 the city council meeting, Ms. Gomez, do you want to call the roll? Let the record show that all council members are present with the exception of council member Cohns, council member Sawyer, and Mayor Schwadhelm. So we had no closed session today. We have no proclamations. Mr. Acting City Manager, do we have a fire rebuild and recovery update? Good evening. Our afternoon, yes, we do. Megan Bassinger will be coming up and talking to us about a status update. Good afternoon. I'm Megan Bassinger, Housing and Community Services Manager. Tonight, I'll be providing you with a brief update on the CalHOME program. As you've been informed before, the Housing Authority of the City of Santa Rosa received $1.2 million from the State of California in the form of the CalHOME Disaster Assistance Program. This is to provide rebuilding gap financing to households that are at or below 80% of area median income to assist with their rebuilding efforts. A couple weeks actually last week, HCD notified us that the program is expanded to fire-impacted areas city-wide, so it is not just applicable to Coffee Park. We are awaiting HCD to provide us with the formal written amendment to our contract, but we are in the process of expanding the information city-wide and will be accepting applications. And just for the public to know, the current 80% for a family of four is $86,400. The other limitation on the program is that the post-rehab value of the home cannot exceed $645,000, and these are set forward by the State of California. So I'd be happy to answer any questions. Great. Councilor, are there any questions? Ms. Gomez, do we have any cards? Great. Is that it for our fire update? That's the extent of it. Excellent. We'll go on to City Manager and City Attorneys for Ports. Jason, do you want to start? Yeah, I do have a few items that I'd like to talk about. This Friday night in San Francisco, the northern section of the American Planning Association, California Chapter will be awarding the Planning and Economic Development Department with the following award of excellence in the category of Planning Agency for the Planning Division's work in both Development Review and Advanced Planning. These awards from the APA highlight the innovative work PED is doing to use land use policies, incentives, and process improvements to address the critical issues the city is facing, including rebuilding and recovery, the housing crisis, climate policy, and cannabis regulations. Next, over 200 seasonal temporary staff attended Recreation of Parks annual summer intervice training yesterday at the Finley Community Center. Staff from all program areas including aquatics, neighborhood services, sports, camps, community centers, and parks received a four-hour overview of city policies and procedures. The remainder of this week is dedicated to specialized training for each of the program areas before summer programs go into full swing next week. And then, lastly, as part of the Neighborhood Fest pilot programs, the Office of Community Engagement is collaborating with our public safety departments and community partners to support eight Santa Rosa neighborhoods in hosting a block party with a focus on basic emergency preparedness and social cohesion at the neighborhood level. Research has shown that the more connected neighbors are to each other, the stronger their resilience is during an emergency. The first event launches this Saturday, June 8th, at the Santa Rosa Charter for the Arts with events running through late August in various areas throughout Santa Rosa. So check out our website for other dates and locations at srcity.org-neighborfest. I should probably read that in its entirety, which is https-forward-srcity.org-neighborfest. We made it really easy. Thank you, Director. Thanks. Madam City Attorney. I have nothing to report this afternoon. Thanks. You don't have a website you want to start for us also? No, I'll make some up for next week. Okay, sounds great. Council, statements of abstention? Seeing none, we'll go on to mayors and council members' reports. Who wants to start? All right. It looks like we have nothing to report this evening. We have no minutes and we'll move on to our consent items. It's my pleasure to announce six consent items. Item 12.1, a resolution, second amendment to general services agreement number F001450 with sire industries incorporated. Item 12.2, resolution, authorization of the examination of transactions, sales and use tax records. Item 12.3, a resolution, a resolution authorizing the filing and execution of an application for funding from the federal transit administration, buses and bus facilities program for fiscal year 2019 and appropriating necessary matching funds. Item 12.4, a motion, contract award, annual slurry seal 2019. Item 12.5, motion, contract award, Franklin Avenue pedestrian path. And item 12.6, ordinance adoption, second reading, ordinance adding chapter 1-06 to the Santa Rosa City Code authorizing the use of electronic records and electronic and digital signatures. Thank you. Councillor, are there any questions on the consent calendar? I have two cards from George Uberti. George, you'll have three minutes to talk about both items. All right. 12.1, recommended by transportation, public works, water and finance departments that the council by resolution approved the second amendment to general services agreement that nonsense with our industries in California. So increasing unit prices by 6.1% and compensation by $200,000 for a total amount not to exceed $391,000 and 55 cents. I guess what I would like to substitute in lieu of my normal critique of things like this where we add amendments for obscene amounts of money on a regular basis is, I mean, it appears that this is a business as usual thing. And I guess what I would like to provide is a series of questions. What else can we do besides amending these contracts? What is wrong with them in the beginning that we have to amend them so frequently? I see that our other contracts, I mean, as I go through here, are built in with contingency plans, right, that kind of go into effect automatically in a way where they don't need to be actively amended by you all. I don't understand why it is that we are so cavalier with our money. This is not a small amount of money, right? I mean, especially per, I mean, once a week, I'm in here every week with you guys and every single week I see one of these, right? 