. Progress is always progress delays enforcement. So if we have an enforcement case that has numerous items, if a violator starts to make progress, we continue to work with them. If no progress is made after a certain period of time, depending on the severity of the violation, the next steps are to actually record notices of violation on the parcels that remain on a parcel, which clouds the title and then continued non-compliance could result in what we call a administrative hearing where that's much like a court proceeding and those proceedings have the weight of law on them and the administrative hearing officer can order a property owner to do whatever it is required to mitigate the issue. It's much like a court order. Okay, so your belief in whether or not somebody knowingly did something inappropriate or should have reasonably had knowledge of the code has no weight on your determination. Correct. Okay, thank you, Mr. Oswald, very helpful. I'd like to ask a question of the respondent's attorney, please, or representative, as much as I like looking at Mr. Oswald in his very cool brutalist office. I was wondering if we might go to Mr. or Ms. Zoya. Again, this is Tony Cabrera. Ms. Zoya does not have the connection right now. She cannot log on. So I'll do my best to respond to your question. Okay, what is your familiarity with Alicia out in this situation? I would prefer to ask Ms. Zoya since it's not like she's closer with them, but are you capable of representing their concerns as it pertains to what they may or may not have known? Yeah, I feel comfortable in telling me and responding to the questions of that nature. Okay, so do you know if it is indeed correct that Mr. Li Xiao has experience as a sheriff's deputy? Yes, he was sheriff's deputy for the county in Napa. Okay, and do you know if he has experience in the construction industry? Yes, I know he has no experience in the construction industry. He is involved with a construction type business as a side business. He does not have a contractor's license. The business that he's involved with involves hazardous waste removal such as fire removal, fire debris removal. So he has not had any experience whatsoever in pulling permits or asking for permits on that nature in terms of residential construction or any permits that I'm aware of from the local authorities. Okay, thank you for that information. That's the conclusion of my questions for now. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member. I have a question, Mr. Triple. I wanna come on back. Who removed the tree? A contractor hired by the property owner. So that's one of the concerns that I have in this is not on the applicant per se, but how does the city respond back when we have an instance like this with a hired professional who should have known to get that permit or have proof of that permit before they did any of the work? Well, I would, unfortunately, I would say it's not uncommon that we have situations of licensed professionals who we would anticipate would know permit requirements given the amount of work they do in the city, whether that's for tree removal, expense building, a variety of activities. So we do have these instances where this does happen. I believe, and I would turn to our city attorney for a response on that. It is, the city does consider it the responsibility of the property owner, however, to under, ultimately, to comply with the code. But I would, again, I would ask for the city attorney to come forward, she's building official to comment on that as well. As Mr. Oswald noted, the county's procedures and policies do not look at, they look at the violation and are oriented towards getting a property owner to cure the violation. And they don't look back at, as a word, how guilty the property owner is, whether the property owner knows or doesn't know whether the people doing the work new or should have known that they should have gotten permits. That isn't considered in the code enforcement process. I suppose it's a slight tangent to the conversation. But I know I wanted to take a chainsaw to a much, much, much smaller tree of my own property and my fiance would not let me do that. And so my looking at this picture and seeing this giant redwood was that it was unlikely it was the property owner who did the work and most likely a professional who I would assume should know looking at a giant redwood tree within their business that they have a responsibility to get a permit for it. So perhaps we put a pin in that for a different time to talk about that enforceability on that individual and whether it's appropriate for that to be on the homeowner. And that's my one question that I had. So thank you. Yes, and we'll certainly make note of that and raise that for a more general discussion at another time. Are there any other questions from council members? I've got one, Chris, if you don't mind. I just wanna underscore what you said. That was my thought exactly. I know that it's really easy when you are a homeowner to kind of overlook things that aren't exactly obvious. Removing trees of a certain size isn't always obvious. And so when I'm weighing this, I'm thinking to myself on the one hand, had they obtained the tree permit the outcome for the neighbors would have been the same. Our staff would have approved the addition and it would be here today. But what there's a couple of things kind of throwing a hitch in the giddy up here for me. And one is that the appler, excuse me, I guess the defendant for lack of a better term is in law enforcement. And I think while it might not have been overtly obvious, I would think that there may be a connection that could be made there. And his or her mind that this is quite a large tree. It also really concerns me that this person's engaged in a side construction business. So whether, even if you're just an investor you probably have some rudimentary knowledge of the business you're investing in. The real thing that tells me here is exactly what you said which is whoever removed that tree knows exactly what that tree was. That was a big production. And it bothers me that we can't somehow really go after the person that should have protected the homeowner in this instance or at least corrected the homeowner's behavior as the professional. And so I'm kind of, I guess my follow-up question would be for you, Mr. Triple. So if we uphold the appeal, what's the consequence tonight? How does it impact the building permit? How does it impact the property owner? Is it a code enforcement violation fine that could be passed on from the homeowner to the licensed and bonded contractor who took down that tree? Sure. I believe if you were to uphold the appeal this evening then we would need direction from the council on how to process the tree removal permit. So for instance, direction on additional mitigation that you might want to require or to go back to the tree ordinance and review the tree ordinance and come back to council perhaps with a proposed alternative pathway for a review of that tree removal permit. I guess the thing that's bugging me about it is I don't necessarily want to impose a fine or anything on the homeowner. They're building ADUs. It's a priority of the city. I think our staff acted appropriately. But what bothers me is I feel like if we don't levy some sort of a penalty there's not going to be a resolution between the homeowner and the contractor. And I'm going to venture to guess we've got a contractor going around town, saying, hey, I'll take this down for you. No problems, no questions asked. And that's where we run into these problems as a city. I think that certainly there's, you know there's a communication about tree permit requirements. We have that information on our website, but we don't, to my knowledge the city doesn't regularly communicate about tree permit requirements to the community wide and seek to educate and inform. So certainly to have a more informed property owner would help, would be a step towards ensuring that contractors and other tree removal professionals do hold themselves responsible for permit requirements. I guess what I'm getting at is you've got a guy or a gal who's clearly a professional tree feller taking down a tree that's got 74 DVH is somebody who knows about trees and they did it without obtaining a permit. That to me seems pretty clear. And I feel like the one thing that the only way the only way we can kind of eradicate that behavior is by creating the dispute between the homeowner and the contractor by levying a fine on the homeowner because that contractors hopefully license and bonded and their insurance will cover that dispute. That's what I'm driving at. I don't, it's tough because I don't expect the homeowner to know about tree removals and tree removal ordinances, but I'd sure like to know who's going around cutting down those trees. Vice mayor, questions? Just plain of clarification. I know we're not here talking about the addition that was put on the home, but am I correct in knowing that the addition wasn't permitted also or was it permitted? It was not permitted. So I get a tree like you cut down a tree, okay, but to think that you don't need a permit to actually build on your home, either there is just you don't care for the rules, the laws and ordinance or and you just feel like you're not gonna get caught and you can do what you wanna do or we won't go to the second option, but I would say it just sounds like, I mean a tree coincidence maybe, that's a big tree though, but to actually add on to a building, so it just shows a pattern for me that it's just maybe it's someone that doesn't care to follow rules and I'm not in construction, nor do I know anything about permitting to do construction. And I would again suggest that this is a general topic too, that we can come back with. I also see that Mr. Rose has joined in and I don't know if either he or Mr. Oswald want to talk about the code enforcement and the penalties that are imposed if a matter is not resolved voluntarily. What I was gonna suggest is maybe related to that Ms. Gallagher is that we looked at this, the planning department looked at this as if it were coming in today requested in a permit as Mr. Oswald said we try to look for that path for compliance and all of the actions we took were under that approach. As Mr. Dribble indicated, the way we assess the mitigation and the subsequent fee, we combine that with the construction. So the council may wish to consider looking at the fee as if this were a tree removal without construction and that's an additional fee. Mr. Dribble had asked him if he could give us that amount and that may be a remedy back to the idea about the contractors indicating that permits aren't needed. In this case, perhaps it's a tree specialist. It's very unfortunate and it happens. It actually happens frequently. And I think Mr. Oswald can attest to that with the backlogs in our code enforcement department. It speaks to that exactly. So in that case, it's often a civil manner between the homeowner and a consultant's wish in which they hire. And perhaps if this additional mitigation fee is levied then that issue may be taken up between the homeowner and their tree professional. So I wanted to offer that as a suggestion. And if we could get that fee, Mr. Dribble, that might be one avenue the council may wish to take. First, so the same permit category two, which is permits for trees on which development is or removal of trees on sites where development is proposed has two levels of mitigation required. One is for removal of a tree that is permitted for removal. And then a second level of mitigation is for a tree that is removed, but not permitted for removal. So that second level of mitigation would be doubled the mitigation that planning division is currently requiring for the tree removal. So that would be either the replanting of 52, 15 gallon coast redwood trees, or if that's not possible on the project site, then a payment of $5,200 into the city's tree fund. All right, thank you. And council members, remember, we're asking questions right now, then we'll open the public hearing for public comment, and then we can get into some of the discussion around what the possible direction is from council. Council member Fleming. Yes. My question is something that has been raised by numerous council members is for Mr. Cabrera. I think we can just get to the bottom of this, that we can't do much about it, but I was sure like know if Mr. Cabrera is available. Yes, I'm available. Who did take down the tree? Yeah, I don't have the name of the business. My understanding is that it was a tree service that took down the tree. It was an individual employee that evaluated the tree and took it down. And that's my understanding of the situation there. Has Ms. Zoya ever gained connectivity? Not as of yet, no. Are the respondents available to answer the question? They may be, I don't know if they're, they should be online if they can raise their hands. Yes, Mr. Leachow is available. So if Dan, you could raise your hand and they'll call on you and open you up. We'd love to know who did that. Hello, Mr. Leachow, how are you today? Good, ma'am. Excellent. Can you tell us who took down your tree? It was, I don't want to mispronounce the name, but it was a tree service that was referred to us. I believe it was maybe Mendoza Tree Service. Mendoza. Thank you. That's all my questions for now. Thanks. Yeah. All right, Council Members, I'll go ahead and open the public hearing for a public comment. This is a public hearing, so you don't need to necessarily put in a speaker card. Just go ahead and start to queue up, keep six foot distance if you would at the microphone. And Mayor, I would ask that anybody making a public comment to please speak directly into the microphone as close as you can. We are getting some comments that public commenters cannot be heard because they're standing a little too far away from the microphone. Okay. Hi, my name is Dr. Casey Carter. I'm a primary care physician here in town with two medical licenses, so I know about rules through that venue. My father, post-World War II service was an attorney and a special agent for the FBI for 40 years. And as his daughter of a law enforcement agent, I had to tell the line there were no breaking the rules. I'm not saying that Dan knowingly did that. I spoke with Dan and Amber earlier today, said I wish them no ill will. I'm just disappointed that all this was done without permits and we desperately missed the tree and it's no longer Scenic Brush Creek Road as their next door neighbor at 1910 Brush Creek Road. Additionally, in neighborhood gatherings down the cul-de-sac, all the neighbors assumed he had a permit because he was a law enforcement officer. We have had some good times with Dan and Amber. I hope to have them again. I'm not here to complain about them as people. I think they both do hardworking jobs and are pillars of the community. Nevertheless, I have questions as to how Dan could have told me he had his contractor's license and a contracting company. I saw him helping pull down the tree and I saw him helping build the addition with his contracting company. And I asked my partner, Timothy, I said, who's the homeowner where we live? I said, how come there's eight guys building this in one weekend? And Timothy said, well, I guess Dan's in a hurry. I said, well, he has every right. He's a public servant. He would always play the game of life correctly. But Dan has talked to me about his knowledge of heavy equipment. In fact, he even purchased some heavy equipment for $22,000 to move boulders around. And I was impressed with that. I said, wow, you're a law enforcement officer and your contractor, you own your contracting company and you know everything about heavy equipment. He said, yeah, it would have cost much more if I hadn't just purchased this and then resold it. I would have had to rent it for six months for 10 times the price. And I was impressed. I want Dan and Amber and their family to thrive. These are my questions. How could this be possible from a law enforcement officer and a contractor? I don't want anything punitive. I'm not a punishing person. I'm not gonna join a hostile band of neighbors who gives them the evil eye. They are my neighbors and I do care about them and I want them to thrive. Nevertheless, I have questions. Okay, thank you. Seeing nobody else rise in the chamber, I'll look to Zoom. We do have one hand, but it's the applicant who's had an opportunity to make a presentation as well as respond. So I will close the public hearing and bring it back to council. Before we get into discussion, Mr. Alvarez, would you please put a motion on the table for us to discuss? Thank you, Mayor. I would like to introduce a resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Rosa denying an appeal and upholding the decision of the Planning Commission and Planning Director determinations made during planning review of the building permit application B20-6871 concerning compliance with the city's tree ordinance tree removal requirements