 meeting. Madam City Clerk will you please call roll. Councilmember Stapp. Here. Councilmember Rogers. Here. Councilmember O'Crepkey. Here. Councilmember Fleming. Here. Councilmember Alvarez. Present. Vice Mayor McDonald. Here. And let the record show Councilmember Rogers or pardon me Mayor Rogers is absent. Thank you Madam City Clerk. We are now going to go into closed session but will you please conduct a public comment please. Thank you we are now taking public comment on item 2.1 2.2 and 2.3 is listed on the agenda. If you are in the council chamber although there is no one in council chamber wishing to provide public comment. If you are participating via zoom please raise your hand or dial star nine. You will have three minutes and a countdown timer will alert at the end of that period. Madam Vice Mayor I see no hands being raised via zoom therefore we conclude public comment. Thank you so much we will now go into our closed session. Good afternoon everyone thank you for joining us for our July 25th 2023 meeting. Thank you to those of you in chambers to our staff and members of the council that are present. It is 4.03 and we're going to call this meeting to order. Madam City Clerk will you please call roll. Thank you Vice Mayor. Council Member Stapp. Here. Council Member Rogers. Here. Council Member Ocracki. Here. Council Member Fleming. Here. Council Member Alvarez. President. Vice Mayor McDonald. Here. And let the record show that Mayor Rogers will be absent today. Thank you so much. We are now going to announce any reportable actions taken during closed session. Madam City Attorney. Thank you Madam Vice Mayor. The council met in closed session on three items today. I do want to note that Mayor Rogers did participate in the closed session on item 2.1. She participated remotely due to a medical emergency. She participated with the approval of the council under AB 2449. So council met on three items. Item 2.1 was a conference with labor negotiators concerning the city attorney position. Council gave the negotiator directions and took no final action. Item 2.2 is a conference with legal counsel regarding existing litigation. So regarding the case of Palayo versus utility partners of America. The council gave direction to legal counsel. And no final action was taken on that item either. And finally the council met on item 2.3 which is a conference with real property negotiator. And it concerns state owned lands, excess lands located between Farmer's Lane and Spring Lake Regional Park. Also known as the Southeast Greenway. Again council gave direction to the real property negotiator and took no final action. Thank you. Thank you Madam City Attorney. We are now on item 6. Proclamations and presentations. Item 6.1. We are going to go ahead and start with the proclamation and we will take public comment but I am asking councilmember Rogers to please read this proclamation. Thank you Vice Mayor. Whereas Sue Gallagher has faithfully served the City of Santa Rosa and the office of the city attorney for seven and a half years from January 2016 until May 2017 as an assistant city attorney and from May 2017 until July 2023 as the city attorney following 26 years of dedicated public service with Sonoma County council. And whereas Sue is a lawyer of utmost integrity and exemplifies the finest qualities a lawyer can possess. Dedication, common sense, innovative thinking, tenacity, the ability to analyze complex legal problems, quick thinking under pressure, unwavering strength and courage and she has relentlessly pursued perfection in the practice of law. And whereas during her tenure in the office of the city attorney which included two devastating wildfires and a global pandemic. Sue carried on the tradition of providing the highest quality legal service to the city by administering one of Sonoma County's finest legal offices with employees who take great pride in public service and maintain the highest ethical standards. And whereas under her leadership the city attorney's office has continued to work proactively with all city departments to maintain the highest legal standards and has successfully brought and defended some of the largest and most complex cases in Santa Rosa history. And whereas Sue vigorously pursued on behalf of the council and the citizens of Santa Rosa environmental accountability and cleanup of the city through the deft prosecution of numerous cases of environmental contamination. And whereas with professionalism and legal expertise employed in a straightforward and determined manner, Sue provided guidance and leadership in negotiating and reaching a resolution beneficial to the city and the residents of Santa Rosa in both the devastating Tubbs fire and Kincaid fire litigation against PG&E resulting in a recovery of 96 million dollars. And whereas Sue was instrumental in advising the city regarding several substantive citywide policies and regulations including but not limited to short-term rentals, cannabis, housing action plan, all electric reach codes in the citywide ban on new gas stations, each of which has benefited the residents of Santa Rosa. And whereas Sue's legal expertise ability to quickly grasp new areas of the law and provide exemplary and prompt legal guidance will be missed yet even more so we will miss her compassionate support of staff, her wit, humor, and friendship. And whereas the city of Santa Rosa and the office of the city attorney were extremely fortunate to have the benefit of Sue's professionalism, dedication, council, and leadership for so many years, which has greatly contributed to the reputation of the city attorney's office and the legal community and she will greatly be missed. Now therefore be it resolved that Natalie Rogers, mayor of the city of Santa Rosa, on behalf of the entire city council, do hereby express our sincere and heartfelt appreciation to Sue for her distinguished service to the city of Santa Rosa. Turn off my mic. Thank you so much and I just means it means the world to me so thank you thank you thank you and I will try to say a few words if I can so but I want to thank you the council and also my staff and the staff of the city across the city for this opportunity to have served as city attorney as I've said many times I have loved this work it's just been wonderful. Collectively as as you mentioned and we've faced and overcome so many challenges the fires, the pandemic, drought, climate change, civil unrest and we've undertaken so many innovative and forward-thinking initiatives of police reforms, housing and homeless reforms programs, governmental transparency, civic engagement and so many others. Charter review and district elections as well and we've made a difference and it's just been so rewarding it's been personally rewarding and I know rewarding for our office and for council and for the city as a whole and it is all by the grace of this wonderful team and I include everyone in the room and across the city the team in our