6.1% is not a small amount, right? We're talking about a million dollars. This is just one contract, one week. 52 weeks in a year, all right? There'll be two or three of these a week. This can't go on, all right? It exceeds the amounts that are budgeted. I mean, it's representative of poor governance, of poor planning. I mean, what is governance if it's not an anticipation of the services that you're going to provide people with? I mean, and if we fail, if we build in failure of that very basic function of government on a weekly basis, then we're not building a government, we're building a failure. We can't do that. I mean, we can't do that. We can't just keep wetting ourselves every week and just acting like it's not happening. It is happening, all right? It's a problem, okay? And we can't just call it an amendment instead of a problem and act like nothing is happening. Something is happening, all right? We need to pay attention to it. We need to treat it like the problem that it is, and we need to change it, all right? This is not something that is beyond the scope of our abilities. We are intelligent adults. We are fully capable of planning in an accurate way for what our contracts will cost. And by planning the opposite of that, we're planning to lie to ourselves. We're not liable to be a proponent of what the law says. The law has no good. What the law says is no good can come with that. Thank you, Mr. Ubergt, Frank Egger. I'm sorry. I thought you said three on each where I apologize, Mr. Ubergt. Usually on the consent calendar, people get three minutes. I'll give you an extra minute if you want to talk about it. I don't need an extra. You told me I had three per item. I thought it was like two items or no. Mayor and City Council Frank Eger the owner of 1563 65 Franklin Avenue we've owned that property for over four decades we've been in Sedoma County since 1918 I graduated from Santa Rosa JC my wife graduated from Santa Rosa I'm sorry Santa Rosa actually Montgomery High School she went over to the new school after at the double sessions and we've provided affordable housing at that location for families of children for four decades today we have three children living in that home there's a seven-year-old and eight-year-old and a three-year-old we're really concerned about the health safety and welfare of our tenants we provide affordable housing if I told you the rates and that we pay a lot of the utilities you'd go this is crazy how can you afford to do that but that's what we do to provide affordable housing at Santa Rosa this plan has some good parts and it's got some bad parts the bad part is while the staff says it is sequence it's either secret exempt or or is a mitigated negative deck if I could just speak to that quickly the the last heritage oak tree that sits on Franklin Avenue in the in in in the district it's about a 300-year-old oak tree and this this this sidewalk will excavate behind that sidewalk and we'll cut into the roots and we're really concerned about about the safety of that tree figure five years after the excavation that tree may not make it excuse me on the issue of the sidewalk we've moved our fence back we've removed shrubbery and trying to make way for for for that that the walkway one of the problems is once once you urbanize a portion of Franklin Avenue like that you're going to speed up the traffic I've brought a radar unit up there and clock those vehicles at 55 miles an hour the only way to stop slow that traffic down is put a three-way stop arterial at Monroe and Franklin you know whenever you get some of your motors out there they could write tickets all day long it's really important for the health and safety of the children to use that the the bridge school there at the corner of Monroe and Franklin as a sweeps around on the Monroe side there's one about a 30-year-old sycamore tree that we're hoping you could they could work around I've met with your engineer and your public works director Jason that out there in the site it's really close I don't know if we could move our fence in a bit more to say that that 30 year old sycamore tree it provides shade to the yard for the kids and it's just important to have but anyway you know it's a project that's worthwhile but with a few a few minor tweaks around our property we would appreciate that very much thank you thank you mr. Mayor director if you could respond a little bit tell us a little bit about amendments that you've tried to make and if there's a possibility to make some of those yeah we had a pleasant discussion with with mr. Eger and his wife out on the property walked around with the plans and looked at the different areas I'm I've been talking with our project engineer who's who's leading this effort about the one sycamore tree that's adjacent to their driveway and whether or not there's adjustments we can make in order to have that happen it appears in order to save the sycamore in place we would have to acquire additional rights of way on the property we haven't at this point in the game spoken further with mr. Eger about that and what additional timeline that would that cause on to the project in regards to the oak tree on the on the Franklin side our arborist did look at the design itself and concluded that the sidewalk wouldn't have a negative long-term impact on the root structure and it was designed that way I do recognize in talking to mr. Eger that they he's had many instances where he's looked at trees and how sidewalks have impacted and and it's potentially two different viewpoints to the same problem we don't have any reason to conclude that the arborist isn't acting appropriately on this particular project and we feel that it's it's going to be reasonable to keep that oak alive moving forward yeah thank you I just wanted to address some of the comments and say that I'm grateful that we're getting sidewalk in this neighborhood I am you know concerned as mr. Eger is about both the the trees going forward as well as the you know flooding is an issue on that in that area and just safety and I want to echo comments about people using that as a cut through in in my neighborhood so the other thing I'm curious about is you know does the arborist that we're using to evaluate the ability of the tree especially the oak to survive does that arborist have experience dealing with construction around these types of trees I'll have to ask Greg Dwyer to come down I would assume that we hire arborist to fulfill the duty that we're looking at it is a construction project and so we typically would advertise and solicit for individuals who have that experience but but I'll let Greg speak more directly to the specific contractor good afternoon members of the council I'm Greg Dwyer with transportation and public works I'm the project engineer for the Franklin Avenue pedestrian path project it's the arborist is a certified arborist they were provided the the pavement structural section to to to see how deep the cut would be into the root system and they're familiar with what these specific trees can take and survive and we were able to actually save the tree Mr. Eggers talking about by making the pathway go behind it we had to move relocate part of his fence which was in city right away and thankful that he did that we're able to move forward with the project we were able to save all the trees except for two that were recommended to be removed because they're dead regardless of the project and the other one