located at 1-900 Brush Creek Road. Accessors parcel number 182-140-056 file number ST-20-003. Is there a second for that motion? I'll second it. Okay, we have a motion by Council Member Alvarez and a second from Council Member Schwedhelm. Is there any discussion on that motion? Vice Mayor? Madam City Attorney, can you clarify for me what vote would mean, what? If you uphold the appeal, that would mean that the decision of the Planning Commission would be set aside. If you deny the appeal, that would uphold the Planning Commission's decision and the Planning Director's decision. Okay, Council Member Fleming. Yes, I have an additional question for Mr. Alishaw. The one public comment that we did get leveled some pretty significant claims about your alleged participation in the felling of this tree. I'm wondering if you can confirm or deny your participation in that downing of the redwood. I don't know, can you hear me? I can, thank you. Okay, yeah, I wasn't present during the time that the tree was actually removed. I was working day shift those days. I believe I did see some of the crew members when I returned home from work. I think it took them approximately two days to fall the trees and that was the extent of it. I don't know the first thing about dropping trees. I wasn't working on them and I did have a tractor which she, and I do have, I did have a tractor for a little while which she had mentioned, which was used to assist in the construction and I sold it when it was time. I know it's fairly common for licensed professionals, although I don't think I get away with it in healthcare nor would I try to offer people to obtain permits or allow them the discretion of not getting them. Was Mendoza a licensed tree service? That's what my interpretation was. And I believe he had numerous company trucks, a chipper. It was a large outfit, I believe. Because a simple Googling of it doesn't find anywhere by that name, except maybe in the central valley. That might be where he came from, ma'am. Okay, and so did at any point this contractor offer you the opportunity to enter or to apply for a city permit? I don't believe one was mentioned at all and I was wondering if that would come up or not, but since it was not mentioned to me, I didn't think that one was needed. Okay, thank you, that helps me. Yes ma'am. Okay, are there any other comments from council members? Council Member Alvarez. I have a question. It was mentioned that there was a donation made to a Redwood organization on profit, I believe. And what amount was that done? Can you hear me, sir? Yes, sir, I can. Oh, I believe it was only $100 or $200 to plant 10 trees, sir. Thank you, sir. And I do have a question for the pellet and please let me know if it's a proper question. What remedy would you like to see done? I would like to see the structure removed and build back to its correct setback that is based on the parcel map that I received, our supplemental map, and that is stated, the distance that's stated in the minutes of the lands of Denhart when the parcel map was approved by the city as well as I would like to see another tree planted in that space in the driveway. As I said, when I bought my home, I bought it because of the privacy and that privacy screen is gone. As well as right now, they can't even put in any plants there really because our water line literally runs right next to their house within a foot or two. There's no way to even put a fence. The fence is gone. That used to line the road. So I would like to see the part of the build pulled back and a tree planted in its place and the fence replaced and put back. Thank you. Okay, Council, we have a motion and a second. Madam City Clerk, the motion is to deny the appeal and uphold the director's decision. Can you please call the roll? Yes, thank you, Mayor. Councilman. Mr. Mayor, I thought we were still on questions before comments. Oh, no, if you have a comment, go ahead and make it, Council Member. Yes, I do have some comments given that this is a neighbor dispute between two of my constituents as well as one that has significant policy implications. I'd like to note a few things. One is that I believe that we have an inadequate tree mitigation policy and that it's something that I hope in the future we can bring back for consideration. The second. Excuse me. Council Member, sorry, could you please mute? Sorry about that. I thought somebody was talking back to me. I was like, okay. It's just Dan. Hi, Dan. Don't take down any trees without permits. Okay, so I think we have an inadequate tree mitigation ordinance on the books, something that we ought to look at in the future along with all of the other things that take up all of our bandwidths. So I'm not sure when we'll get to that. The thing that gives me great concern about this is that while encouraging development, which is a high priority for the city, allows for some really unscrupulous behavior on the part of contractors. And that really does give me heartburn because I have a friend who recently got a quote for something and was offered the choice of getting a permit or not. And I don't think that that's something that like I was mentioning before, as a healthcare professional, I could never say to somebody, well, I could do this for you this way or I could just wave your rights or the law. And it seems like this may be a prevailing practice in some aspects of construction and something that gives me really serious concern. I don't wanna cause any friction, but I do wanna hold people accountable and let them know that similarly to healthcare or government that when you do something, you gotta do it right and there'll be no problems if you do it right. I do think that the enforcement ought to really be directed to contractors. I'm challenged by the fact that the respondent is a sheriff's deputy in the regard that I don't believe that sheriff's deputies in general would have much sympathy for the argument. Well, I didn't know that that was the law. So, can you please let me off the hook? On the other hand, I do think that that given the situation that we're at, I think that we do have a family who's already in place. We do support development that we ought to consider Mr. Rose's proposal that we treat this as a dream removal without construction plans. Indeed, there were no permits filed. And so I would like to put an alternate motion on this on the floor, suggesting that we treat this and sort of a split the baby. Let's not overdo the punishment. We don't want to give this family a hard time, but we do want to acknowledge that this is a really significant tree. And I know that I've wanted to go out with a chainsaw in my front yard. In fact, I almost bought a house recently, but the redwood in front of it was just too large and too expensive to take down and didn't want to deal with coming in front of you guys, you six people and asking permission to please take down. So I think we ought to hold some people responsible to know what you're getting into. And I don't believe that the respondent didn't have any sense about how to manage that or hold their contractor responsible. So I think that the middle ground should be free removal without construction planned. And we ought to come back to the free ordinance in the future. So I hear a substitute motion from Council Member Fleming. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Are there any comments on the motion? I'd like to comment myself. The reason why I'm seconding it is because I do believe that it's probably easy to overlook obtaining a permit for a tree. But it really does bother me to hear Phil Rose say that this is a very common occurrence in our city as trees coming down unpermitted, especially when we're watching other countries promote efforts to increase forestation, to achieve climate change objectives. So my hope is that this penalty for the family is not too steep or insurmountable. And also my hope is that they will read some sort of the settlement with the contractor who provided the service so that it becomes an educational opportunity for the contractor. Okay. Council Member Swendell. Could you just restate what the motion is now? I wasn't tracking that completely. Yeah. And I may need Mr. Rose's assistance in this. What I'm suggesting is instead of denying the appeal that the motion on the floor is that we treat this as a free removal without construction, which takes the fee from 2,600 to 5,200 and leaves it at that. I'm not sure what implication that has for the denial or approval of the appeal. I'm fairly agnostic on that count. I think that what this is, is that this should be a warning and not too severe warning, but a warning to contractors and homeowners to do your homework and to follow through with the code and that we're not going to be too severe, but we do want people to know that we do have these rules for a reason. And point of clarifications since I'm the second through the mayor, we're not asking them, we cannot ask them to take down the structure, augment the structure. We are just adjudicating on the tree, correct? Correct. All right, good. Okay. We have a new motion and that's Council Member Fleming's motion. Let's go ahead and call the roll. We have comments before that. Yeah. I thought you had your comment. No, no, that was a question that I understand it. For me, what was before us, and I think what staff did is they followed what we had there. So to me, these are two separate issues. Staff interpreted it correctly and I was supporting denying of the appeal. There are some other things that Council have brought up that maybe we do need to change some things. And I know when I had a neighboring county, a family member passed and we had to sell a house, but that county, they do an inspection before you can actually sell a house. And if anything's not permitted, there's fines associated with that and it holds people accountable. And so, and I don't know, Mr. Colon, if, or PD staff is taking notes on some of the comments that Council has mentioned. To me, that is something that might be rather more comprehensive approach where everyone, when you sell a house in Santa Rosa, will be fully permitted. And that is an area where I think something like this would catch it. But, you know, I believe that staff did what we, or councils before us that establishes rules and that's what they were going by. So I won't be supportive of this new motion. Are there any other- Through the mayor, may I suggest that we, if Council, as in legal Council suggests that it's okay, could we vote on both and have both potentially stand? Can we, this is maybe a question for Sue, can we deny the appeal and find that the trigger removal was done without construction, which is seems to be that nobody's disputing that. Yes, you may deny the appeal under your motion. I would recommend that it be that you're denying, I'm sorry, that you're granting the appeal and determining that the penalty should be, the fine, the mitigation should be imposed under the tree removal without construction. Is there a way to do that that upholds the, what Council Member Schwedhelm was referring to, which is that I do believe as he's stated that staff applied the rules as they are on the books and that the planning commission then followed through, is there a way for us to show our support for staff by denying the appeal, but then going forward and declaring this removal one that was done without construction plans or permits? No, if you deny the appeal, then the lower decisions stand. So you would have to grant the appeal. We can craft the resolution that identifies that you believe that the staff acted reasonably, but that in your conclusion the better path is to order the mitigation under the other code section. And I don't know if Mr. Rose has other ideas or some alternatives, but I'd also ask him to weigh in if he would like. That would be really helpful because I think I might have gotten myself further in the code than I can swim in here. Certainly, thank you, Sue. Thank you, Council Member Fleming and others. I think what Ms. Gallagher indicated is accurate, that you actually would go forward with the appeal, but you would give the direction to staff to implement the higher mitigation fee. And I think I can speak safely on behalf of all staff that we fully feel the Council support of our actions. And although you would be granting that appeal, which would say we should have issued this additional mitigation, I can be certain that we feel your support and appreciate it greatly. Okay, assuming that Council Member Tibbet seconds, I would like to adopt the language that was stated just now by Mr. Rose. I think I saw a thumbs up from Council Member Tibbetts. Second. Right, excellent. Thank you. Vice Mayor. I probably really shouldn't say this, but I kind of feel like there's a double standard. And it's not just a double standard here, but people had harsher punishments for protesting last year. And they were just speaking or standing up for what they believed in. They weren't doing something that was against. So I just wanna say that, yes, I get it's a family, but I also get that when you don't uphold a president of what's supposed to happen and what people know right is right and wrong is wrong. I just feel like we start to have double standards and there's too much interpretation. So I couldn't let the moment pass without saying that. I feel that way. So I'm gonna say it, but, and then we do what we do. But there is definitely a double standard and I will point out again, a tree is a tree, but to build a whole structure in tonight. And I know that's not on the thing, but it shows a thought process and it shows someone's disregard for what the rules are. So any other comments? Council Member Sawyer. Thank you, Mayor. Well, this has gotten a little bit convoluted. I will be supporting the planning commission's decision this evening. They, their decision at the time was based on the information that they had and the remedies that they had before them. And although I am fully supportive of reviewing once we have a little less on our plates, the tree ordinance is a little bit like our sign ordinance. It is a murky place to go and it is very tricky. I recently had a situation with a really constituent who removed a dead tree that this tree that they believe was dead, but there are rules indicate very clearly you need to get a permit to do that. You need to have it confirmed that it is indeed dead before you remove it. And most of these law, many of these rules are not known by the public, which is unfortunate. What we could, we could surmise that this particular homeowner should have known, but I have to, I'm going to be supporting the planning commission's decision because I think that it's the right thing to do. Our secondary, our action in looking into the ordinance and looking at ways to enforce it and make it more known to the community. I'm fully in favor of, again, once we have more time on our hands, but I will be not supporting the upholding the appeal for those reasons. Okay, thank you, Council Member. Any other comments? All right, Madam City Clerk, would you please call the roll? Yes, Council Member Tibbetts. Aye. Council Member Schwedhelm. No. Council Member Sawyer. No. Council Member Fleming. Yes. Council Member Alvarez. Aye. Vice Mayor Rogers. Soon, no is to deny, right? Yes, would grant the appeal and change the indirect staff to impose the greater tree mitigation. I want to uphold staff's decision. No would uphold the staff's original decision. No. Mayor Rogers. Aye. That motion passes with four ayes, with Vice Mayor Rogers, Council Member Sawyer and Council Member Schwedhelm voting no. Okay, thank you. So I have us at 8.59 here. We'll go on to item 15.2. Mayor and members of the City Council, item 15.2 is our second public hearing of the evening. The public hearing is regarding CUP 19-117, the Alternative East Dispensary Appeal, located at 2300 Bethards Avenue, Suite A. And Adam Ross, our project planner, will present the staff report this evening. Mayor, I must abstain from this item. Yes, thank you so much, Council Member. All right, so before we launch into it, Mr. Ross, I'm going to ask Council Members to disclose their ex parte communications. I'll start with Council Member Tibbetts. Nothing to report. Council Member Fleming. Received a call from a lobbyist, did not learn anything that was not disclosed in the Council packets. Okay, Council Member Sawyer. Just lots of emails back and forth from various neighbors, but did not learn anything that was not contained in our information. Council Member Schwedl. This week I visited the site and talked to the Chair of the Planning Commission, but everything I learned was contained in the public information. Vice Mayor. And. Okay, and I visited the site. I spoke with my planning commissioner. I heard from neighbors. I also spoke with a consultant for the applicant and all of the information is contained within the public record. With that, go ahead, Mr. Ross. Thank you, Mayor Rogers and Council Members. My name is Adam Ross, Project Planner