office it's such an incredibly talented and dedicated group I thank them so much and I will miss every one of you but I know we'll stay in touch they are doing great work so and they'll keep on and then our great new city manager and I wish that we were working together for a longer period of time but it has been an absolute pleasure and my colleagues across the city departments it's all such a collaborative creative energetic and supportive group it's a tremendous resource for us all and you our council leading the community shaping policies collaborating working with our partners in our sister jurisdictions and really you know reaching out and taking taking opportunities and risks and it's been really exciting for me to be part of it it's been an absolute pleasure working with you over these years I have been just so lucky I feel very very blessed for this opportunity so thank you it has truly been a treasured time for me and as I move into the next chapter I look forward to finding new ways to work in the community to keep keep my participation going and I very much trust that our paths will continue to cross so thank you again so much we'll look to council for comments and then we'll go to public comment after that council go ahead no I just really appreciate it and I've had a chance to say quite a few words to sue about what it's meant to work together as a team for the last seven years and I can tell you I can't imagine having worked with anybody else through some of the worst times in Santa Rosa and just your ability not just to provide legal advice but your ability to do so in a way that comforts people that exudes confidence and professionalism and expertise particularly at a time when people really needed everybody at the city to have those leadership qualities and to have you in your office out in front doing something that nobody had ever done before and really looking for ways to keep the city whole really meant a lot to me as a new council member coming in and I just enjoyed every minute of working with you over the last seven years sad to miss you but I know your family deserves some time with you too and so I hope you'll take full advantage of that and just thank you so much for everything you've done for Santa Rosa council member Fleming thank you vice mayor sue thank you so much for doing an exemplary legal job but doing it almost like a counselor or a mediator would I don't think there's anybody here who doesn't feel like you're here for us you hold the client which is the city of Santa Rosa is number one at all times and you're always here to help us figure out how to do the best we can by our constituents I wanted to just take a moment to talk about you as a civil servant and as a public servant oftentimes when people get in think about civil servants I don't think they think about attorneys and that you would spend nearly four decades working in the public interest is an example to all who might consider this a career and I hope that people can see that you can achieve excellence in the legal field through public service and and what a difference you've made to the lives of thousands of people not just in the city of Santa Rosa but beyond for the county of Sonoma so a heartfelt gratitude and I'm sure I'll see you around any other comments for everybody out there imagine that it's saturday or sunday and also you have this question and you send a text to your city attorney there's no way she's going to respond there's absolutely no way and also you get a response back you know the number I call you and you answer and you offer advice in a way that I know you're looking out for our best interest you're looking out for the best interest of every single one of us as Santa Rosens and I forever will thank you for that any other comments from council adam city clerk will you please facilitate public comment thank you we are now taking public comment on item 6.1 if you are in the chamber and would like to comment but have not provided a speaker card or your name please make your way to the podium if you are participating via zoom please raise your hand or dial star nine you will have three minutes and a countdown timer will alert at the end of that period vice mayor I'm seeing no uh no one approaching the podiums and no hands being raised via zoom you'd like to take a photo with you so if you'd like to invite some members of your family down and join us we'd be happy to do that as well thanks we'd also like would like to invite city attorney staff down as well for a photo the whole office and thank you we're now to item seven and we have no staff briefings so we will move on to item eight city manager and city attorney reports so we will go ahead and move to I believe it is well whoever would like to go first I'll make su go last since it's her last meeting uh good afternoon vice mayor and council members so I have two updates for you today so the recreation and parks department parks and recreation I just I gotta say it right uh departments fall and winter activity guide will come out this week the guide will be available Thursday online at santa rosa rec.com printing copies will be available at it's at finley and steel lane community center registration for fall and winter activity begins thursday august the third at seven a.m and i'll be sure to send you all this this update so you can send it out as well so please save the date for the 2023 wildfire ready resource fair which will be saturday august the 19th from 10 a.m to 2 p.m at the finley community center the resource fair is the city's annual event that promotes wildfire preparedness information and builds community resilience this year the santa rosa fire department will be given away free go bags to the first 150 attendees to rsvp online at srcity.org slash wildfire ready event so more information please go to srcity.org slash wildfire ready event thank you and other than thanking you again I have no uh no announcements for this afternoon so thank you thank you so much we'll now move on to item nine statements of abstention by council member anything okay we are to item number 10 any reports from council council member flimmy yes um i want to report that the um bay harry at finance housing finance authority met last one a week ago uh wednesday and we'll be meeting tomorrow in our um as we look forward to putting a regional bond measure on the ballot and i'll be bringing back more frequent reports about that as we get closer to that additionally the renewal enterprise district our joint g joint powers agreement with the county met today to uh for those of you don't know it's a housing accelerator in order to spur development we fund last dollars in the door to get multifamily and dense urban and transit oriented housing built in the city of santa rosa at present as our mission and we met earlier today to interview applicants to fill our executive director position and we gave direction more to come on that council member rogers