is the sycamore tree in front of Mr. Eggers home which is right in the middle of the sidewalk so unfortunately there's there's no way around that to be 88 compliant but I'm happy that and proud that we're able to save all the trees you know and that's why we hired a professional arborist to devaluate the trees because they have that certification to look at the proposed cut that we're going to be doing to that root system make a decision if that tree is going to be survive it wasn't like it it may it's a very high probability it's you know like no to no impact great thank you um additionally I was I do appreciate your due diligence on it and and your confidence in the arborist I'm curious about the potential environmental impacts if the sycamore so the sycamore will be removed it sounds like there's no option for that not to be removed is that correct correct okay so our will we be experiencing any additional environmental impacts there was a mitigation referenced in terms of the environmental impacts of this project and I just want to make sure that our residents know what steps we have taken to address those the one thing that we're going to do is to go out two weeks prior to construction and do a nesting bird evaluation that was the only requirement that was needed I ran it through our through our city environmental person and talked about our project the impacts they recommended the arborist study we did that we also reached out to per AB 52 to the Indian tribes as well we did our due diligence and this the one remaining item was just the the nesting bird survey which we will do and will we get a chance to hear back or about that when it's completed or get a report or something it's it's a I don't mean to be difficult about something that's probably business as usual for us it's a really special area that area between Franklin and the Royal Cemetery and I'm just sensitive to the fact that it's also one of the only four areas in Santa Rosa that's prone to flooding so just a little bit cautious about it but not not questioning your due diligence or how hard you guys are working I can address the flooding I actually went out during a couple of big downpours in the winter ahead of time to watch the the water flow over there and I'm and I'm familiar I looked at the grading plans for the area I looked at at historical grading and so forth and one of the things we try not to do for drainage law is not change traditional historic drainage routes we want to try to maintain that as much as possible there's no underground storm drain system around Mr. Eggers home the nearest one is on McDonald's a 15 inch it's undersized the next one's on the street behind it on car and I'm not even sure if that has enough capacity but what we didn't want to do is send more water to another area and impact them because whatever we do it's going to make somebody better somebody worse we want to keep it the way it's going so we're putting in a slotted curb to protect to protect the pedestrians from the cars but it's still allow the water to maintain its historic drainage patterns it will not get any worse it will not get any better it will maintain the same historic flow that it's going to address the drainage that would have to be a whole set a whole another project with a with a hydraulic analysis of the whole area and look at the whole storm drain system and see if you can even bring pipes in there or system of pumps or there's a lot of water coming off that hill and I do appreciate your attention to this and thank you and as we when we met with mr. Eggers and his neighbors we committed to coming back with another project in the future to evaluate the drainage issues thank you can't find any other questions and just director I did hear also a concern about speeding cars through the neighborhood we'll continue to talk going forward on that make sure that that's addressed as well councilmember Fleming are you looking for me to entertain a motion yep okay I would like to move the consent items one through six and wait for the reading of the text second votes council thanks mayor Rogers did you and that passes with five eyes it not being five o'clock yet we will bypass the first public comment for non-agenda items we'll go on to item 14.1 director item 14.1 is measure M a traffic relief act for Sonoma County from 2004 expenditure plan reallocation and I get to do the presentation are you switching chairs it's more convenient with the computer in front of me if you'd rather me sit over there I'd happy to I appreciate the comedic effect continue director I always got to bring a little humor right so we are here this afternoon to kind of discuss well to discuss an issue relating to our measure M local streets projects if you recall back in 2004 measure M the was approved by the voters in Sonoma County to provide a additional funding to transportation projects throughout the county primary emphasis having been on the highway 101 project however recognition that local streets in different forms in different areas required additional funding and so they created an expenditure plan that that divided up the revenue sources from that measure and sales tax to items such as local road repair local streets projects transit smart bike and pet and so each of those categories received a certain percentage of the of the revenue received during the course of the expenditure plan local agencies were asked to develop the local streets projects and in Santa Rosa we submitted three specific projects that we wanted to utilize measure M funds in an effort to help deliver those three projects where the Herne Avenue interchange improvements the farmers lane extension and Fulton Road improvements over the course of the last 14 years we've been diligently working to try to deliver these projects to be quite frank it's been a little challenging but we've actually received quite a bit of headway on most of them the and I'll get into some of those details here in a moment where we're at right now is is the fate we are currently working on and almost finished with the design of the phase 3 of the Herne Avenue interchange improvements which is the actual design of the over crossing component itself we've and so where we're trying to actively search for a construction funds to help deliver that project and bring it to fruition as you recall this last year in 2018 transportation and public works submitted for a federal build grant and we were unsuccessful however we received extremely positive feedback from the U.S. Department of Transportation and we were encouraged by that department to resubmit again this year making a certain series of alterations one of those was to acknowledge that the cost shares by the current federal administration is really looking to increase the local share amount and not necessarily look to have the local share amount be at the lowest possible allowed by the grant in addition we've also identified that there