for the Alternatives East Dispensary Project, located at 2300 Bethards Drive, Suite A, which is before you tonight as an appeal item. Next slide, please. The Alternatives East Project proposes to operate a cannabis retail facility with delivery within a 2550 square foot tenant space of an existing 17,990 square foot building. The hours of operation are from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., seven days a week, and no on-site consumption is proposed. Next slide, please. The project is located in the southeast quadrant of the city. The star symbol denotes the approximate location. Next slide, please. Here's an aerial view of the project location. It's a multi-tenant building, which is at the intersection of Bethards Drive and ULUPE Avenue. The surrounding land uses include general retail, office, as well as residential. Next slide, please. On December 5th of 2019, an application was submitted requesting the approval of a conditional use permit for dispensary, providing delivery service in an on-site consumption area. On January 22nd of 2020, the neighborhood meeting was held to introduce the project to neighbors. On January 20th, 2021, the scope of the project was changed, eliminating the on-site consumption area, leaving only the retail store with delivery service. Next slide, please. On February 25th, 2021, the Planning Commission continued the item to a date certain of March 25th, 2021, as recommended by staff. This was because of a deficiency in public noticing for the project where only one on-site sign was installed instead of two, as well as public correspondence that was sent as late correspondence to the commission. Continuing the item gave the appropriate time needed to re-notice the project in accordance with zoning code section 20-66, and allow members of the public to review the public correspondence that was sent as late correspondence to the commission. On March 25th, the Planning Commission held a duly notice public hearing and approved the project. On April 5th, 2021, an appeal was filed by Elizabeth H. Dutton on behalf of Save Our Neighborhoods. Next slide, please. The general plan land use designation is office, and the zoning district is office commercial, which allows cannabis retail dispensaries with approval of a conditional use permit. As discussed in the aerial slide previously, all development on the other side of Bethards is commercial in nature. Next slide, please. Here's a site plan provided for the project. The site plan shows the project area in yellow, as you can see on the slide. It is located on the north side of the building that takes entry from Bethards Drive. Next slide, please. Here's a floor plan that was provided to staff as the original project layout. This floor plan describes entry to suite A, which is to suite A from the interior of the building. This floor plan reflects that suite A is surrounded by other office suites used for non-cannabis purposes, which includes suites H, I, C, H, I, Q, U, and B. Next slide, please. Prior to the March 25th Planning Commission meeting, a commissioner asked about compliance with the cannabis ordinance in regards to requiring the entrance of a cannabis facility, retail facility, be visible from the public right of way. As such, the applicant provided a modified site plan, which adds a new door to the suite facing the street, as shown on this slide, while eliminating the customer access from the inside of the building, as previously shown on the last slide. Next slide, please. The traffic analysis prepared by a licensed engineer was submitted to planning and traffic for review. Both traffic and planning accepted the analysis, and while the analysis concluded that the project would generate 97 new trips per day, it would not generate more than 50 peak hour trips, which is within the city's established thresholds for having a negligible impact. Next slide, please. The cannabis, retail, and commercial office uses would both require 72 total parking spaces for the site. A total of 63 parking spaces are provided for the site, which means that the project site lacks nine parking spaces. Next slide, please. However, the zoning code allows less parking than required, provided that the deficiency is no more than 10 spaces if there's no enlargement of the space when the new use is proposed. Except that ADA parking standards need to be in compliance with current, whatever the current standards are. Next slide, please. Public comments have been received both in favor and against the project. The concerns included on-site consumption, proximity to schools, potential traffic impacts, parking and possible increase in crime, and concerns regarding the business operator. Next slide, please. In response to the public concerns, the applicant revised the project to eliminate the on-site consumption. Planning staff also verified that the closest elementary, the closest school is Yilupa Elementary, which is approximately 1,800 feet from the project site and well outside the minimum 600 feet required by the cannabis ordinance. And as previously discussed, the project will introduce less than 50 peak hour trips and no further analysis is required for the city's standard guidance for the preparation of traffic impact analysis. Next slide, please. There are four bases of appeal that were filed for this project. The first states that the resolution adopted by the Planning Commission on March 25th is not supported by the record in regard to public communications and comments. In response to that, all comments received were provided to the Planning Commission in advance of review of the project. Planning staff does note that this did not include the public petition that was submitted to the city planning department on October 21st of 2020. During the March 25th public hearing, Planning Commission was made aware of this discrepancy prior to making a decision on the project and Planning Commission Chair Karen Weeks is also available to discuss the commission's decision-making process. The next basis of appeal is that the resolution adopted by the Planning Commission on March 25th is not supported by the record in regard to its reliance on items CD and F on the trip generation estimate of WTrans dated January 20th, 2021, or WTrans estimates of any other date. At applicants behest, WTrans has issued multiple and differing opinions on various dates rendering none of them credible. There is no trip generation estimate dated January 20th, 2021 in the record. In regards to this, it is its standard practice for the applicant to provide a traffic analysis prepared by a licensed traffic engineer. That level of analysis required, that the level of analysis required was determined by traffic and planning who subsequently accepted and approved the traffic analysis provided and provided that to the Planning Commission. All traffic analyses were provided to the Planning Commission for the review for this project. And additionally, the licensed traffic engineer has provided a response to this ground for appeal and the city has reviewed all traffic analyses provided and believes these analyses are accurate and adequate. The applicant's traffic engineer is also here to further answer any questions that the council may have. Next slide, please. The third basis of appeal reads that the resolution adopted by the Planning Commission on March 25th in section F that the project is exempt from CEQA guidelines, section 15303 is not supported by the record. In response to that, while the operation of cannabis product manufacturing can involve volatile processes that include the use and storage of highly flammable materials, there is no evidence to support a claim that cannabis in the form sold in dispensaries is a hazardous substance. Cannabis is an agricultural product. And as such, the class three exemption is appropriate under CEQA guidelines, section 15303 and no exceptions to the exemption apply. The fourth basis of appeal reads that the resolution adopted by the Planning Commission on March 25th in section E that the granting of the permit would not constitute a nuisance or be injurious or detrimental to the public health, interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the neighborhood is not supported by the record. This project application and additional analysis was reviewed by city staff and was provided to Planning Commission who reviewed and approved the project. The project as condition complies with all city regulations established to ensure the public's interest, health, safety, convenience and welfare. Next slide please. The project has been found in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA under CEQA section 15301 in that the project involves minor modifications to an existing building. Section 15303 in that the project involves a change in use of an existing building. Section 15332 in that the project complies with the infill development requirements in that section of CEQA. And section 15183 in that the project is consistent with the general plan. Next slide please. With that, the Planning and Economic Development Department and the Planning Commission recommends that council by resolution deny the appeal and approve a conditional use permit to allow cannabis retail facility with delivery service at 2300 Bethards Drive, Suite A in the city of Santa Rosa. Next slide please. And here's my contact information. Again, I am Adam Ross, the project planner, both acting deputy director of Planning and Economic Development, Bill Rose and acting supervising planner, Andrew Triple are here to answer any questions that the council may have for staff, obviously as well as myself. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ross. Madam City Attorney, are we good or do you need a couple of minutes? I think it would be helpful to have a couple of minutes if we could take just a brief break. Okay, we'll take a five minute recess and then we'll come back for questions to staff. Thank you. All right, Madam City Clerk, can you please call the roll so that we can resume our meeting? Yes, thank you, Mayor. Council Member Tibbets. Here. Council Member Schwedhelm. Here. Council Member Sawyer. Here. Council Member Fleming. Still here against all odds. Council Member Alvarez. He has recused himself at the moment. Oh, thank you. Vice Mayor Rogers. Present. Mayor Rogers. Here. Let the record show that all council members are present with the exception of Council Member Alvarez who has recused himself from this item. All right, I'll fill council in on what that brief recess was. It was brought to our attention that a representative for the applicant has failed to register as a lobbyist for the city. So it was in question whether that individual should still be able to present and represent in this meeting. What we did find, talking with the city attorney, talking with the city clerk's office, is that to not allow this late in the process for him to represent his client would be injurious to the applicant. So what we will do is allow him to proceed tonight and in the morning, the city attorney will open in an investigation into whether or not there's been a violation of the lobbyist ordinance and levy any appropriate fine or penalty in their normal process. And if any council member objects to that, feel free to, but that's the decision that we've taken to move forward. So with that, we'll go back to Mr. Ross and I'll open it up to see if council has any questions. Through the mayor, I do have a question about the process. Yes, Council Member Fleming, go ahead. Versu, does your determination about the status of the lobbyist or that it would cause prejudice to the applicant, does that put the council in any legal jeopardy? And the city attorney is making her way back. Okay. No rush. I just know in this hybrid format, you can't see what's happening in the chamber as easily. I know. I can't see what's happening with you guys either. I don't believe that it puts the council in any legal liability. One of the questions was, and I think that the appellant will be asserting that it voids the decision. I don't believe that it does, but that would be a risk. So another option certainly would be if the council preferred to continue the item to a later date, you would be able to do that as well. Do you believe that that would then cause, because what I'd hate is to have to hear the same thing twice or get someone's hopes up. Do you think that would disadvantage the applicant? The applicant, oh, continuing the item? Well, I know that it would be an inconvenience, but would it, do you believe that that would be, as is a tough call, but would the delay of this to allow the lobbyist to register or for them to get a registered lobbyist with that versus a delay, which would be less disadvantageous to the party in question? So a couple of things. First, as a preface, I think we have to let Mr. Kaston have an opportunity to give an explanation or state why he is not in violation of our lobbying ordinance. I believe that the, to preclude him from speaking when that has not been the city's practice in the past, in this instance to come forward and at the very last minute inform the applicant that they cannot have their representatives speak. I think it's a more significant prejudice to the applicant, then continuing the item for a few weeks for them to either find someone else or for Mr. Kaston to register. And again, the remedy is like any violation of our code, it is a, if indeed, I don't wanna presume, if indeed he is acting as a lobbyist without registration, he would be guilty of a misdemeanor. There are fines up to $1,000 up to six months in jail. There are, you can get injunctive relief. Again, I don't believe that it negates, the council would negate that council's decision, but I do understand that the applicant, I mean the appellant, I'm sorry, the appellant will likely argue that it does void the council's decision. Well, it certainly seems like it's dicey for the parties involved, but the council ought to proceed. Thank you for your detailed analysis. Sure. And I do see that Mr. Kaston has raised his hand on Zoom. So if it's appropriate, Madam City Attorney, we could hear from him on this matter. Yes, I think it would be helpful and you may also wanna hear from, on just on this limited issue of whether Mr. Kaston can speak tonight and can legitimately have filed written materials to hear both from Mr. Kaston and from Ms. Hutton as the appellant, you'd have to hear from both of them. Thank you. And I'll go ahead and hear from the appellant first who was bringing the concern and then I'll allow Mr. Kaston to respond after that. Yes, I believe that would be appropriate. Thank you. Go ahead, get really close to that microphone. Okay, there I am. My name is Libby Hutton. I'm here on behalf of the appellants. And after the publication of the agenda, I discovered that Mr. Kaston had inserted himself into this matter as a representative. He was not known to me, but I was curious as to his background and why he would be in this role and realize he's not a professional attorney, someone licensed to do this and discovered that he is a lobbyist, also calls himself a political consultant and that he has previous, then I did investigate the city code and the policies as to lobbyists requiring that they register annually and that if they take on a new client, they are required to register and disclose that within 15 days of that agreement to represent that client. In the past, Mr. Kaston has registered as a lobbyist and of course he's a previous member of the planning commission and as well versed in city requirements. He previously indicated he represented eight different cannabis businesses and that was a filing in 2020, but he has failed to provide any registration in 2021. I double checked this morning. His letter of May 14th, which is before was included in the agenda would suggest that his engagement occurred at least as of then. So he is now beyond the deadline for disclosure and it is my read of the city code that he would certainly qualify and be defined as a lobbyist that he would be required to register and that one of the remedies is abatement for failing to register. Now as to a penalty for the applicant for his failure to register, it seems ironic. The applicant herself is an attorney. Mr. Kaston is very well versed in what goes on here in the city government. He's been an active participant. He's also well versed in the requirements for registering as a lobbyist. So it would be my view that it's not, as the appellant, it's not my job to discover these things. It's their job to know what they're doing and they knew it. And I would also submit that it was sort of coincidental that I even looked into this. So we will give him an opportunity to respond though now that we better understand what the concern is. And then once we hear from him, we can have a discussion about what the potential for moving forward is or what the possible remedy would be. If I might just add one thing to me, abatement is one of the remedies and abatement would be removal of the letter. But also