thank you so much uh vice mayor so a number of really important updates from santa rosa over the last couple of weeks since we last met the first is i want to give a shout out to really our entire team but also focus on our economic development team and housing folks who have been working for years on the pro housing designation from the state of california a couple of weeks ago the governor announced santa rosa not only was getting the designation but actually received the second highest score in the state for removing arbitrary barriers to developing housing i think it's a huge testament to all of the work that's been done generating the political will to put housing where we need to put housing in our community so claire and your entire team just thank you for your work on that we had a smart board meeting last week and i'll send some props to rachel eadsway and yuri and the entire transportation team uh in the month of uh june we received our first full month of the youth ride free program that we've launched here in sonoma county uh ridership on smart for youth was up about 197 percent relative to pre-pandemic levels in the month of june usually june is a lower month for ridership in public transit uh and that trickled down to santa rosa city bus where we saw a 132 percent increase in youth ridership as well so those programs go in strong through june and a really good update last week we welcomed delegation uh from japan who were here to say hello and i'll let the vice mayor talk a little bit more about that event but myself councilmember staff councilmember okrepki the vice mayor and the mayor had an opportunity to to meet with them to talk with them and to share cultural exchange and particularly their roots here in santa rosa uh and then we finally we had a much anticipated groundbreaking for fire station five up in fountain grove a really great event despite it being 114 degrees uh while we were up there but really wanted to say thank you to the team that's been working on this and such a slog getting through uh finding the funding to rebuild huge thanks to all of our partners whether it's uh senator maguire and assembly member wood who've helped bring in resources congressman thompson fema housing and urban development a lot of people worked hard to make that project happen and i know a lot of us were really happy to see those shovels in the dirt finally so thank you thank you councilmember okrepki uh thank you um so as councilor roger said i was out at the event welcoming the delegation from kogashima japan um it was great i don't need to say anything more about that he covered pretty much everything the only thing i would add is um yesterday i had the opportunity to welcome um the summer interns for project true from the center of uh for well-being um project true these are high schoolers who are um advocating for anti tobacco anti-flavored tobacco in their community and i was the first elected official they spoke to to practice their interactions with elected officials to try to get their policies pushed forward and um it's really great to see uh high schoolers take that kind of initiative to be involved um in policy level discussions at such a uh at that age and hopefully in the future um you know uh we will be able to work with them on their policy initiatives councilmember alvarez thank you much mayor uh talko with the cop chief cregan thank you sir uh that was very cool and it was a great turnout and it wasn't even on a tuesday it happened on a friday and today's tuesday so definitely get your batch um i did attend a a community meeting in morland uh put on by a supervisor korsi and a couple other fellows from the from the county level and i wanted to report that really there was a strong support for annexation and whether it moves forward or not i know there's an interest from that community to really become part of the city of san rosa and i just wanted to make that known uh over the weekend i did attend an anniversary 50-year anniversary for kbf which is our nation's first bilingual radio station and uh i really like to love to see the way that that this is a nonprofit this is a community-based radio station and it continues to live on why because of the people so really want to commend their efforts to keep that that voice going for our community thank you councilmember staff thank you vice mayor a few items from me um on july 13th the long-term financial policy an audit subcommittee met um the vice mayor may have more to say about that but the quick summary is that we got an updated um a updated chart of revenues and expenses thanks to all in this team um and with the with the really really short summary being we need to we need to watch our step on our budget budget will be an issue in the years to come on july 15th uh thanks to the san rosa rural cemetery volunteers who held another successful work day at the san rosa rural cemetery we probably had about 30 or so folks out there weeding and cleaning up the cemetery it was fun to be part of the group on july 19th the violence prevention partnership met again and again the vice mayor might have more details um to to unveil the the new strategic plan uh and as well a a subcommittee met or met to finalize the the choice mini grants uh we'll be making an announcement about those in the near future but the grant committee did meet uh and then finally also on july 19th assembly member daemon connelly held a hearing at sinoma state university focused on fire prevention uh deputy chief paul lowenthal was there as well it was a good turnout and and very interesting very interesting presentations all on the issues of resilience and fire prevention thank you thank you just a few things to report um first we'll get some of the business out of the way zero waste did not meet this month they will be meeting in august so i have nothing to report on that i also attended the tacos with a cop which i thought was a great event over at uh is it i always say it wrong may he meet today today oh i did okay so we had a great time over there so thank you so much to the department for putting that on in the outreach and and thank you particularly to the officer who brought her baby that was the highlight of the evening and letting us hold him so thank you to her for bringing him um along i do want to thank our sister city in japan for them visiting us and for um the invitation to go and see our sister city over in japan as well as um exchange ideas and what we can do for each other's economy and to paradise ridge winery for hosting an event up there it was beautiful and it was a nice place to be able to take them um i also attended the fire station five i wouldn't recommend wearing wedge heels when you go to a groundbreaking so that's just a note for everybody else the violence prevention um the violence prevention task force met and they did develop their strategic plan i just want to say thank you so much to danielle and the entire team that worked