is other grants available that have a 50-50 match requirement to them that this project would be applicable for and so that's part of what brought this particular request about so to talk about the specific projects just to remind you Herne Avenue interchange is not just the interchange it's the streets leading up to the interchange if you Santa Rosa Avenue was widened several years ago and completed back in 2014 that provided additional lanes from Baker down to Yolanda it's very successful project it's been quite a relief to a lot of folks in that community in addition we did some widening on Herne Avenue and almost entirely complete from Dutton Avenue to Corby there's one lane that's that's needing to be completed in the future on the reason it wasn't completed at that time was we didn't have access to the railroad right of way whether or not we need it moving forward will probably come out as a function of the upcoming general plan evaluation but lastly is the interchange itself so it's taking these two end pieces and combining it into a contiguous traffic flow to make this portion of town work for the type of development that we expect to occur the other project is farmers lane extension we've talked about this in a number of different ways farmers lane extension has two phases the first phase goes from Bennett Valley Road to Kiwana Springs Road and then the second phases Kiwana Springs to Petaluma Hill Road these this project is 95 percent designed it has an environmental certification to it and it is in general ready to begin to deliver again from the standpoint of financing we estimate this to be about a 40 million dollar project measure m has about nine million dollars set aside to support it and we don't have adequate local funds to do provide the match this is something we're continuing to work on but based on discussions that we've had with council in different settings we find this to be a lower priority than the Herne Avenue interchange project lastly on the local streets projects is the Fulton Road improvements and this is also a two-phased project with the first phase having been the widening of Fulton Road between Gernville Road and Wood Road we were successful earlier on in the program of working with a developer to widen the section between Pine Road and Wood Road and it's been a phenomenal project at this point supporting that community and as you've heard and supported through our budgets over the last year we are in the process of widening though the second section of that which is Gernville Road to Pine Road in an effort to make a contiguous four lane facility throughout the entire stretch of town the second phase however is an interchange project and this project was identified and recommended as part of the southwest area development strategy and it would be converting what currently is a signalized intersection Fulton Road with Highway 12 to a full service interchange similar to that that's at Stony Point Road again it's a project that is probably about a 40 million dollar total completion project Measure M sets aside 10 million dollars to assist we don't have the local match right now to complete that with that said the remaining portion of phase one that's currently under construction is fully funded we do have adequate local and and matching resources to make that project go forward and be completed here in the upcoming years in order for us to request that the scta reallocate funds in an effort to help us deliver the most the highest priority we have to follow policy 4.19 in their strategic plan and it lists a series of criteria that that we as the city need to make in an effort to request that they shift money from one of the city's projects to the other it's not uncomplicated however as i've outlined in the staff report the herna avenue interchange project definitely meets all of those criteria it is a project that's desperate for matching funds it is a project that that would be borrowing money or taking money from another project within the same category of funds and we feel confident that working with our partners at scta that we can comply with the puc section working through the public noticing standpoint so the rationalization that we came up with was that the herna avenue phase two project is the furthest behind in the delivery phase it has had no work completed to date other than being shown as a necessity in the future with the 10 million dollars that's currently or oriented towards that project we're and we believe that that would be better served shifting to the herna avenue project to deliver that we've recognized that not only has the 2019 build grant be issued and we believe that we're a good candidate for that build grant that would be federal money coming in but the sb-1 now that it's solidified through the failure of measure of proposition six in november they now are starting to solicit projects for their local partnership program and and we believe that this is a great project for that as well the local partnership program requires a one-to-one match we believe that that a one-to-one match makes perfectly good sense also for the build grants and so the action that we're looking for counsel to take really does specify how we're going to accomplish soliciting funds through both of those programs and others that come up so with that what we're asking to do is take about nine and a half million of the 10 million dollars uh associated with the folton road phase two project and have that reallocated to the herna avenue interchange that leaves about half a million dollars in the folton road and in the near future that would be enough money for us to initiate the project initiation document that caltrans requires to determine the need the orientation and what type of project would be going at that location so we feel comfortable that it doesn't kill the project it just it just pairs it down to the next piece of work that would need to occur there so with that i we're asking that the council council adopt a resolution requesting that the sonoma county transportation authority reallocate nine and a half million dollars of local streets project program funds that's delegated through the measure and expenditure plan from folton road improvements to the herna avenue interchange project and i'm happy to answer any questions about that thank you director questions council member soyer sorry so curious any question with the timing and you mentioned in the staff report 45 days um how do you make that work yeah unfortunately i will say we are a little bit behind the ball um recognizing where we're at uh there's nothing in the build grant application that requires the 50 50 match we would like to specify that that's our intention in the build grant application uh and and we'll work through the scta process on a parallel course thank you all right we have one public comment on this and sealy good afternoon mayor and council and sealy speaking for