if he's permitted to speak, the horse, the proverbial horses out of the barn, the lobbying has occurred. And so I would take exception to the idea that this should be continued so that he can perfect his lobbying registration. All right, thank you. We're gonna allow him to respond now. Mr. Kaston. Hello, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just to clarify, and I have registered as a lobbyist in the past when lobbying on municipal questions of discretionary nature. The reason specifically for not registering on this matter has to do with page four of seven of the ordinance 3954 Sunshine Ordinance under H which defines municipal question and specifically excludes day-to-day application administration, et cetera, et cetera, such as policies, such as permitting, zoning, and planning matters. And so my understanding is that that exemption on a conditional use permit applies as this is a planning matter. And thank you, Mr. Kaston. You are correct. The definition of lobbying includes oral or written communications to city official, to favor or oppose, recommend or not recommend, vote for, against, or take or refrain from taking action on any municipal question. So Mr. Kaston is very familiar with this ordinance. And the municipal question is defined in subsection H as he pointed out. Municipal question does not include the day-to-day application, administration, or execution of city programs and policies, such as permitting, zoning, and planning matters, but does include the amendment modification or revision to the city's general plan or zoning ordinance. So I apologize for not having been familiar with that particular section, but obviously Mr. Kaston is well familiar with it. And I do think that that answers the question that he is not acting within the scope of our lobbying ordinance in speaking or writing on this planning application today. Okay, thank you, Madam City Attorney. We will go ahead and proceed then. And then if folks would like to pursue this further, feel free to contact the city attorney's office tomorrow to get further clarification or to open an investigation. But as of now, we'll continue with this item. So we'll go back to Mr. Ross. Thank you for your presentation. Council members, I apologize for the divergence. Are there any questions from Mr. Ross before we go on to Ms. Weeks, the Chair of the Planning Commission? Seeing none, we'll go on to Ms. Weeks. Thank you, Mayor Rogers, Vice Mayor Rogers, and members of the council. It's me again. You know my name, it's Karen Weeks and I'm Chair of the Planning Commission. And I wanna give you a brief overview of the commission's actions as it relates to this item that we heard on March 25th. As I previously stated, the Planning Commission is charged with carrying out California Planning and Zoning Laws in the City of Santa Rosa which includes implementation of ordinances and policies relating to land use matters. We've been reviewing cannabis conditional use permits for a few years now. As we always do in these items, we reviewed the conditional use permit application in accordance with the applicable zoning code and city policies. Our role as commissioners is to follow those applicable codes and policies laid out by the council as well as state regulations. As you're well aware, it's been council's direction to treat the now legal cannabis business as any other legal business. The application that was before us was consistent with all the policies laid out for cannabis businesses in Santa Rosa. As mentioned by Mr. Ross, we did receive the petition from the neighborhood after the meeting. It contained no new information related to the conditional use permit. During the public hearing, we heard from 17 members of the public, seven opposed and 10 supporting. Commissioners asked questions regarding enforcement of things such as odor mitigation and if odor mitigation was not adhered to what would happen. There were also questions relating to traffic and the layout of the interior and the commissioners approved the CUP with a six to zero vote when member being absent. And I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Are there any questions? I'm seeing a bunch of nodding heads, so we'll keep moving and we'll go on to the applicant presentation. Mr. Casten, you'll have 10 minutes to make your presentation followed by Q and A from council members. Thank you, Mayor Rogers, Vice Mayor Rogers and council. I wanna start by specifically thanking staff and the planning commission for a thorough review and recommendation to the council on this matter. We have no additional information to add as the staff report and commission report were professional and complete in this matter. Myself and Mr. Cameron and I from WTrans are available to answer any specific questions. Now or if you should they come up after the presentation from the appellant and public comments. Otherwise, we wanna respect your time and just address the issues that you are concerned about. Okay, thank you so much, Mr. Casten. Are there any questions from council members to start? I'm seeing none on Zoom, none at the dais. So we'll come back for questions when we're done with our presentations. We'll go on to Ms. Hutton. You'll have 10 minutes to make your presentation as the appellant as well. There might be a bit of a silly way because of the PowerPoint coordination, but I will confine my time to 10 minutes. Yeah, I won't be rigid. I just asked that you try to stay with, stay around that 10 minute mark. I will be very respectful of that, thank you. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and council members. My name is Libby Hutton. I'm here on behalf of an association of concerned Bennett Valley neighbors. I'd like to start with a quick perspective as to why I chose to be the point person for this appeal. As a 30-year resident of Santa Rosa, I have an abiding interest and commitment to this community. I work many years in the Sonoma County Council's office, have served as a president of Schools Plus and currently represent abused children in the CPS system. I believe in government that genuinely listens to its citizens. I respect the process and public service. Against that backdrop, I was distressed to hear from people familiar with Santa Rosa government that the city quote, never close quote, overturns the decisions of the planning commission and specifically anything relating to cannabis. I reject that skepticism and believe our city government works. I maintain my trust and believe that in the righteous case like this one, this city council will objectively review and acknowledge the deficiencies of the application and respect the neighborhood's overwhelming objection to the proposal by overturning the planning commission's decision. Next slide please. The traffic issues in this case involve multiple layers of concern. Limited time precludes a line by line response to W. Tran's latest version of their opinion. The key points are in its resolution, the PC relied on a report dated 1, 2021, a report not even in the file in which W. Tran's now states was a draft. The W. Tran's report of 2,1621 stated the proposed use would generate 546 new trips per day. When I and others reacted to that eye-popping number, Ms. Kistler called the engineer and magically the number plummeted to 120 per day and then 297 per day, all within a period of three weeks. W. Tran's now suggests the 546 number should have been divided in half to count only round trips. The defect in that argument is that the city's guidance for preparation of traffic operational analysis just says trips. The triggering number for a traffic operational analysis is 250 or more trips per day. So either number requires the operational analysis. That would explain W. Tran's further reductions. Clearly Ms. Kistler's and W. Tran's objective was not to ascertain truth, but to avoid any chance Sequa might be invoked. W. Tran's abrupt reductions resulted from Ms. Kistler's insistence, not independent expert analysis. After all, she was paying the bill. The latest May 12th letter is simply a continuum of that pattern of obfuscation. When the same expert gives more than one answer to the same question, none are credible. Independent of the varying W. Tran's numbers, the traffic data did not comply with the VMT Sequa requirements the city required as of 7120. Those requirements explicitly applied to cannabis projects and to this case. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the scope of the traffic analysis was grossly inadequate. Next slide, please. As the map dramatically demonstrates, 2,300 Bethards is at the hub of transportation corridors to Rohnert Park, Sonoma State and Petaluma via Bennett Valley Road, to Marin via Bethards and Bennett Valley, to Oakmont, Kenwood and Napa via Bethards and Summerfield and to downtown Santa Rosa on Yulupa. There are school bus stops on both streets directly across from the property. While Ms. Kistler denies any plan to use 2,300 Bethards as a hub, she advertises delivery to all of these areas. Notably, dispensaries are not legal in most of these areas. These routes all take traffic through dense residential areas as well as the notoriously dangerous South Bend, Bennett Valley Road, that takes people to Sonoma State and Rohnert Park, as well as Petaluma. I think if you look at the map, you will see the residential areas outlined very clearly and the hub in the center of that axis of all of those routes. The planners' ready acceptance of Ms. Kistler's denial of plans to use this as a hub defies logic. Why would the city rely on her veracity? She has been described by a sitting judge as not being credible, an opinion affirmed in a published Court of Appeals case. If this CUP is approved, there is no limit to the range or number of vehicles and traffic. It de facto will become her hub whether she applies for it as a hub or not. The same rationale also calls into question the parking assessment made by the planner. Therefore, any valid traffic study must include the impact of the travel and use of these major corridors by unlimited numbers of delivery vehicles and customers. The analysis cannot be limited to the intersection of Bethards and Yulupa. Next slide, please. Other CEQA issues, without a legitimate traffic assessment, the application is not exempt from CEQA section 15322. The traffic assessments, as provided, are not valid or reliable. The project requires an EIR. The planner also argues the project is categorically exempt from CEQA section 15303 as involving conversion of an existing structure with minor modifications. That conclusion is incorrect. The exemption does not apply when the new use involves, quote, hazardous materials, close quote. And Santa Rosa's own city code, section 20-46.050, defines cannabis as a hazardous material. The distinction the planner attempted to make is not contained in that definition. CEQA clearly applies for multiple reasons. A fair argument exists based upon the foregoing CEQA sections and the observations of area residents that the project would have a deleterious impact on the area. Fair argument, I use that term in quotes, is a low threshold test for requiring an EIR. As stated in the case of no oil, one major purpose of an EIR is to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action. A simple or negative declaration, as in this case, stating that the project will have no significant environmental effect cannot serve this function. An EIR is required here. There is no legitimate basis to support the planner's conclusion to the contrary. On the issue of public comment, the resolution, oh, next slide please, I'm sorry. The resolution recited the Planning Commission had considered all written comments and material presented at the public hearing. That was patently incorrect. 222 Bennett Valley citizens filed a petition with the city on October 21, 2020, objecting to the application. But for the pandemic, there would have been more. The petition identifies concerns about crime, traffic, safety and health, and includes the addresses of the Bennett Valley signatories. In spite of its filing long before the original February 25th hearing, it was omitted from the record. The planner was reminded of these omissions, and yet at the continued hearing on March 25th, the petition, again, was missing. During the hearing, the Planning Commission became aware of that omission, but nevertheless made its finding of having considered all written comments. Now, the very planner who failed to properly include that petition has submitted a report dismissively describing the petition as not quote, including additional information that was not already presented to the Planning Commission. This description and attitude by a staff member is truly alarming. He has taken it upon himself to minimize and dismiss the voices of 222 neighbors and citizens and their strenuous and well-reasoned objections to the proposal. If public comment is invited, it should be heard. He has treated the input of the actual neighbors impacted as nothing more than a mere indulgence. This arrogance is breathtaking. Next slide, please. Public comment is the vote of the neighborhood impacted by the proposal. As shown by the slide, the March hearing revealed Ms. Kistler offered her customers from her current dispensary on the west side, a free joint if they emailed support of the proposal or spoke at the Planning Commission hearing. Presumably the same payment was made for her form questionnaires from customers, none which had any addresses. This manipulation tainted every comment or submission in support of the application. If Ms. Kistler's actions are condoned, our local democracy is in peril. Those comments are not the comments of neighbors. Nevertheless, the planner simply says, quote, there has been a lot of correspondence received from neighbors, both opposed to and in favor of the project. Close quote. That statement misrepresents the whole point. I'll give you about one more minute. I'll hurry. Objection by the actual neighbors to the project. The proposed use is inconsistent and incompatible with the neighborhood and the previous use of the property. In the county context, recently supervisors acknowledged they owed the community an apology and in future environmental assessments needed to consider neighborhood compatibility of cannabis. The same holds true here. In 2018, the city committed to locating cannabis businesses away from residential land. Next slide, please. In contradiction to that commitment, the map demonstrates this location sits squarely in the middle of densely populated residential areas. Finally, next slide. On the issue of public interest, 2,300 Bethards is a quiet office building open nine to five weekdays with minimal traffic. This contrasts sharply with a retail business open seven days a week, nine to nine, more than twice as many hours as the current use and with accompanying detrimental traffic and safety impacts. These additional 44 hours per week are hours when families are home with the rightful expectation of peace and quiet. On the issue. Thank you, ma'am. That's the remainder of your time. May I just conclude? All right, 10 more seconds. On behalf of protect our neighborhoods, I respectfully submit the approval of the CUP must be reversed and the application denied. If alternatively, this application is given any further consideration, a comprehensive EIR must be undertaken addressing all CEQA issues with peer review to ensure its validity. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you so much. Councilor, do we have any questions for the appellant? Okay. Back after the next presentation. We'll move on to a rebuttal by the applicant. You have five minutes, Mr. Casten. Thank you, Mayor Rogers. So I'm gonna save most of our time for your questions. As I said at the beginning, I do wanna just hit on a couple of the items that were mentioned. First, it is correct that there is dense residential around the site. It's actually one of the reasons that this is such an appealing commercial area for this dispenser to be located. Currently, the nearest place that someone would have to drive in order to access cannabis retail is to Montgomery Drive, which is reasonably far distance. This project will actually help reduce vehicle miles traveled by putting a dispensary in an area of the city that does not currently have this type of retail. And in the staff report, the staff did a very good job of noting the several general plan policies that support the diversification of our retail areas with this type of use. Additionally, well, it was stated that if public comments are provided, they should be heard. I would like to point out that the applicant did very much hear the public comments prior to coming forward. That is a part of why they made the very significant concession prior to going into the planning commission of eliminating the onsite consumption part of the project. That was in direct response to the comments that were made by the community and in working with staff. So, I do believe that the public comment not only was heard, but was also acted on in good faith by the applicant. And then lastly, just to briefly touch on CEQA, and I would ask staff to jump in on the CEQA question as well. There are several categorical exemptions under CEQA. Fundamentally, this project is re-tenanting an existing building. We very much want to see vacant spaces reoccupied. It eliminates blight. It helps provide economic activity. And CEQA has seen fit to exempt this type of a minor alteration to a building, as well as the fact that this has been analyzed under CEQA. The general plan went under a CEQA review in an environmental impact report as of the zoning code and the various interpretations that created the cannabis ordinance relied on those environmental impact reports which were done completely and have teared off them as this project does. Again, Cameron Nye from WTRANS is available to answer any specific questions, though we believe that their memo was quite thorough in going over the timeline and pointing out the traffic very issues that were brought up by the appellant. So we're available for any questions that you may have. Okay, thank you, Mr. Caston. Are there any questions? Council members? Okay, we will go ahead and go to our public hearing then. I'll open the public hearing and I'll start with folks at the chamber. I've got two names to start. I have Anne followed by Bob. Good evening. It is getting very late in the evening. So I hope you give this appeal the close and judicious attention it deserves. First, in response to Karen Week's statement this evening on the petition, when they reviewed the petition after the planning hearing, she stated no new information was received, but they made a decision to grant the permit without the input of 200 plus Bennett Valley residents. This is not open government, neighborhood incompatibility. The proposed cannabis outlet location was chosen by the applicant purposefully. The applicant proposes a delivery service which will function as nothing less than a centralized hub for cannabis deliveries out Bennett Valley Road to Sonoma State University, Katati and Runert Park, Easton to Glen Allen, Oakmont and Kenwood and out to all points of Santa Rosa. Bethards Avenue, Yallupa Avenue and Summerfield Avenue, my neighborhood cannot support this increased traffic load with seven day a week, 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. business hours. The location of a retail cannabis business in a quiet professional building of architects, lawyers and such is one issue, but far more critical is the location of this cannabis outlet in a heavily residential area. This is a family neighborhood, not a commercial or industrial area. Yes, there are other businesses across the street, Safeway, CVS, medical offices, a dollar store, Starbucks and more, but all these businesses are contained in a defined area grouped together with adequate parking and adequate driveways. The Anadale Shopping Center was designed to offer safe and convenient shopping for its residents. I believe that WTrans studies do not reflect the true amount of cannabis dispensary traffic that will occur. In addition, WTrans nor anyone else for that matter does not really know, really know how many delivery trips are going to occur if this permit is approved. Lastly, I do not believe that having a business in my neighborhood that requires arm security personnel is a plus. The community incompatibility issue alone should disqualify this permit application. Thank you for your time. Thank you so much, Ann. We'll go to Bob. And then if there's anybody else who'd like to speak after Bob, feel free to queue up near the microphone. You don't have to put in a speaker card to speak, but we will come to you next. Hi, I guess you can hear me. My name is Bob. I am a local resident in the area of 2,300 Bethards. My greatest concern is regarding the proposed cannabis dispensary at 2,300 Bethards is traffic and safety. Regarding traffic concerns, 2,300 Bethards is located at the intersection of two already busy streets, Bethards Drive and Yolupa Avenue, and is a hub for traffic from multiple directions. South on Yolupa leads to Bennett Valley Road, Sonoma State University, Roanard Park and Petaluma. North on Yolupa leads to downtown Santa Rosa and US 101, and east on Bethards leads to Highway 12, Oakmont, Kenwood and Sonoma. Besides the increase in customer traffic and delivery traffic to these areas, 2,300 Bethards could well serve as a hub for the wholesale distribution to these areas, further increasing traffic. Regarding safety, Bethards and Yolupa and their intersection are already high pedestrian traffic areas in a residential area and include school bus and city bus stops. I live locally and frequently walk to Safeway and my local hardware store. On those walks, I observe young people as well as mothers with children walking these streets and negotiating the intersection. Increased local traffic due to cannabis, customer traffic on streets, and in and out traffic from the parking lot and delivery traffic would produce increased safety hazards for these pedestrians. Further, the increased traffic would likely increase traffic accidents, reducing safety for drivers. Thank you for the opportunity for me to express myself. Thank you so much, Bob. Is there anybody else in the chambers who would like to give comment on this item? Okay, saying nobody get up, we will go to our Zoom public comment. We'll start with MM followed by Allen. Oh, hello. My name is Maura Jacobs and I'm a resident of Bennett Valley. I'm very concerned about this proposed project at 2,300 Bethards, especially for the traffic and traffic safety issues. And it's really simply not compatible with this quiet residential neighborhood. As others have described it, what's really different about this building is you're allowing for the change of use to a very busy commercial use in this particular building. So it's just not appropriate and there's family residences right next door to it all around it. So you are changing really fundamentally the use of this building and obviously the traffic studies have serious defects and need to be addressed. There's a lot of conflict of interest involved in this whole process and how the planning commission has totally disregarded the neighborhood input is just atrocious and terrible policy approaches. As to the crime risk, I even have a quote I can read from one of the leaders in Sonoma County law enforcement. I'm not going to give you the name because I just don't wanna cause any trouble for them, but police chiefs and this is the quote from this law enforcement leader. Police chiefs and sheriffs were very concerned when mayor Waddle Laws changed and pointed to the challenge in determining intoxication levels in the field as a major obstacle that had not been addressed. We still do not have a good scientific field test today. Finally, the important thing to keep in mind is that criminals do not differentiate between legal and illegal marijuana when committing crime. We have had violent robberies, homicides related to marijuana and cashier buffs. The people who commit these crimes do not care if the location is licensed or unlicensed. All they want is the marijuana and cash. And there are many studies we have provided that in fact, attached to the community petition links to studies that demonstrate how crime increases in neighborhoods where these are placed. You really are making a huge mistake if you allow this placement in this quiet residential community and you'll make the life less safe for the children that walked that sidewalk across the very entrance to these harmful drugs that our THC is now listed as a hazardous material. Thank you. All right, thank you. We'll go to Allen followed by John. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Vice Mayor Rogers and members of the council. My name is Allen Hardcastle. I've lived in Bennett Valley about a mile from this proposed dispensary for since 1985. And you've heard excellent reasons as to why this conditional use permit should not be approved. And I'm just going to add one that you've heard but I think needs emphasis. The sign in front of this building says Valley Professional Center. And that's what the building has always been. It's been the offices. The proposed space for the dispensary was a former attorney's office. There are financial planners, insurance agents, things of that nature. These are nine to five office uses. There is retail nearby. There is retail space available within a quarter mile of this site. So it's not that my objection is to cannabis. Cannabis is legal. The dispensaries are legal but they need to be in an appropriate spot. And an appropriate spot is a retail location. Not an office building that is nine to five. The rest of that space will all be closed down. We'll have this one dispensary operating 12 hours a day, seven days a week. That's not good for the community. It's not good for the tenants in the building. It's not good for anyone. It's simply a bad decision. And I would urge you to grant the appeal. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time. And I know it's been a very long day. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, Allen. We'll go to John, followed by Kelly. John, are you able to unmute? Sorry about that. Thank you for giving us this opportunity to talk. My name is John Pearson and I live within a city block of proposed project. I ask you to deny the conditional use permit as this project will have a negative impact on the character of the neighborhood. The proposed project is for a retail shop for the sale of controlled intoxicants. In essence, the proposal is to open a cannabis equivalent of a liquor store in a highly visible location on public right of way. This will be a negative change to the character of the neighborhood. For all licensed intoxicant stores, including a liquor store in the neighborhood, are well off the public road in shopping centers. The proposal is to open the equivalent of a liquor store in a highly visible location within yards of residential housing and school bus stops. A liquor store on this corner would negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. The proposed cannabis store will also have a negative impact for similar reasons. The role of the city council is to protect neighborhoods and their home values, not to degrade them. Please approve the appeal and deny the special use permit. Thank you. Thank you, John. We'll go to Kelly, followed by Elle. Hello. Go ahead. Hi, my name is Kelly and I'm a medical cannabis patient and live in Bennett Valley. The city has already approved cannabis clubs and all neighborhoods at Santa Rosa to bring safe and reliable medicine and revenue to the city. I frequented alternative in Roseland for over 11 years and I found their dispensary extremely professionally run and their staff always knowledgeable. Emotions aside, this proposed dispensary complies in every way with the zoning code and local ordinances. At this point, dispensaries are proven contributors to our neighborhoods, both aesthetically and financially. I don't think it's fair for cannabis to be discriminated against and it should be looked at just as any other retail store. Alternatives is the well-known and trusted. I know I go there for my medicine. I feel comfortable with the staff. I know that it's discreet. They don't share my private information and I get the medicine that I need to help me in my day-to-day life. Alternatives is active as a pillar in the cannabis community for over 11 years and is set the bar high for other businesses. And Bennett Valley should be lucky to have such a well maintenance in the street dispensary in our neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. We'll go on to Elle followed by Tamara. Yes, hello, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Hi, I just wanted to say that I'm a customer of alternatives and I've been listening to what's been said and I consider myself to be very open to hearing others' opinions. But I feel that those who have spoken in opposition before me, excluding the last person, sound discriminatory against the business of cannabis. I do not buy their arguments of traffic concerns. I think that people need their medicine and all of those opposed, I just hear them yelling, not in my backyard. We are not here to re-legislate the zoning code which has passed overwhelmingly in Santa Rosa after months of public debate. When a project entirely conforms with the local and state ordinances, diverging from the codes would be selective and unlawful. This project received staff support and unanimously passed the planning commission hearing because the commission agreed it conformed. Also, I believe the dispensary will contribute to the neighborhood and to our city financially. Thank you so much, Elle, Tamara, followed by Amy. Tamara, are you able to unmute? There we go. Sorry, I'm so sorry. Excuse me, thank you, Council. My name is Tamara Blass. Given the late hour, I would just like to quickly express my point of view, not as an alobbyist, but just as an ordinary citizen and also as an advocate for an often overlooked and underrepresented demographic of respectable older citizens who deserve to have access to medication that as the name implies, as is an alternative to prescription medication that often has more serious and potentially more addictive side effects. All of this in a convenient and safe location. The alarmists want to convince you that the presence of this legal and legitimate business with a proven track record will mean the decline of their neighborhoods, but the applicant has just as much, if not more of an interest in maintaining a clean, safe and well-run business since she has to ensure that the other businesses within the complex have confidence in the complex and location. The applicant has done everything possible to comply with all mandatory regulations. And the concern that allowing a medical dispensary would result in an increase in crime has just not been worn out statistically. In fact, I believe that providing a safe and legal outlet where people can purchase their medication has actually reduced crime due to an increase in regulation and oversight. I genuinely feel that the objections voice do not warrant denying a responsible legitimate business owner a permit that would serve the community and provide additional desperately needed revenue for the city of Santa Rosa. I would encourage council members to approve this permit. Thank you. Thank you, Tamara. Amy, followed by Brianna. Amy, are you able to unmute? There you go. Thank you. My name is Amy. I live in the neighborhood here in Bennett Valley and have for many, many years. I'm not representing any particular constituency and no one's past prepared talking points. So I'm not arguing on technicality. This is really just about common sense. This dispensary is smack dab in the middle of a densely populated residential neighborhood. It makes no sense honestly to have this here. It is just totally full of families and children walking kids all the time. It's just, I can't even imagine a worse location. Every other dispensary in the city I'm aware of is in a commercial or industrial area which is much more appropriate. I don't understand why the city would approve this super close to hundreds of homes. Thanks. Thank you, Amy. Brianna, followed by Maine. Hello, council members and mayor. I live right next door to the proposed project. My front door actually faces the street and I can see the building from the sidewalk outside of my house. I'm a mother to two small children ages four and five and they both get picked up for school right in front of this building. While I'm concerned about the traffic that this will cause I'm actually more concerned about the people who will be driving these cars. I've been in dispensaries as I'm a cannabis user myself and I know what kind of people they can attract. I'm wary of the impact that building a dispensary here is going to have on the safety of my family and my neighbors. We already have a problem with people driving too fast and doing burnouts in front of the park and with people drinking and smoking in public. And I'm not interested in inviting more people like this into my neighborhood. I'm not against cannabis, but I am against putting in a dispensary. If I want to partake, I will drive to Santa Rosa Avenue where the dispensaries belong. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Brianna. Maine, followed by Gail. Well, my name's Eric. Ashley, can you hear me? Yep, we can hear you. Thank you. I think if we were talking about having an apparel store, it would be a different ball game altogether when we talk about traffic. I also think it's very important to look at that in the city of Santa Rosa, many locations are not exactly the high traffic industrial areas. In fact, many, I can quote, such a spark, have communities where there are people living in a residential area just adjacent to it. And to say that their community is any less special than Yulupa area that we're talking about here and the Thars is really quite ridiculous. The number of trips that would actually be done for delivery would actually be insane to say they would cause a difference because there would be very little traffic except for routes that would probably be pre-planned. We're not looking at anything that's really high impact, just prejudice in the community against having a dispensary that would be so low key. And I must remind people in our community that we've had a loss of business, the additional business from having more people eating lunch, more people shopping, would help the local shopping centers as well. And if there were a clothing center that were going to be in this location, I doubt this debate would be even occurring in the first place. Thank you very much. Thank you, Eric. Gail, followed by Christina. Gail, are you able to unmute? Hear me? Can you hear me? Yep. I am Pester Gail Cafferata, an Episcopal priest and a PhD sociologist. My family has lived within a half mile of 3,600 Bethards for 21 years. Most every day I walk to Safeway and CVS along Bethards, crossing the driveway to the proposed premise and two intersections, Summerfield and Wailupa. My daughter and grandson, who live nearby, cross Wailupa at Takava on their bikes to teach and attend Wailupa school. This retail business is unreliably an underestimated 12-hour heavy traffic will make sidewalks and roads treacherous for Bennett Valley's school children, families, people with disabilities who might walk slowly, cyclists and others. The Bennett Valley is built on bonds of trust centered in the moral precept of do no harm. The proposed use endangers not only traffic safety but also imports criminal risks to a residential neighborhood noted for safety. Published scientific studies in Denver and Los Angeles prove that medical marijuana facilities raise crime risks because of large cash stores on site, the cost of stored products and the fact that medical marijuana can be resold lucratively in states that do not permit its legal sale. Vehicle break-ins do increase up to a mile away and property crime may increase as offenders increase their familiarity with new neighborhoods. This familiarity provides information on when guardians are around and what homes might have valuables worth stealing. Alternative East Other Location was robbed at gunpoint. Strangers to our city have already committed violent crimes in our shopping center. I need everyone on city council to do no harm. Do no harm to my family, the over 220 Bennett Valley neighbors who signed our petition and others and reject this permit. David Rabbit recently said to those who grow and sell marijuana, quote, there are places in this county where you can go and not bother a soul, unquote. City council needs to find that place for this attractive criminal nuisance. Thank you. Thank you, Christina followed by Spencer. Hello. Yep, yep. Hi, my name is Christina Aten. My husband's, our kids and I live on Tuxedo Place, which is a small cul-de-sac just across Bethards from the proposed site. I literally walk past there, drive past there, probably a dozen times a day. I know my time's really short, so I'll try to talk fast and share just a couple of my larger concerns. The first concern that I thought was very specific to me, but I'm learning tonight it's not, is the plan to run deliveries over Bennett Valley Road into Sonoma to Glen Allen down to Rohnert Park. Anyone who regularly drives Bennett Valley Road, as I do on my commute to Napa each day, knows that this is a very treacherous road. Roads are narrow, they're windy, they're full of students, commuters, and commercial vehicles who drive way too fast for conditions and they're overly aggressive as they take turns too sharp by driving up the middle of the road. Over my few years of making this drive, I've seen many accidents. I've been run off the road myself by a large truck taking a turn too fast and I witnessed a crash not too many weeks ago where a woman who, strangely enough, woke up and smoked a bowl, by the way, fell asleep at the wheel, nearly front ended an oncoming SUV, forcing them to land on their side in a ditch. I'm seriously concerned that the main purpose of this new dispensary location is as a hub for deliveries over to Sonoma, where there are no dispensaries, putting even more cars on an already very dangerous road. And that leads me, speaking of Sonoma, to my other concern, which is the degradation of our town amid the over-proliferation of cannabis stores. Bennett Valley is a quiet corner of Santa Rosa, bordered by rolling hills, farms, vineyards, and populated with retirees and families. Yes, the building in question is zoned for commercial use and surrounded by other commercial buildings, but I hardly think that the Planning Commission who approved a professional center intended for it to be occupied by a drug store, a retail drug store, and a delivery hub, more than it was meant to be a liquor store, a Costco, or a burger joint. Moreover, it's upsetting that Santa Rosa is opening one new dispensary after another. We already have dozens, 38 by my last count, while our surrounding cities have fewer than five. Listen, I have nothing against cannabis, CBD, or even recreational weed. I'm glad that cannabis is now legal for those who need or enjoy it, and I'm glad Sonoma County residents have easy access to it. That doesn't mean that we need a dispensary in every neighborhood or that every neighborhood is the right place for a pot store any more than every site is right for a Costco. I respectfully ask that the commission take the concerns and desires of the residents of Bennett Valley seriously and reject this customer's proposal. Thank you for your time. Thank you so much. We'll go to Spencer. Thank you for your time tonight, guys. My name is Spencer. I'm actually the general manager over at Alternatives. I've been there for over four years now, and a lot of the allegations made clearly are discriminatory. We see so many different types of people. We are convenient to elderly and disabled people because we deliver and don't offer a charge. We just deliver because we know not everyone can come in. So if traffic is the big concern, are we gonna shut down Uber Eats, Grubhub, or any taxi service? They're all still gonna be driving. They're all trying to do something. We're gonna limit reckless drivers by delivering. Safety concerns are also ridiculous. Lou Lemon has gotten robbed like three or four times. Walgreens, CVSs in San Francisco and everywhere get robbed. That's what people do desperate things. So to assume that just because it's cannabis, it's gonna bring in crime is pretty ridiculous. If anything, it's gonna decrease because people know that there's a dispenser there. There's gonna be more of a presence, if anything. We're gonna be very active in the community just like we are now. I've been at the Roseland location for like I said, over four years. I see the people and I see the quote unquote incidents that may or may not be happening and they do not exist. We have people walking by, there's bus stops by where we are. I would know if there was issues, there aren't. I'm very involved in the community as well. I used to coach Jiu-Jitsu in wrestling and self-defense very close to that location. And I know that's not a concern. There's not people gonna be driving and running people over because they bought some weed. That's not what's gonna be happening. There's over six million accidents a year in the US and that's not because people are buying stuff. That's not from that. Cannabis users like Amy said earlier, she's seen them and she knows what they look like. That's pretty ridiculous to say out loud and I hope she's kind of embarrassed about saying that because I see them as well and there are many different types of people. It's ridiculous to assume that just because they're buying cannabis that they're a criminal, I'm assuming she probably thinks anyone wearing a hooded sweatshirt is a bad person. But anyways, there's no evidence of crime increase. Like I mentioned, there's gonna be a huge economic impact positively because people are gonna be coming to that area and that's a good thing. We need more and more business right now with COVID, all the effects that it has had on all small businesses. I know if I'm gonna go be going somewhere to buy something I'm more likely to stop at a bordering store or to stop at a restaurant nearby or to do my shopping at a CVS over there which is gonna positively increase the economy over in that area. I know that Alternatives also has a lot of local companies that are sold there. So a lot of Santa Rosa companies are in the store. Sonoma, just all Sonoma County products, honestly like about 75% of those and that's all jobs that we're helping provide. So in short, I really disagree with a lot of the statements previously made but I do appreciate all the support sticking us in. Thank you, Spencer. That's the last hand that I see on our live Zoom. Madam City Clerk, do we have any voicemail public comments? We've received no voice message, public comments. Okay, then I will close the public hearing. I'll bring it back to council. We'll start and see if anybody has any additional questions and then I'll ask council member Sawyer to put a motion on the table for discussion. Any questions council? Okay, Mr. Ross, I did have a couple of questions if you have a moment. Yes, of course. This is fundamentally a land use conversation. It's not about legalization or not legalization. There were concerns that were raised about the traffic study that was done and I was hoping you could address that. Yeah, of course. So in response to some of the comments that I heard about the traffic study, especially in particular to the appeal statement, there was attachment 15 as part of the agenda packet addresses that concern about the difference between going from 900 or 546 trips to now down to 97 trips that would be on the second page of the third bullet that specifically addresses how that changed over time. At the same time, each iteration of traffic, trip generation analysis for this project would be received by me, the project planner and that would be shared with the city's traffic engineering division who's the expert on the subject. Each time they had accepted that analysis, each of the analyses and in that it also, there was discussion from the consultant with traffic engineering. So it wasn't just looking at it and saying, yeah, that's okay. There's a thorough understanding of the process. So there were questions about the legitimacy of the traffic report from the consultant, from WTrans, are they considered by the city to be a reputable company? And then the follow-up is, and when they submit information, do staff that have no skin in the game evaluate that and make determinations based on their observations as well as the traffic study? First part of the question, yes, they are a legitimate traffic engineering firm, a licensed traffic engineering firm. And they're the only company to planning knowledge that is collecting cannabis related traffic data at the same time. And so, sorry to that answer the question. And then as a follow-up, as they submit their information, it's not just being rubber stamped by city staff. City staff is also evaluating the findings as well, correct? Absolutely. Councilor, are there any other questions? Okay, Council Member Sawyer, this is your item. So I'm gonna have you put a motion on the table for discussion. Thank you, Mayor. Well, for all the reasons articulated by Planning Commission Chair Weeks, I introduce a resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Rosa denying an appeal and approving a conditional use permit and site plan dated March 25th, 2021 for alternatives East to operate a cannabis retail facility with delivery service within a 2,449 square foot tenant space located at 2,300 Bethard's Drive, suite A, assessor's parcel number 147-061-015, file number of PRJ19-047 and wait for the reading. Second. Okay, motion by Council Member Sawyer, second by Council Member Fleming. Council Member Sawyer, would you like to start with comments? Well, I think I made it clear with my introduction. I believe that the Planning Commission gave this applicant a thorough hearing and we have made it our policy to treat cannabis businesses like we do any other retail business with the appropriate restrictions applied to it. That has been our policy for quite some time after a very thorough analysis and in creating the ordinance in the first place very, very large amount, hours and hours and hours of input from the community, both those that approved and those that did not. And I trust our ordinance and I trust the decision by the Planning Commission based on there on our policies as a council and our ordinance and state law. Okay, thank you, Council Member. Are there any other comments from Council? Council Member Fleming. Yeah, I just wanna reiterate that the city of Santa Rosa went through a long and deliberative process in which it was determined that cannabis ought to be treated like every other legal business. It is a legal substance in the state of California and I don't personally believe that it leads to the degradation of communities in any particular way. And when we talk about those people we're talking about my mom who uses it for PTSD, my dad who uses it for recreation. I use it for sleep. I don't really can't name too many people who haven't tried it or used it. And if there's a gateway to bigger battered drugs I haven't found it. Not saying it doesn't exist or that there aren't real ramifications but I think that at the end of the day this pearl clutching is a little bit much for my taste. And I look forward to this business succeeding and I hope that the community's concerns are assuaged over the course of time. Okay, any other comments? Council Member Svettel. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanna add my comments and I'll be supporting this motion because as I was hearing and reading all the documents specifically the petition and what some of the challenges were there and some of the comments. And I live in Northwest Santa Rosa in the proliferation of dispensaries in my neck of the woods is much greater than here and we have not experienced any of the comments that I've heard people say the fear of what will occur if this goes in here. Close to home residential area. They're all well managed because again I think Mr. Soria made that comment. The work that the city of Santa Rosa put in to establish an ordinance that works, I think it is working. So I am trusting the process and I'm appreciative of the Planning Commission and city staff for moving this project forward. Okay, thank you, Council Member. I too will be supportive. Like Council Member Svettel, my district I think has the most approved cannabis dispensaries in it. One of the interesting unintended consequences of the ordinance that we crafted is that it has clustered it largely into the west side of Santa Rosa and into the Southwest. And that just happens to be where most of the usable land that meets the designations are. We've actually had this conversation at Council before about dispensaries that have come forward, particularly on the east side and whether there are appropriate locations that give equitable access for folks who need the medicine as well as equitable distribution throughout our community. And it's one that we have consistently found to be a challenge. This is a suitable site. As I mentioned, it is a land use designation question. Staff has appropriately alleviated my concerns about traffic, about compatibility. And so we, I'll be supporting the motion as well. I don't see any other hands for comments. So Madam City Clerk, if you could please call the vote. Thank you. Council Member Tibbets. A point of order. No, denies the appeal. Correct. The motion is to deny the appeal. Right. Okay, then I vote aye. Thank you. Council Member Schwedhelm. Aye. Council Member Sawyer. Aye. Council Member Fleming. Aye. Vice Mayor Rogers. Aye. Mayor Rogers. Aye. That motion passes with six ayes with Council Member Alvarez abstaining. Okay, thank you so much. So Council, it is almost 11 o'clock. So without objection, I'm going to hold over item 3.2. That's the study session on the harassment prevention policy for the next appropriate council meeting. We will also hold unless there's something urgent, Mr. City Manager, the staff briefings. And perhaps staff can submit those via email for council members to view. Do you have any city manager or city attorney reports that are relevant for tonight? No, Mr. Mayor. I will note that as our report we have submitted our now monthly litigation report, but unless you have questions given the late hour, I won't review it. We'll simply move forward, but it is in there and I'm happy to answer any questions. Do we have any questions for the city attorney? Seeing none, Mr. City Manager. No report this evening, Mayor. No report, great. We'll go on to Council Member Reports. Does anybody have a report they'd like to deliver tonight? Council Member Schwethelm taking