on this collaborative document that really addresses some of the needs that we have to address um some of the concerns we have for the children and youth in our community so we're excited to bring that back to council for consideration and implementation and one of the things that we have for the strategic plan as we move forward is we're going to be breaking it down year by year so that the community can see is taking action on the things that we know are important to address the concerns that we've seen with this uptick in violence from our youth in the community um as council member staff said we did have a long-term finance meeting along with um mayor rogers she attended that and during that meeting those who would like to know we did have an update on the street projects that we've been doing in roseland that was given by our assistant city manager jason that and so that was really helpful that had been a request from community member at a prior meeting so we want to say thank you to alan alton and his team for bringing those presentations forward to us i also had the opportunity to do a tour of the southeast greenway and so i want to say thank you so much to the advocates that took me out on that tour so i could see how big that project is so i'm looking forward to seeing that come forward and i think with that we have nothing else to report on item 10 so we are now to the approval of the minutes july 11th 2023 um 11.1 does anyone have any correction oh do we need to facilitate public comment we do need to take no i'm just going to skip over that tonight so we'll go ahead and facilitate public comment on item 10 thank you madam city clerk thank you we are now taking public comment on item 10 if you are in the council chamber would like to comment but have not provided a speaker card or your name please make your way to the podium if you are participating via zoom please raise your hand or dial star nine you will have three minutes and a countdown timer will alert at the end of that period we will begin with mr. DeWitt please go ahead oh my name is dwayne deWitt i'm from roseland i wanted to thank you for the reports that just happened i wanted to speak about what mr rogers was discussing the pro housing designation that the city has gotten and i wanted to say it's good that housing is coming forward and we need to be doing more housing obviously i don't know if you remember but the day that you first declared a housing homeless emergency for santa rosa was august 9th of 2016 that's seven years ago grand jury report came out about it afterwards to talk about if we would get better housing for the homeless that's still a difficult thing we may not be able to get as much as we need but i think if you would begin to be more innovative you could get more than you might expect one of the things that i look forward to is referring back to previous reports back on um january 8th of 2019 you had a joint meeting of the planning commission in the city council where you talked about housing and the density bonus ordinance at that time you talked about how you could perhaps allow up to 100 bonuses within the downtown and the north station area part of roseland is in the downtown area along sabastapool road and that would be an excellent place for more housing especially for low income people and you could get that started sooner than later i don't really know what the holdup has been with city staff not really looking over into that area very much they haven't actually been looking much at the southeast greenway either the southeast greenway could house hundreds upon hundreds of housing units if done correctly along the edges of that site they could be there to be eyes on the prize if you will when you put in a greenway you have to make sure that you're not going to have vandalism on site you have to make sure you're not going to have people ruining the area you're going to be talking about that later in this meeting but i specifically would like for you folks to look at more housing as a way to be pro houses if you're going to accept the pro housing designation for the city put the housing throughout the city we've been getting a lot in roseland almost thousands of units actually but not so many are happening in other places so please look to the southeast area and to the downtown area and provide those density bonuses that you talked about back on the 8th of january in 2019 100 density bonuses could be utilized along the southeast greenway and in the downtown plan area of roseland along sabastopol road where it meets up with dotten avenue you'd get thousands of housing units if you'd work together with your community partners well i never seem to meet thank you kindly thank you i see no one else in council chamber wishing to provide public comment on item 10 and there are no hands being raised via zoom thank you madam city clerk we are actually now going to be an item 10.2 designation of the voting delegation and alternates to the league of california city's annual conference in september so the typical voting delegate on behalf of the city council will be the mayor mayor rogers and i will be one of the alternates the council can also nominate one other alternate if we'd like to at this time to be a backup to mayor and myself do we need to have a actual motion to approve councilmember rogers yeah just which council members are planning on attending i'm happy to make a motion okay i'll make a motion that our voting delegate is mayor rogers with vice mayor mcdonald as the alternate and second alternate i'll go with seniority over here councilmember fleming second is there any discussion okay we will take public comment on this item and then we'll come back for a vote thank you we are now taking public on item 10.2.1 if you're in the council chamber and wish to provide public comment but have not provided a speaker card or your name please make your way to the podium if you are participating via zoom please raise your hand or dial star nine you will have three minutes and a countdown timer will alert at the end of that period vice mayor i'm seeing no hands being raised via zoom and no one in the chamber for public comment thank you madam city clerk will now do a roll call vote on that thank you councilmember step right councilmember rogers hi councilmember okrepke hi councilmember fleming okay councilmember alvarez hi vice mayor mcdonald hi and let the record show that mayor rogers is absent and this passes with six affirmative votes with a resounding okay from from councilmember fleming we'll move on to item 10.3 board commission and committee appointments the mayor is going to appoint to the santa rosa city school and city council of santa rosa subcommittee she has three appointments that i'll be making on her behalf council or pardon me mayor rogers will be one of the one of the what i want to say council members that will be representing us i will be one of the council members representing the city