concerned citizens for san arosa before you take the recommended action i would appreciate and i'm sure many people would an examination of using the farmers lane extension funds instead it would be helpful to find out what are the requirements with the funds that have been gathered for that project whether they are available for use in other projects that that project feels like a dinosaur and i think it's time to recognize that so please ask your staff to examine that and perhaps tell the public too about its costs and these requirements thank you thank you miss ealy so director i'll ask you that question uh we've talked a little bit about the farmers lane extension why should we keep it despite the fact i'm a traffic engineer and i think it's important project anyway there are a couple of reasons why we chose the Fulton road project instead of the farmers lane one we're in the process of working through the southeast greenway environmental study that environmental study is demonstrating that without the farmers lane extension project that traffic conditions worsen to a to a level of service that may be unacceptable to the community the other is is given the nature of our experiences with wildland urban interfaces needing for the necessity for evacuation routes it's very clear that the highway 12 corridor and its intersection not only with farmers lane but also the interchange at highway 101 are far deficient to be able to provide what might be the need for wholesale evacuations i would say in the instance that we had here while it was significant a larger event that could occur in the future would would overwhelm the system in a large way having that additional arterial in the southeast part of town moving traffic to another interchange on 101 would provide an additional outlet for the wildland urban interface that sits in the southeast part of the community and so based on where we sit in our current environment that was the the rationale that we came up with there's nothing that says we can't take the money from the farmers lane extension project and so we we made a staff recommendation and that's how this is this was how we came up with it so understanding that you could look at the farmers lane extension as a critical evacuation route do you think hazard mitigation dollars could potentially come available to help us complete that i i believe it it is a possibility and in all of the correspondence we've had with our federal legislators relating to the need to improve evacuation routes look at hazard mitigation evaluate what we need to do in the future to improve our emergency preparedness farmers lane extension is one of three key projects that we've presented to them uh in addition to widening of shenate as well as the reconstruction of the mendicino over crossing great thank you councilmember swir let's get a motion on the table i'll introduce the resolution of the council the city of santa rosa requesting the sonoma county transportation authority we allocate 9.5 million of measure in or traffic relief act for sonoma county 2004 funds within the local street projects portion of the expenditure plan from the full and road improvements project to the herne avenue interchange improvements project and wait for the reading are there any other comments questions great council your vote and that does pass with five eyes thank you director item 14.2 item 14.2 a report waterways advisory committee composition and jessica jones supervising planner speaking are you sure you want to sit in that chair i just need to get it ready for her and make sure the computer was warmed up i appreciate the warm chair thank you uh good afternoon uh vice mayor rogers members of the council the item before you as was mentioned is the waterways advisory composition what we are looking at is revising the composition of the waterways advisory committee currently the committee is made up of nine members one member from the planning commission one member from the design review board and board of community services four at large citizen members and two members of our city council and so what is before you is a proposal to reduce the total number down to seven so just a bit of background on the waterways advisory committee it was formed in 1995 the purpose behind it at that time was really to look at potential development adjacent to santa rosa creek over time it has kind of morphed and evolved we have added members throughout the years which you can see here on this side um the most recent addition to the waterways advisory committee was in 2010 when we added an additional at-large citizen and then in 2012 with the redevelopment agency disillusion the member associated with that was eliminated so we actually did have 10 members on the on the waterways advisory committee initially so the current purpose and role of the committee is to review all development projects both public and private that are located adjacent to creeks and waterways throughout the city the committee does not take formal action on any of the items before them but rather provides advisory comments which are then forwarded on to the decision-making body whether that be the planning commission design review board cultural heritage board or ultimately the city council and again this is for any project located adjacent to creeks and waterways and really what they're trying to do is look at how those developments impact the creek and how they address policies and goals within the city's general plan citywide creek master plan and the zoning code so as I mentioned the committee is currently made up of nine members it is a brown act committee because it is a council appointed committee so we do or we are subject to quorum requirements quorum of nine is five members and in recent years we have had difficulty in obtaining quorums for our meetings and it is extremely impactful for the projects that come before them you know again they don't make a decision but they are providing advisory comments to the decision-making body so project that is coming before them we don't have a quorum for we then have to continue that project and that does include our housing projects you know which are obviously a big priority for us the as a so the the specifics of the proposal that's before you is to reduce the committee down to seven including one member each from the planning commission board of community services and design review board and the four at-large members so that would eliminate the two council member positions um staff has found that council members are as you all know because you are council members and your your plates are very full and so it's very hard for you to get to meetings and so by reducing the committee down to seven it still keeps the committee made up of members that are representative of the council but does not require you to actually come to the meetings so with that we are recommending that you revise the composition as I