a risk here. Reluctantly raising my hand, just a brief announcement. I wanted to announce Steve Rom as my appointee as the North Community Advisor Board Representative. I really want to thank Cecile Quarman who'd been in that role for several years as my representative on CAB. Great, thank you so much. And I do believe we do have two additional vacancies on the Community Advisory Board and they have had quorum issues. So if Council Members could make sure that you are appointing folks, if you have vacancies, that would be appreciated. Are there any other reports? Okay, we will go on to item 10.2.1. Through the Mayor, we skipped item nine, statements of abstention. I apologize. Is there an additional statement of abstention you'd like to add? I do believe that myself and Mr. Tibbet will all lead that up to him, but I'll need to abstain from items 12.3, 12.4, and 12.5. And I'll need to abstain from 11, 2, 11, 4, 12.4, 12.5. Sorry, can you repeat those, Council Member? Yes, 11.2, 11.4, 12.4, and 12.5. And may I get Council Member Fleming's abstentions again, please? And if you, I forgot, we also have to have you state on the record why you were abstaining from those items. Yeah, I am abstaining from items 12.3, 12.4, and 12.5 because I was not present for the original adoption, the first reading of those texts. Okay. I have the same reasons. Okay, is that clear, Madam Clerk? Yes, thank you. Great. So we'll go to item 10.2.1. Earlier today, Council met to do interviews. Sorry, Madam City Attorney, were you gonna say something? I was simply gonna remind the mayor that we need to hold the public comment on that item that we failed to provide an opportunity for a public comment after the interviews. So this would be our opportunity now. Great, thank you so much for the reminder. So we did meet to hear from applicants for the Board of Building Regulation Appeals. There's three appointments that we need, or excuse me, three applicants for four positions. We have the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, Senior Community Representative. That's one individual for that slot. And then we have the Personnel Board, which has two at-large positions. And I believe there were four applicants, if I remember correctly. And then there is also a Labor Representative applicant. And there were, excuse me, position and there were four applicants as well. So I'll go ahead and open up a public comment on these appointments. If anybody is interested in speaking on item 10.2.1, go ahead and hit the raise hand feature on your Zoom. Seeing nobody rise in the chamber. Seeing none on Zoom. We'll go ahead and close public comment and bring it back for a motion. Let's start with the Board of Building Regulation Appeals. Is there a motion? Council Member Sweathelm. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd be one happy to make a motion that David Cooper, Ken Coker and Richard Yon be appointed to the Board of Building Regulations. Second. Okay, motion from Council Member Sweathelm. Second from Council Member Sawyer. Is there any additional discussion? All right, Madam Clerk, can you call the vote please? Council Member Tibbets. Council Member Sweathelm. Aye. Council Member Sawyer. Aye. Council Member Fleming. Yes. Council Member Alvarez. Aye. Vice Mayor Rogers. Aye. Mayor Rogers. Aye. That motion passes with six ayes with Council Member Tibbets absent. Okay, I will now entertain a motion for the senior position on the pedestrian advisory, bicycle and pedestrian advisory board. Mayor, I move Paul Schwartz for the bike and ped senior representative. Second. Okay, motion from Council Member Sawyer and a second from the Vice Mayor. Is there any additional discussion? And it does look like Council Member Tibbets recused himself from this item. I know he was not able to sit in on the interviews. So with that, let's call the vote. Council Member Schweathelm. Aye. Council Member Sawyer. Aye. Council Member Fleming. Aye. Council Member Alvarez. Aye. Vice Mayor Rogers. Aye. Mayor Rogers. Aye. That motion passes with six ayes with Council Member Tibbets recusing. Great. We'll go to the personnel board. We have two appointments for the at-large positions. Is there a motion? Council Member Schweathelm. I would move we appoint Frank Panza and David Parks to the two position on the personnel board. Second. Is there any discussion? Okay, seeing none, let's call the vote. Council Member Schweathelm. Aye. Council Member Sawyer. Aye. Council Member Fleming. Aye. Council Member Alvarez. Aye. Vice Mayor Rogers. Aye. Mayor Rogers. Aye. That motion passes with five ayes with Council Member Alvarez voting no and Council Member Tibbets abstaining. Okay, in our final position is the Labor Representative for that same board. I'd like to make a motion to appoint Lisa Maldonado. I'll second. Okay, motion from the Vice Mayor, second by Council Member Alvarez. Is there any other discussion? All right, let's call the vote. Council Member Schweathelm. No. Council Member Sawyer. No. Council Member Fleming. Aye. Council Member Alvarez. Aye. Vice Mayor Rogers. Aye. Mayor Rogers. Aye. That motion passes with four ayes with Council Member Sawyer and Schweathelm voting no and Council Member Tibbets abstaining. All right, huge thank you and just expressing the gratitude from the Council and for the city to those folks who have applied and just in particular, thank you to the folks who are stepping up and will be serving on these three important boards moving forward. Mayor Rogers, can I get clarification on the personnel board appointments? There are two different term ends for those appointments, one term ending 2024 and the other to fill the remaining term of a vacancy ending December 2022. And these are for the at-large positions? Correct. Okay. Council Member Schweathelm, would you, since you made the original motion, would you like to make a motion on which one fills the vacancy and which one fills the full term? Yes, I would. I'd like Frank Ponzi to fill a full term and David Parks to fill the remainder of the existing term. And I continue to second. Didn't I second that one? I continue to second. Okay. So Council Member Schweathelm with that motion and the Vice Mayor with the second. Let's call the vote. Can I get a point of order? Can I get a clarification on that one time, please? Yes. I appreciate it. So the motion and the second is that of the two that we have voted to appoint to the personnel board, which is David Parks and Frank Ponzi. Oh, yes, sir. That we are now saying Frank Ponzi will have the full term and David Parks will fill the vacancy. Yes, sir. The remainder of the vacant term. Thank you, Mayor. Okay. Okay. Council Member Schweathelm. Aye. Council Member Sawyer. Aye. Council Member Fleming. Yep. Council Member Alvarez. Aye. Vice Mayor Rogers. Aye. Mayor Rogers. Aye. That motion passes with six ayes with Council Member Tibbets abstaining. Great. Thank you, Council. We'll move on to approval of the minutes with the exception of the noted, sorry, go ahead. No, we can go forward with the minutes, but I was going to note, I do need to report out on closed session at some point. Okay. Would you like to do that right now? Sure. Easy enough. Councilman and closed session on items 2.1 and 2.2. Both items are conferences with real property negotiator, the first one concerning property on Third Street and Fourth Street. Council discussed the matter and gave direction to the real property negotiator. Second one, 2.2, has to do with property located at 976, 980 and 1004 Hearn Avenue. Again, discussed the matter and gave direction to the real property negotiator. Thank you. Great. Thank you, Madam City Attorney. So for item 11, approval of the minutes, we had various recusals that were mentioned. Madam Clerk, did you take those notes down? I have recusals on, I believe it was the 12 of the consent, not on the minutes. Council Member Tibbets, I believe you were abstaining from two of the sets of minutes. Can you remind us which two? I believe it was 11.2 and 11.4. Great. Let's go ahead and open it up for public comment first to see if there are any amendments to the minutes. I do have a question. Sorry. I'll come back in a second. I'm seeing no hands pop up. Did we have any voicemail public comments? No. Okay, Vice Mayor? Myself and, sorry, it's like Councilman Alvarez. We're, that's our first meeting and we weren't brought on until the end. So should we also recuse ourselves from December 8th? I believe you have the option to, if you would like to. I know that you both also sat waiting, watching the movie, watching the meeting. So you two are well aware of whether or not the minutes reflect what happened during the meeting. Perfect. So it's up to your discretion. Just checking. Okay. Any additional amendments from Council Members? All right, then without objection, we'll show those five minutes as adopted and Mr. City Manager, mercifully to the Consent Calendar, please. Mayor and Members of the Council, we have five items on the Consent Calendar this evening, starting with item 12.1, a motion to award a contract for pavement, preventative maintenance in the year 2021. Item 12.2, a resolution approving the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement. Item 12.3, an ordinance adoption an ordinance of the Council of the City of Santa Rosa amending sections 15-16.030 and 15-16.050 of title 15 of the Santa Rosa City Code adopting sewer demand fees. Item 12.4, an ordinance adoption an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Santa Rosa adding chapter 13-06 to title 13 streets sidewalks and public places of the Santa Rosa City Code pertaining to wireless facilities in the public rights of way. And finally, item 12.5, also an ordinance adoption an ordinance of the Council of the City of Santa Rosa amending section 1-10.030 of the Santa Rosa City Code and postponing the effective date of chapter 1-10 open government of the Santa Rosa City Code to January 1st, 2022. Councilor, are there any questions on the consent calendar for staff? Not seeing any. Madam City Clerk, do we have pre-recorded voicemail public comments? Yes, we do, coming up. Hello, my name is Kevin Conway and I'm calling about agenda item 12.4. First of all, thank you for preparing the ordinance. I'd like to see the Council quickly draft the ordinance for the Marco Towers. Marco Towers ordinance should include emissions testing. And I urge the Council to become active participants in broadband planning using a municipal fiber network. Thank you very much. Hi, this is Caroline Scott. I live in Santa Rosa, California. And this is in regards to agenda item 12.4. Please thank you to the Council and staff for working on this ordinance. And please ask the Council to direct staff to quickly draft the ordinance for Marco Towers before the new state bills take effect and the city is overburdened with permit applications. And ask that the Marco Tower ordinance include emissions testing since multiple antennas will be emitting simultaneously. Thank you very much. Goodbye. Hello, my name is Roya Lynn Wooten and I'm commenting on agenda item number 12.4. I would first like to thank the Council and staff for their diligence in preparing this ordinance. I would also like to direct the Council staff to quickly draft the ordinance for Marco Towers before the new state bills are in effect. Marco Tower ordinance include emissions testing since multiple antennas will be emitting simultaneously. I would strongly urge the Council to become active participants in the Sonoma County broadband planning. The Council members will pursue a municipal fiber network as a safer and faster alternative to the small cell build out. Wireless telecom companies are trying to build out their infrastructure so local municipalities will be convinced they don't need this fiber network. Of course, this is not eliminated. This will not eliminate the digital divide. During last summer's study session, many people have declined urging the Council to start planning for wired broadband as a municipal community service to ensure rates are regulated and the digital divide will end. Thank you very much. Jennifer Laporta of Santa Rosa, item 12.4. While I'm thankful that the city has prepared an ordinance on small cells, I am also outraged and horrified of the impending 5G rollout because I know for a fact that many, many people will be harmed, some severely disabled like Mary Dahl in Rincon Valley who has testified here many times. We are all bound and gagged by the FCC into accepting 5G under the guise of quote, not prohibiting personal wireless service unquote. Nowhere is this service defined? Is it talking text or streaming? The answer is streaming, which is not needed in emergencies or for basic communication. Where is our freedom to live without wireless service? This is being shoved down our throats and please understand I'm not blaming the city. No offense, but you are simply pawns to telecom. The rest of us are simply collateral damage on the altar of telecom profits. Still, we can do better with this ordinance. We can require proof of gap in coverage. We can change from 10 year to two year permits. We can define what's technically infeasible for section eight limited exceptions to design and location standards. Right now, telecom can just say it was technically infeasible to keep their antennae out of residential zones and instead in industrial zones and the city has no way to prevent them from in front of homes. So what's the point of even having location preferences in section four location standards, location preferences? You might as well delete the section on limited exceptions. For whom was this ordinance written? This ordinance actually prohibits any signage on the facility C design and development standards section three G city staff has emailed to me that they cannot post pre-construction signage due to the short shop clocks. Even if the shop clock is only 30 days, there's still time to post legible signage. It should go up within three business days of receiving an application. You could even require telecom to post signs. Is the real reason for lack of signage to keep the public in the dark? To avoid public outcry? How can a resident appeal the signing of antennae if they don't know about it? Or are you relying on the telecom to send notices by snail mail? The ordinance must define the timeline involved. Notices should be sent within three business days of receiving a permit. Look, my experience knocking on 200 doors in this city to alert residents of impending antennae revealed that 90% were not notified and that's when they should have been. This is why signage is so important. Please include easily visible pre-con... My name is Tom LaPorta. This is for item number 12.4. Thank you for your time working on this ordinance. But please direct your staff to quickly draft this ordinance for Macro Towers before the new state bills take effect. The Macro Tower ordinance must include emissions testing since multiple antennas will be emitting simultaneously. That's important. I urge the council to become active participants in the Sonoma County broadband planning. I urge the council members to pursue a municipal fiber network as a safer and faster alternative to the small cell build out. More profitable for the city too. Wireless telecom companies are trying to build out their infrastructure so local municipalities will be convinced that they don't need this fiber network. But this is not going to eliminate the digital divide. During last summer study sessions, many people testified urging the council to start planning for wired broadband as a municipal community service to ensure rates are regulated and the digital divide will end. Health wise, Mary Dahl is the canary in the coal mine. She's a Santa Rosa resident who's been harmed by the high radio frequency radiation from the antenna in front of her home in Rincon Valley. And she's the only one person that she know of possibly as she's been to many city council meetings and spoken. But there's a lot of other people being harmed and it's creeping up on everyone. And many don't even know what is causing their symptoms of electrohypersensitivity. It's just a matter of time before this thing becomes big when we're just bathed in radio frequency radiation and we find ourselves with a huge problem. So again, thank you for drafting the ordinance and I hope you pass this quickly. Thank you. Hello, this is Richard Boyd. I'm a retired physics professor and I'm calling to comment on agenda item 12.4, the small cell ordinance adoption to express my concerns about it. This gives the telecom driver not far too much power to do as they please in inflicting dangerous radio frequency radiation on the citizens of Santa Rosa. And despite the ruins of the FCC that were not allowed to oppose telecom on the basis of health effects, you, the Santa Rosa council need to face the fact that which we're considering, that is the ability of telecom to place small cells as close as 50 feet from homes will cause huge medical problems for people who are electrosensitive. One such person, Mary Dahl