and councilmember okrepke will also be the third person that will be on that committee so if i don't think we need a vote on that since that is an appointment from the mayor but we will go to public comment thank you we are now taking public comment on item 10.3.1 if you are in council chamber i would like to provide a comment please make your way to the podium if you are participating via zoom please raise your hand or dial star nine again you will have three minutes and a countdown timer will alert at the end of that period vice mayor i see and no one approaching the podium in the council chamber and no hands being raised via zoom for clarification on this item do we need to have it ratified by the action of the of the mayor by having a vote by council just to keep it easy i will make that motion okay can i have a second please it's been moved in second and is there any discussion on this item will you please call a roll call vote on that thank you councilmember stapp hi councilmember rogers hi councilmember okrepke hi councilmember fleming i councilmember alvarez hi vice mayor mcdonald hi let the record show this passes with six affirmative votes and mayor rogers absent thank you so much for that and thank you for making sure that we're doing our job up here can i please get an approval of the minutes if there's no corrections to them so moved were there any corrections i didn't see any thank you with that we'll go ahead and move to approve the minutes as printed we're now to consent adam city clerk would you like to read these thank you item 12.1 resolution fourth amendment to the professional services agreement number f 00 2270 with geary shea o'Donnell gratton and mitchell pc for legal representation item 12.2 resolution approval of the tow vendor franchise list for police generated tow operations item 12.3 let resolution professional services agreement with missus jenny and o'connell llp for city of santa rosa financial audit services item 12.4 resolution in support of the transformative climate communities program grant funding item 12.5 ordinance adoption second reading part two of two ordinance of the city of the council of the city of santa rosa adopting zoning code text amendments to title 20 of the santa rosa city code chapter 20-48 short-term rentals to revise and add new definitions and policies and to incorporate technical changes to improve functionality and aid in implementation and enforcement file number rez 23-001 item 12.6 ordinance adoption second reading ordinance of the council of the city of santa rosa establishing salary and other compensation and benefits for the law firm of berk williams and sorenson llp as interim city attorney thank you madam city clerk i'm going to look to council for any questions or items to be pulled i'd like to pull item 12.5 and then i'm going to ask councilmember alvarez to put a motion on the floor to approve the other consent items and then we'll go back to 12.5 thank you madam vice mayor i move items 12.1 through 12.4 and 12.6 with exception of 12.5 as pulled by yourself madam vice mayor and way further reading of the text we have a second second is there any discussion we'll go ahead and move to public comment on those items we are now taking public comment on the consent calendar item 12.1 through 12.4 and item 12.6 if you are in the council chamber and you'd like to comment but have not provided a speaker card or your name please make your way to the podium if you are participating via zoom please raise your hand or dial star nine you will have three minutes and a countdown timer will alert at the end of that period the first public comment will be from mr. duit please go ahead hello my name is duane duit i'm from rosa and this is about 12.4 while it's good that you're seeking other people's money i'm really curious as to who the community partners and stakeholders are to understand these community needs as a person who's come here for decades to talk about rosalind this is the first i heard of this item and yet you're using rosalind along with the belview district as your initiative as your impetus if you will to get the money one of the things is you don't call out where the actual census tracts are but i do believe my census tract of rosalind is probably there because we are the most disadvantaged community according to these calen virus screen documents typically maybe something's changed recently and if that's so so be it but i actually am quite concerned that many of the people who live in rosalind never seem to get a chance to hear what you're going to do until after you're going to do it to us and that essentially your community engagement is to have a meeting and talk at us not with us make us listen to what you're going to do feed us a little bit perhaps but not really hear what the community thinks would be a good thing to move forward on so here you're going to go and get this money one of the things that's going to do is this community hub in the belview district where you're going to move the rosalind library to it'll be nice to have that community hub perhaps but you shouldn't call that the rosalind library you should call it southwest santa rosa because rosalind library up on sabastopol road in that disadvantaged census district needs to stay there you need to keep helping us there in rosalind instead of moving this out to the south the urban greening program it's a good idea but you don't have a city arborist and you've been allowing trees to be killed cut down all over out there and so i'm really concerned that you'll just go and get this money and then not really do what it's needed for water use efficiency another situation where you're paving over our aquifer out there this has been going on for decades we first talked about it during the belview ranch development where we said would you stop putting impermeable surfaces above the area where the water would get down to the aquifer you folks didn't listen you just go on ahead and keep paving so my main concern is that you're going to keep using this term civic engagement do you remember that almost 30 years ago a citizen's cleanup coalition was formed by supervisor ernie carpenter and other community members to deal with the pollution issues on sabastopol road that community coalition is still in existence they never hear from city staff last time we got anybody out there talking to us was last summer really and that had to go by the wayside so please don't pimp us out for you getting money from other people thank you thank you mr. dewitt seen no one else in council chamber and no hands being raised in zoom i will turn it back to the vice mayor thank you madam city clerk so with that we are going to be voting on item 12.1 through 12.4 and 12.6 if there's no further discussion we'll go ahead and go to a roll call vote madam city clerk thank you councilmember step hi councilmember rogers hi councilmember okrepke hi councilmember fleming hi councilmember alvarez hi vice