discussed and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have council member Fleming thank you vice mayor what is the quorum requirements for this particular committee so with as a nine-member committee a quorum is five if it is reduced down to seven members it would be four just like it is here not all of our committees do the 50 plus one so I just wanted to make sure that you would be feel confident that you'll be able to achieve a quorum yeah I think with uh with a requirement of four for a quorum um I think that would make it much easier for us to hold meetings okay thank you who are current representatives and have you had a chance to speak with them uh so uh our current representatives I'd have to let me see I can try to go off memory here for the planning commission we have Paddy Sisco from the design review board we have um Adam Sharon from the board of community services we have Carol Quant um and then we have Kevin C as a at-large member um Steve Rabinowitz Art Dikey and I'm blanking on our fourth um but uh um so I'm sorry what was the other part of your question well and who are the two council representatives and have you had a chance to speak to folks yes yes so our two council representatives are um council member Combs and council member Tibbets um and we have had I've had an opportunity to talk to all of our committee members including the council members and they have all been very supportive of this change okay council member Tibbets yeah I was just going to say that the the genesis of this action actually came up at I think two meetings ago um I got called in last minute because chair Rabinowitz is going through some personal issues and um we have always been right on that line of quorum and uh I looked over to Art Dikey who's now the chair the acting chair rather and said you know I think it's time that we just reduce the quorum number so and he wholeheartedly agreed and he thanked me for actually making that step because I think council attendance at and just general attendance too I mean we've had a lot of the members at large also be absent at the wrong time um it's going to help them do the work that they need to do there any other questions from council do we have any cards okay uh council member oliveris do you want to make the motion thank you vice mayor I'll move resolution with council city of san rosa revising the composition of the waterways advisory committee to a seven member committee comprising of one member each from the planning commission designer view board and board of committee services and four at-large citizen members and we furthered in the text second your votes and that will pass with four eyes with myself voting no so we are not yet at five o'clock uh so we will take a brief recess and come back for public comment for items not on the agenda and uh public hearings will actually take the public hearings before the public comment all right I'm going to bring us back and move on to item 15.1 our public hearing item 15.1 is public hearing adoption of electric vehicle charge station fee schedule for use of city-owned electric vehicle charging stations uh zack brand fleet superintendent will be presenting good evening vice mayor rogers and city council members i'm zack brand fleet superintendent for the city of san rosa's transportation public works department i'm here this evening to speak to you about ev charger rate infrastructure with me is jason nut director of public works do uh save me when i bail out of this a little background in 2010 the city and sonoma county joined a consortium of bay area agencies to install ev chargers stations through a federal grant program the city installed 13 charges at various locations including several in park and garages downtown luguna treatment plant rail road square and our corporation center on the other side of town in 2017 this tpw upgraded all the ev stations using city funds budget and fleet with the addition of four additional chargers in courthouse square that were funded through a grant the city currently contracts with an outside agency charge point that processes payments collects data and provides phone based driver support for a fee in 2010 the regional consortium focus was to encourage ev use not full cost recovery after analyzing user data the county sonoma updated their ev charging station rates in 2017 the updated rate structure encouraged more turnover and gets us closer to full recovery for the program san rosa currently recovers approximately 60 percent of the program costs in 2018 the regional climate protection authority with representatives from sonoma county transportation authority sonoma county and other local cities recommended standardizing our rates standardizing the rates will bring the city to almost 90 percent of his recovery costs our current rate structure has been in effect since 2010 and has not changed ev drivers can expect to see a one to two dollar increase per session with this rate change in addition to showing your package but not in the slide there is a ten dollar fee per hour for sessions exceeding four hours this was designed to promote a higher utilization rate for the ev chargers it is recommended by the transportation and public works department and finance department that the council by resolution approved an updated pricing structure for the city operated electric vehicle charging stations that are available to the public a charter proposed structure is included in exhibit a and i'm mr. nutt and i are here to answer any questions council any questions do individuals who park say at courthouse square they pay for both parking and they pay for the electricity is that correct that's what i understand this is council member fundings i'd like to move item 15.1 adoption of electric vehicle charging station fee schedule for use of city-owned electric vehicle charging stations and waive further reading of the text second and i apologize i do have to open the public hearing thank you is there anybody who'd like to speak on this item saying none i'll close the public hearing there's a motion on the table was there a second council member tidbit seconds council your votes that passes with five eyes we'll move on to item 15.2 item 15.2 is a public hearing proposed new and revised fire department fees scott moon fire marshal presenting or not presenting instead it looks like paul lowenfall and ian good evening vice mayor members of the council good evening vice mayor rogers members of the council my name is paul onthal assistant fire marshal joined by assistant fire marshal ian hardidge filling in for scott moon this evening like thank you for the opportunity to present the proposed fee materials related to the fire department activities the fire department has evaluated several fees and identified proposed adjustments to the current adopted fee schedule the proposed adjustments will allow for continued administration of effective fire and environmental