has told you about what she has to face every day. It is possible to shield one's home from this radiation at least on the inside that having a small cell 50 feet from your home basically makes the outside of the home useless. If you have kids, they must stay inside or be subject to the electromagnetic whims of telecom and medical research are showing unequivocally that radio frequency radiation is much more harmful to developing brains than it is to those of adults. Indeed, several European countries have limited or banned wireless emission in schools. Is there any way to produce the connectivity that telecom trumpets without inflicting the populace to the ubiquitous radio frequency radiation they're pushing? Actually, yes. Fiber to the premises is the way to go. And I encourage you to push telecom to that as hard as you can. The ordinance you're considering won't push them in that direction at all. So it is up to you to stay the course and make it much more attractive for telecom to go that direction. They've been charging their customers for decades to pay for fiber to the premises. Let them finally use some of that money to make that happen. Ambassador reduced the threat to human health from the radio frequency fog they were planning. Thank you. Hello, my name is Mary Dahl calling in regards to agenda 12.4. The ordinance. I keep hearing about the ordinance and how hard people have worked on it. I wonder how many citizens really know about it. I sure don't. I thought we had a right to know. Guess we really don't count. I understand that you are going to formalize the ordinance by signing it tonight. I hope and pray you have listened and taken it to heart. All the citizens comments concerns fears. Yes, fears of damaging RFR upon themselves and their loved ones, let alone the continued harm it is doing to our environment. When you took the oath of office, you promised to protect all citizens from harm. Well, that's not really happening. Since June, 2017, when permits for cell towers were being permitted, one was for my corner, Cowstoga Road in Monteverdi Drive. I haven't continued to suffer greatly with no end in sight. I will not give up the fight to save myself and all the dear citizens of Santa Rosa. Many are suffering with the effects of RFR and don't realize it's coming from the cell towers near their homes. Any remedies? Yes, do not put cell towers in any residential areas. Remove all those in residential areas now and put cell towers on the hillside's mountain tops away from homes, schools, et cetera. I just pray you and your loved ones will never have to suffer the effects of RFR like I am 24, 7, 3 years and counting with no lead up in sight. So when you do sign this ordinance, be aware of what it means and what's going to happen to the people of Santa Rosa. Blessings. My name is Catherine. I'm calling to comment on item 12.4 and I'm representing the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments. Good evening, Mayor Rogers and members of the City Council. I'd like to make three brief comments. First, kudos to Gabe Osborne who shepherded this ordinance through drafting, study sessions and COVID. I hope you'll pass the ordinance today so Gabe can get started on the Macro Tower ordinance before Senator Dodd and other state legislators who are heavily lobbied by the wireless industry preempt for a little control you have lost over safety and aesthetics for the city. I'm agreeing to not let perfect be the enemy of the good and urging you to pass it. Second, I hope that you'll consider instructing staff to add to the applications a request for a copy of signage on the stealth antennas. The public has a right to know where these antennas are and while they may be visually stealth and pleasing to some an antenna hidden inside a pole of a light post or camouflaged as a fake tree is not physically pleasing to those exposed. Parents have a right to protect their children and themselves. Lastly, today, the governor and the state legislature put the meat on the bones of the Governor Newsom's broadband bill. It includes $2 billion for last mile infrastructure lines to connect consumers, homes and businesses with local networks, a billion for urban and a billion for rural. I sincerely hope you'll become actively involved in our county's plans for broadband to ensure that Santa Rosa can consider creating its own publicly regulated affordable fiber optic wired municipally run or public private partnership run broadband system. It's the only way to close the digital divide. Unregulated high priced wireless carriers will not be able to accomplish this. Wired broadband is a thousand times faster, safer, cyber secure and reliable in weather and uses five times less energy than wireless. It's been called future proof because it's simple to upgrade. Again, unlike wireless, corporate unregulated wireless carriers will continue to push and rush to add antennas in a race to beat local governments. Their goal is only to make money and they won't close the digital divide. Our government's goals should be safety, equity and energy efficiency. The money's there, please take advantage of it. This is an incredible opportunity. Again, thank you for your work and stay safe as we open up. Hello, my name is Sydney Cox and I'm calling for agenda 12.4, the small cell ordinance adoption. First of all, it's great that there will be a wireless small cell policy that will give the city some measure of control over the placement of these things. I know you're greatly restrained by the FCC rulings and state mandates with more possibly coming. And I know you've had expert legal advice in creating this set of documents that comprises the ordinance. However, once again, looking at the bigger picture, I must add my voice to the others who are advocating for a municipal fiber network for Santa Rosa. A fiber network will give the connectivity we are looking for to bridge the digital divide without the need for small cells all over the city. Please do everything you can to make this a reality. Another thing we're looking for is the macro tower ordinance. So now I have to say what I'm deeply concerned about and what's actually on most people's minds. It's the elephant in the room that we're not supposed to talk about, but I have to talk about it. It's the fact that small cells and wireless facilities have been proven to cause health problems for many people. I know telecom won't let you deny the placement of small cells on the basis of health, but people are getting sick. Aren't you worried about this too? I'm so sorry that you as the governing body of Santa Rosa are stuck between a rock and a hard place with this and I'm not blaming you or staff, but I have to wonder something. Why do the small metal signs on the polls only warn workers of exposure with no mention of the levels of RF, radio frequency radiation? They are so unobvious that you really have to look for them. Here's what they say. Notice FCC regulated antennas affixed to this pole. RF exposure near antennas may exceed the FCC general population maximum exposure limit. Workers should maintain a minimum approach distance of 20 feet. Contact revising if the minimum approach distance cannot be maintained. First of all, does the general population know what those exposure limits are? Do people realize that the FCC exposure limits are two million to 10 million microwatts per meter squared and for only short term, such as 30 to 60 minutes? And how many people understand what RF emissions from these small cells radiate out that they radiate a lot more than 50 feet? When I took RF readings at five different small cell locations in Santa Rosa at varying distances, I found some of the highest readings at 100 feet or more. I sent the council a copy of my findings. So I'm RF sensitive. It was not easy for me to take those RF readings as I had to be near the small cells. When I'm exposed to RF for more than an hour, my head feels really tight. My eyes burn, it's behind my eyes. It feels like my brain is being squeezed. And what's that expression, like fight or flight? That's what I feel. Here in our house, we have no wifi, no smart meter, everything hardwired and my phone is turned off most of the time. I check messages once per day, no Bluetooth in my car. We've got a long haul here, my friends. I know if a small cell was 50 feet from my house, I'd have to move. I no longer be able to adjourn. My name is Sandra Guerra and this is for item 12.4. Thank you for your time working on this ordinance. Please direct your staff to quickly draft the ordinance for macro towers before the new state bills take effect at which time the city will be overburdened with permit applications. The macro tower ordinance must include emissions testing since multiple antennas will be emitting simultaneously. I urge the council to become active participants in the Sonoma County broadband planning. I urge the council members to pursue a municipal fiber network as a safer and faster alternative to the small cell build out. Wireless telecom companies are trying to build out their infrastructure so local municipalities will be convinced they don't need this fiber network. Of course, this will not eliminate the digital divide. During last summer study sessions, many people testified urging the council to start planning for wired broadband as a municipal slash community service to ensure rates are regulated and the digital divide will end. I must ask you, why is it that today's version of the ordinance added a sentence for telecom in number four, commencement of operations under conditions of approval. The operation of the approved facility shall commence no later than one month after the completion of the installation or the wireless encroachment permit will expire without further action by the city. And the new sentence reads, this period may be extended by the director of transportation for good cause shown. The revision occurred since the ordinance was introduced to council on June 29th, 2021. Where are any of the suggestions by Safe Tech for Santa Rosa? Why was corporate big telecom favored over your residents? FCC exposure guidelines are 10 million units, only for short-term 30-minute thermal effects, no long-term or biological effects, which is why the FCC guidelines are currently facing lawsuits. To compare, the council of Europe recommends 0.1 of those same units for sleeping areas and 1,000 for long-term exposure. The FCC is a captured agency, so please don't be fooled into thinking their exposure guidelines are safe. These 4G, 5G antennas are going to harm many people. It's just a matter of time for people to understand what is causing their health problems. Thank you. That concludes pre-recorded voice messages for consent. Thank you so much. I do see one additional hand has popped up via the Zoom for our consent calendar. Hannah? Hannah, are you able to unmute? Good evening, Mayor. Can you hear me? Yep, there you are. My apologies. Good evening, Mayor Rogers and council members. My name is Hannah Boris, speaking on behalf of Verizon Wireless. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on item 12.4, the proposed ordinance regulating wireless facilities in the right-of-way. We would like to thank council and staff for its efforts on this important topic and appreciate the friendly amendment made by council to the ordinance of the first reading regarding the commencement of operations requirement. Verizon supports the adoption of the ordinance subject to a key change regarding appeals. Section B2 under appeals on page 6 of the ordinance provides a process for automatic appeals to the city manager for applications that are approved based upon a finding that denial would result in effective prohibition under federal law. It's unclear what the criteria for this type of appeal would be, how the city could complete these automatic appeals within the federal shop clocks. Additionally, it's also unclear who the appellate would be in such a scenario, and typically a city manager would not have the appropriate training and expertise in federal law to adjudicate such matters. Verizon therefore respectfully requests that this requirement be removed. Additionally, Verizon requests that the council direct staff to make the necessary changes to the design standards outlined in Verizon's submitted redline comments in order to ensure that the design standards are feasible and consistent with FCC requirements. As outlined in the redline comments submitted to the city prior to the first hearing, many of the design standards are infeasible and conflict with PG&E requirements and will have the immediate effect of inhibiting Verizon's ability to deploy its network in Santa Rosa. It's our goal to work collaboratively with city staff to arrive at a code and standards that preserve the look and feel of your community while providing an efficient, workable and federally compliant process to deliver the services your residents, visitors, and businesses have come to expect. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comment on the proposed ordinance. Thank you, Hannah. That's the last hand that I see. So, Madam Vice Mayor, would you like to make a motion? I believe I want to make five motions. All right. Let's start with the first one. Okay. But I'm saying I'm making five due to the abstentions. I have to do each one. Okay, I move item 12.1 and wait for the reading of the text. Second. Motion by the Vice Mayor, second by Council Member Sweatham. Any discussion? Let's call the vote. Council Member Tibbets. Council Member Sweatham. Aye. Council Member Sawyer. Aye. Council Member Fleming. Aye. Council Member Alvarez. Aye. Vice Mayor Rogers. Aye. Mayor Rogers. Aye. That motion passes with six ayes Second. Vice Mayor moves. Second by Sweatham. Let's call the vote. Council Member Tibbets. Aye. Council Member Sweatham. Aye. Council Member Sawyer. Aye. Council Member Fleming. Aye. Council Member Alvarez. Aye. That motion passes with seven ayes. This is the one that Jack wanted to use himself of. That's why we took it separate. Council Member Tibbets, were you abstaining from that item? No, I was abstaining from 12.4 and 12.5. Okay. Sorry Natalie for any confusion. I do believe we can take 12.3, 12.4 and 12.5 altogether since both Council Member Fleming and Tibbets were absent on it. So Council Member Tibbets will be abstaining from 12.3. Let's do the motion for these next items and I believe he's abstaining. I move items 12.3 through 12.5 and wait for the reading of the text. Second. Alright, let's call the vote. Can I clarify who's second? That's Council Member Schwedhelm. Thank you. Council Member Schwedhelm. Aye. Council Member Sawyer. Aye. Council Member Alvarez. Aye. Council Member Rogers. Aye. That motion passes with five ayes with Council Members Fleming and Tibbets abstaining. Thank you. We do have two written communications for Council to look at. There's the notice of final map for Carrier Ranch 1 and notice of final map for Grove Village. Yes. And we'll also need to take public comment on non-agenda items. I was going to do that at item 17. Great. Thank you. Do we need to take public comment on the written communications? Yes. We'll take public comment. If you're interested in speaking, go ahead and hit the raise hand feature on Zoom, seeing none. We'll go ahead and close that. And we'll move on to item 17, which is our public comments for non-agenda items. If you are interested in speaking on non-agenda items, items that have not been discussed at today's Council meeting, go ahead and hit the raise hand feature on your Zoom. City Clerk, I don't see any hands. Do we have any pre-recorded voicemail public comments? Just one coming up. My name is Art Bach. I'm in the community now for over 40 years. Lately, I've noticed that there's been an increase in fireworks in our neighborhood. This is Corby Avenue in Baker. It doesn't seem like police can take care of all of it. There are not enough police. There's so many pockets of this going on that it's out of control. I would hope there would be an outreach or some kind of law that would make it stricter than no fireworks shot off illegally. It doesn't seem to matter to these people. This is disrupting our community. The elders are not doing well with their sleep. Our animals are going crazy and it's just really unfair. For the last several days before fireworks and even last night that was July 5th, fireworks were still being shot. I don't know what else I can say about this, but it's not fair. Fireworks are not only disrupted, but they're also bad for the environment. There's all kinds of toxics in those things. Dies and so forth. So that's my main thing for right now. Please consider doing something about this because it's out of hand. This community has grown by leaps and bounds and the police force has not. So thank you for listening and I hope something can be done. Thank you. Excellent. That's the end of our agenda for tonight. I do want to thank folks who stuck with us all the way through and of course to our incredible staff for sticking with us. With that we are adjourned.