mayor mcdonnell hi let the record show that passes with six affirmative votes and mayor rogers absent thank you so i pulled item 12.5 because i have a couple of items that i'd like to have clarification on in the ordinance the first item that i'd like to have clarification on is that after the third violation the permit is revoked permanently and i i think that's clear if it's on a piece of property what my clarification and what i'm seeking today is that if they own multiple strs in san aroza that all of their permits would be permanently revoked so if they own more than one and i don't think that that's provided in the ordinance for clarification if they are a business owner i'll let staff come to the podium but i believe it applies directly to the property if you want to introduce yourselves for the record team thank you yes good afternoon vice mayor mcdonnell members of the council at jessica jones deputy director for planning no interest lucirk assistant chief building official sherry mead senior planner planning and economic development so to answer your question the revocation of a permit at three strikes would be for the property would not be for properties owned by the same owner that are elsewhere in the city if i i'd like to look to see if there would be um if we would be able to amend that so that it would be they would lose all their permits within the city or if there's any legalities that wouldn't allow us to do that to me if you're operating poorly at one site you're probably operating poorly at most of your sites so i'd like to just revoke them from being able to do business of that sort in the community um there there would be some legal impediments to having um the other permits revoked based on the violations at one of the locations that being said uh and please staff correct me if i'm wrong my understanding is that the applicant after the three strikes they are permanently barred from any new permit so since the permits have to be renewed every year uh they will have the other locations for the rest of that year um but uh again i'd ask staff to correct me if i'm mistaken um but it would be my understanding that they would not be able to renew because that's a clarification um i know it's that they can't that's a better clarification what i'm presenting so i appreciate that so if if by chance there was one property that they were having their license revoked when they went to get that permit on any of the other properties would they be unable to get those then could we could we insert that into the ordinance we can insert anything the council would like us to insert as it currently reads um it seems that it would only be the revoked permit that the owner would not be able to reinstate on that specific property on that specific property versus the versus the language of if an owner has multiple properties and they are doing bad business at one property they would lose all their permits when they went to re-up as currently written the revocation pertains just to the permit for the property which received the three violations so we do have a sentence in here that states the owner of a short-term rental permit that has been revoked for any reason shall be permanently ineligible for future consideration of a short-term rental permit within the city limits of santa rosa so that would be for any property it would be associated with that property owner um we could potentially add clarification that it would also apply to renewals i believe that that's the what i would be seeking then to have that amendment so that it would be clarified councilmember rogers yeah i just want to make sure that i'm hearing correctly as well what i think i heard from the vice mayor was say somebody who had two gets their renewal and then they get their third strike a day later on their first one do they still have that permit for 364 days on the other one or would they immediately lose both permits because the language states that it's only future consideration of a short-term rental permit it would mean that they were able to continue operating at the the one where they've only received one strike until it was time to renew unless you guys choose to change that language yeah so that's what i was hearing from the vice mayor i wanted to make sure i call it out what i was hearing from you was taking care of that issue not waiting the entire time until the next renewal came up what i heard from madame city attorney though was that that could be problematic that if we tied one property to another so that we actually per the ordinance may need to allow the second entity to operate the 364 days but at the end of that they would not be able to operate anymore if their days would be numbered so to speak uh yes that's that's my understanding of how this language would work i do have a question for clarification um the way i read this language is that it's the third violation on a particular property um are you suggesting that it's a third violation among any of their properties yes but if there's no way to do that because each license is individual then perhaps we can do it where if you violate one and you have your third infraction we revoke that license then in the future when you go to re-app your other properties you will not be eligible to operate in the city of santa rosa if that's a cleaner way of doing this per the ordinance now and it won't require us to come back for an additional reading then i would like to make that amendment and clarification in the ordinance now and then it would be very clear to those operating if you get a third strike you don't get to do this business here anymore on any of your properties if i may there's only one thing i could see that could potentially be an issue with that is if they know their days are limited they could end up causing a lot of problems but then again i guess they would get that third strike and then that one would be over two that was the only consideration i was correct the the third strike would still be admissible right if they're if they're continuing to cause issues in the other sites we'd then be able to revoke their property instantly we wouldn't have to wait there 364 days yes is that clear to council what what i'm seeking on that specific area okay the other area is that by council in two years we bring this back to talk about the cap i would like that language stricken from the ordinance i don't believe we need to insert when council can come back on something we have the authority to bring anything back at any time but to put a time measurement in that to have us come back and reconsider it i don't think that's necessary in the ordinance so i'd like to have that stricken i do want to say thank you for the increase in fines i think those are appropriate as far as the the violations i think on the smaller violations a little weak to be honest i'd like them to be a little bit higher but i think that the other fines are appropriate so i'm okay with that