safety programs of existing operations new emerging industries as well as activities not currently recovering associated staff time and program costs the details of the proposed fees for the fire department were supplied to finance department in advance of this presentation have been broken down in exhibit a for your review and consideration they're broken down into three separate categories one is an administrative permit fee we have two new operational permits and 13 operational permits that we currently had in our fee schedule but didn't have a fee associated with them so they now have a fee as well as four new construction permits and three existing construction permits that previously had no a fee fee associated with them based on them being in the the exhibit hey um we'd like to thank you for your time and consideration and support for the fire department proposed fees for fiscal year 1920 and happy to answer any questions council do we have any questions so we're going to open our public hearing uh do we have any cards miss comas again you don't have to fill out a card to speak but we'll start with george uberty hold on one second let's get that microphone on all right go ahead short uh thank you um i would like to talk about what we are enabling ourselves to do uh through the administration of these fees i mean a full i if i understand correctly uh of the non-construction related fees a full third of the fees we're adding are related to administration uh specifically i mean um how these fees are being collected what they're being collected for uh and what once they are collected they'll be used for i mean these are statements of value right i mean we're ascribing these things a certain level of value by attaching fees to them and then how we use those fees is another declaration of value we say we need this right because this thing is valuable right so number one i think it's important for us to understand that though this may seem dry right this may seem like it's a sort of ineffectual sort of routine thing it is in fact a very emphatic statement of value if you're going to have a house here if you're going to be a citizen of sonoma really in a final way right you must value these things and you must value them in accordance to what we say is valuable here right now right we have the power to do that all right now i've i've talked to you before about this kind of affect that is very typical right this kind of business as usual sort of thing that we have going on in our city council right where we behave as though oh our hands are tied are bound but that's not what's going on all right what's going on in this room right here right now is a statement of value right it's an exercise it's it's where the stuff that is in here in our city comes out and becomes a part of the architecture of anyone who lives here right this matters this is valuable exactly this much for exactly these reasons okay that's what we're doing right now i call your attention to the negative a lot right but i think that's a positive thing right i think it's a positive thing that we do that right and i think we need to recognize that it's a positive thing okay and i think that we need to make sure when we're doing this that what we value is the right things all right what we need to value is the people who have been grotesquely undervalued by this society right and i'm talking about our homeless nobody deserves i don't care why they're out there nobody deserves to live on the screen out there all right those people are dying they don't deserve that all right now while we're here making these statements of value we're saying you want to own a home here this is what you have to value well you know what you have to value to live in this city human life all right thank you thank you mr birdsy is there anybody else who would like to speak on the item i'm going to close the public hearing and i'll bring it back mr loan thought so these fees are for services that we are already currently providing is that correct so i think the his answer is questioned regarding the administration they're broken down to three different categories so one of his concern regarding the administrative fee that fee is actually for physical work that's being done to provide fire watch in the event that staff need to recoup their time for a fire watch the other fees are primarily broken down into two different categories either existing fee that we sorry existing permit that we had under our fee schedule but did never had never had an operational actual fee associated with the scope of work so now we will have a fee associated with them a majority of them we haven't needed to bill or recoup our costs associated with them we'd rather now attach a fee to them so in the event there is the one off or something outside the box we can have that captured the other ones are now part of the new emerging technology that we talked about for example in the cannabis industry there's now permits that we have to now capture the work that's being put up performed by staff through the fee schedule everything else remains the same so some of these and in particular in cannabis we've heard a number of comments from the public about trying to get the staff attention for lack of a better way to put it to get these proposals through faster will having the fee help us to move projects faster because they'll help to pay for the actual staff time sure Ian Hardage system fire marshal yes the all the recovery costs go back to help support the staff that's performing the service and is it a hundred percent cost recovery that's that's the plan that is part of what the so our fees are based off of a comprehensive fee analysis that we did where we truly break down what the staff time is associated with all these different scopes of work so that is the goal is to is to recoup as much staff time that's being dedicated towards these functions right just for the for the public's benefit there is on the website one of the attachments provided for this item is the full fee schedule as well as the justification from the study that is correct yeah councillor are there any other questions okay councilmember tidbits i move a resolution of the council of the city of san rosa adopting new and revised fire department fees within the city's fee schedule and waive for the reading of the text your votes and that will pass with five eyes we will come back now to public comment for items not on the agenda for folks who this is your first time everybody has three minutes to make comments about items that we weren't discussing tonight but due to the brown act we actually can't engage in the back and forth but it is an opportunity to let us know if there's something that we're missing so we're going to start with tyler i apologize ludler followed by alan thomas is this on all right hello my name is tyler brian ludlow thank you for your time and attention i'd like to speak to the matter