specific kind of language um let's see just want to make sure that i had everything down okay those were those were my additions but i'm going to look to council to see if they had anything else to add on council member fliming yes thank you all um so i have a couple of things one is um around the trust piece in there and the transferability one of the things that really kind of struck me as i was thinking about this is how complex trust law is and how that could really kind of put us in a pickle and so i'm going to make a suggestion that because you know in the unfortunate event that you know somebody were to pass on or have a disabled child i do believe that you know you don't lose the property you lose the permit so you could sell the property you could rent it out you could do a number of things to continue supporting your family without using it as a short-term rental without us getting into trust law and so i'm going to suggest that we amend this to remove any language around trust and suggest that these are transferable between domestic partners between husband and wife within a generation not um something that would go into a trust because none of us are experts in in wills and trusts which is probably a good thing because it sounds like a pretty dry and complex area of the law um so i don't know if there's yeah i just can i get a clarification from the city attorney as to the process of this should the motion be made to amend all be made making all these amendments or do we have to go back to a hearing to have these amendments done you are able to make the amendments today but they'll have to be by motion and you could take them either as a group or you could take them individually um and they will be you know vote will be required for each one so i'm going to look to council to see if you're comfortable with an engrossed motion to do the amendments that uh by that i'm suggesting as well as um council member Fleming or if you'd like to do them one by one i'm fine within gross one by one one by one one by one one by one okay so we'll do these one by one can i ask for just a quick clarification um council member Fleming on your suggestion so um it's regarding the section on page 13 of 20 of the draft ordinance are you um suggesting to strike the language at the end of that sentence of it's let's see g1 um that states or natural person who's a beneficiary of a trust of the short term rental permit owner um okay yeah if it's okay with council i'd like to allow council member Fleming to go through all of her options and then we'll go back and do a motion one by one so we can have full discussion council member avarice uh yes for clarity clarifying question on the violations that you're speaking of that would bar a homeowner from obtaining a permit are there degrees to the violations or is it simply any violation that you're that that you're speaking of does the ordinance read that they have to be a significant violation or any violation any citation that's issued for any reason constitutes a violation any founded citations yes so be anything thank you all right and then the next piece is that the the principal residence part um i think that it could be a little bit clearer um i'd like it to say um the place where one resides more than one half of the year um and revised revised the section and where i'm at 20-48-030 and then g to read hosted rental short hosted rental short-term rental a short-term rental where the owner lives and sleeps in a dwelling unit on the resident throughout the short-term rental period that is the owner's principal residence and then under 20-48-040 b1d to read documenting that the owner lives and sleeps in a dwelling unit on the property throughout the short-term rental period that is the owner's principal residence as defined in the above mentioned section and also add the owner's principal residence shall be established and i'm fine with it being you know a slew of different things but here's a few suggestions um a driver's license or california state identify identification card voter registration federal tax return redacted as necessary um school enrollment for dependent child each of which so this is a person's principal residence and really what i'm trying to get out here is that let's say i were lucky enough to own many homes you know i could say i live here and i live in santro pay and i live in whatever that would be really nice but it's not the case um and so i don't want folks to be able to get us into this cat and mouse game where you're chasing down people i really want it to be this is where someone lives this is where someone pays taxes and where someone votes i don't want it to be invasive in terms of them feeling that their information is public but i do want them to be committed to that that home and that is their primary residence and i think we need to tighten up the language there so if i may um so we certainly can add primary residence um as it stands right now the host is required to be the property owner and is required to uh live and sleep uh on the site um but you know if the council wants to clarify that it's their primary residence we can certainly do that with regard to um uh adding the specific requirements for submittal uh to the the ordinance language um we don't typically get that detailed in our ordinance language as to what is required for an application for entitlement we do have in our application right now specific requirements for two forms of identification that they are living on the property and we will be working with the city attorney's office to make sure that that is uh you know accurate and and you know meets all of our requirements but that is something that can just live in the application itself and wouldn't necessarily need to be in the ordinance that that'll be sufficient so long as they're not things that are easy to obtain you know like a utility bill or or library card things that you know really do like a driver's license legally has to have your primary residence listed on there um where you where you file your taxes as well where you registered to votes or as a pretty good indicator so i'm fine to let staff have that discretion there but it is really important to me and like i was saying a lot of this is because i think that as we tighten this up it leaves open this this opportunity for and we see this in other jurisdictions where folks try to play around with this and you know you can own a home and you can sleep there but it can be not your primary residence it can be where you go to work you know i i know we have colleagues who sleep at work you know it doesn't mean they're they're going to take care of it the same they would with their their home um and then um there's one other thing that i don't believe can be covered in the ordinance per se but was concerning and stood out to me about our meeting the more i thought about it which is that the the cost of enforcement comes out of the general fund and so during