meeting the need for our action supports constituents in santa rosa according to the tony hawk foundation leaders in public skatepark advocacy santa rosa needs 35 000 square feet of skatable space we're grateful for the city santa rosa's commitment to the original skatepark at 10 000 square feet and the additional skatable spots in the roseland area but we believe um well at least about 23 24 000 square feet left we believe it's time to work towards meetings in the need meeting the city's need to create a new skatepark one that considers contemporary design and function as the older skatepark isn't up to modern standards by our calculation the new skatepark should be sized around 10 000 square feet consisting or costing 450 000 dollars our group the center of the skatepark coalition is not asking for not asking you to do this for us we're willing and planning to do most of the work and would like to work alongside the city for guidance we've already con connected with mary lou nickles jinn santhos from the parks department and are aware of the unique circumstances of rebuilding the various parks damaged by the fires as well we were prepared for the long-term commitment we're also working with the tony hawk foundation to make sure the skatepark is created efficiently and made up to contemporary standards we'd like to aim for having one monthly meeting with the city to stay on track toward our goal and if there's anyone interested in learning more getting involved i'm happy to grab a coffee take a call or just discuss it online we have a facebook group you can follow called the sander is a skatepark coalition that's https colon slash slash facebook.com slash s far skatepark coalition which you can use to keep update on developments and it's currently our primary means to share content with our supporters but you can also feel free to contact me at tylerblodlow at gmail.com that's tylerblodlow at gmail.com thanks all right thanks so much sir alan thomas good evening vice mayor rogers alan thomas 306 boy street i'm here to follow up on my comments from last week regarding kind of the city and the lack of a response that we've had from city staff regarding the boating issue i don't have an overhead so i can't really show you this but there's an article here from the press democrat from february second 2015 in 2016 excuse me but in august of 2015 we have four of the council members that were sitting on the board or at the council at that point they had asked city staff to come back um with some information about the status or the use permits the whatever whatever was germane to the boating asphalt plant so this the mayor and the and all seven council members direct the staff to come up with a report reflecting what could and can and cannot happen at the plant so fast forward or slow forward to february of the following year staff shows up basically has no idea um the neighbors have all kinds of information stating things um i i know um council member soyer made a comment quoted in the article the mayor was quoted in the article chris corsie um at the time and i'll read a little bit from the article here said um what's going on why can't council member chris corsie asked would seem like a straightforward question but the answer was far from simple he asked city attorney caroline fowler whether the city had the right to shut down the plant if it was out of compliance with the city noise ordinance which it happens to be her answer was it depends on how much out of the clients the plant is and how strong the city's no noise ordinance is she noted that the city had not brought such a case in many many years quote trying to shut down the business of this magnitude based on the information that we have um would be would be able would not be able to be done without going to court and there would be significant legal hurdles fowler said so just to put this in context this is what do we do so we're four three months away from four years and we still haven't had an answer um and i understand that there's there's lots of you know legal wrangling and things like that but as a citizen i'm asking you folks what ordinances if the noise ordinance is being broken it was acknowledged almost four years ago that it was being broken and what's going on you need to come clean have an agendized meeting i know you can't say anything right now i'm not asking you to but bring it back and explain the city's position in public thank you thank you mr. thomas sing no other cards for public comment oh do we have one go ahead thank you for the opportunity to speak um i was speaking the last time was two weeks ago about the fires and the recurrence of the fires so there was an 1851 fire there was a 1906 fire which was looked like an earthquake but if you take away the earthquake and you see what happened with the fire um it was a fire and it was wind driven according to the records and and and those things then we have a 1964 fire and we have a 2017 fire and so that's a 55 year gap a 58 year gap and a 53 year gap and if you take out 1906 you don't there's no connection between 1851 and 1964 you don't really understand that this is a periodic thing now that's not to say that that the same period will exist in the future because we do have climate change as an overlaying item the point is is that it was a very very cyclical thing in which huge numbers of people perished um for instance uh the anniversary of d-day is coming up right now there were 4,000 people lost on Omaha Beach 4,000 people were killed on Omaha Beach Americans were killed on Omaha Beach we remember that tremendously about 3,000 i think it was 2,800 died in the twin towers um a little over 3,000 people died uh in um uh in Hawaii in the um the attack of the Japanese at that Pearl Harbor a little over 3,000 about 3,300 i think um massive numbers 3,000 people were burned to death in San Francisco in the 1906 fire 3,000 people and so when people say oh this is largest fire Paris uh paradise is the largest fire the California's ever had no no far far from that um it's a massive fire absolutely no doubt about it but these were wind driven fires in an urban area like we had paradise wasn't exactly so urban as we are and my point about this is that we really have to develop in san francisco they were able to prevent and put out the fires when they had water available in the earthquake they didn't have water available uh they brought they had thousands of feet you can read the records it's a thousands of feet 10,000 feet of of uh fire lines that they laid coming up from the bay and from fire boats they have fire boats all around where the fire boats could reach they put out the fires where there was water they put out the fires that's what we need to do we don't need to have fire boats but we need to have water available and then we need to be able to apply that on the fires thank you thank you so much mr else anybody else all right with that we are adjourned