our unless we can address it today which i don't think we can i'd like to see for a future that for future budgets that the true cost of enforcement comes with a proposed permit fee assessment so that we don't have a perverse incentive to find people in order to cover our costs and that those who are availing themselves of the permit process are indeed the ones who are bearing the cost of enforcement were necessary so i understand that that won't be part of today but i do think that that's an important piece of process i will rest my case can i ask just one clarifying question councilmember flimming so you're okay with us leaving the specific forms of identification that type of thing as part of the process on the application but you still want us to include the primary residence terminology for the definitions indeed i i really think that it needs to be tightened up okay and are you okay with us working with the city attorney's office to determine what exactly primary residence means or does the council want to give us direction on whether that means half the year plus one day or nine months because that can vary depending on jurisdictions right i'm fine with you to work with the city attorney but i will just say that my direction that i'm giving is that it means that you live at this home it is not one of many homes that you live at and that you you know is part of just a business model but that this is generally speaking a little bit more than you know six months plus a day you know i'd really like to see it be a place where you're volunteering and active in the community but i'm fine with to have you work with the city attorney to get there so if i could just ask for a clarification from the city attorney in this instance we're talking about adding a new definition for primary residence do we need to have that specific language to read in to this for adoption today yes the charter gives us quite a bit of flexibility for amendments between introduction and adoption and we're still in that period so it does give us a good amount of leeway on the other hand let's see how this plays out but it looks like there's going to be quite a few changes and i would suggest that particularly given that we're not going to have specific language today that we bring it back again on closed session i'm sorry not closed session on the consent calendar for final adoption again depending on how the votes go on the particular elements so with that why don't we go ahead and start with you council member flaming and i'll finish up with mine oh i i'm done with my amendments would you like to put a motion on the floor for consideration oh so we'd like to do one at a time so the first is to to allow for a transferability between i'm sorry council member rogers you can't whisper to me my apologies you might want to ask the public for their comments before we get into the back and forth on all of the different motions thank you for that i appreciate it we'll go ahead move to public comment on item 12.5 thank you we are now taking public comment on item 12.5 if you are in the council chamber and would like to comment but have not provided a speaker card or your name please make your way to the podium if you are participating via zoom please raise your hand or dial star nine you will have three minutes and a countdown timer will alert at the end of that period i'm going to turn it over to our zoom host we have one hand raised in zoom currently eric frazier i've enabled your permissions go ahead and start whenever you're ready okay thank you very much this is eric frazier with truth and tourism i'm surprised i'm the only one making comments because this is such a controversial issue i sent my email comments earlier but here i'll read them this appears to be another milestone the cities were in s dr's now we are scheduled to hear consent for previously approved ordinance the only s dr ordinance out of three to be allowed some semblance of public process which i guess we're having a public hearing today oh my goodness the other two as you know we're urgency ordinances backdoor scheming coordination with anti s dr actors signifying studying abuses of government power then and foretelling what was to come future not only do i occasionally host guests in my home but i have a knack for doing research it's my way of keeping my sanity while i witness major abuses of people's civil rights now my work has evolved into leading a research institution having learned just the other day that we have fiscal sponsors from a national 501c3 to help us grow first up creating case studies of str regulations in the city and elsewhere in the county for use by university students internationally this war wasn't the city managers making we're pretty sure that uh when war planning started in the fourth quarter of 2020 some of the new city council members also had no formative role we understand that maybe they'll be in the adults in the room now i'm not sure based on the comments i heard from the ds uh whatever people in the fourth district have had to endure an onslaught of psychological warfare barrage of claims about noise parking negative impacts of schools home prices community character whatever none of it's true there's no there there it's all it's mostly a bunch of hooky what we do have is claud back administrative citations against scars a record number avoided citations at 500 and thousand dollar level mostly appear to be defective advertisements a violation of true which would now be a hundred dollars just to show the city's bad faith dealing you know california government code 36900 predated the urgency ordinances so i don't know how you got on that track with 500 bucks and a thousand bucks and having those as major citations my goodness gracious um the sr str regulation processes half fake factually and overcooked politically and an estimated cost of millions of the city what was the purpose of all that spending half fake processes yield unsatisfactory results in fact if you pass this ordinance what you're going to do is make it illegal for anybody to have a guest in their home whether you are pursuing str permanent rat you promise 199 str our nonhost str permits do it make the people that were abused by code enforcement whole add penalties for unfounded and vexations complaints make sure all complaints are given leave to correct before a citation is issued audit the srt bi a program make sure representation is pure remove all bad actors from pet do your job thank you very much appreciate you thank you eric next up we have j story j i have enabled your permissions go ahead whenever you're ready oh can you hear me yes we can i like to make the council for considering these issues i'd like to say that i'm a long-term sonoma county resident i've been here 25 years raised my children here i'm now retired i run a responsible short-term rental i need that income for my retirement uh you know i maintain my property it's the nicest one in the neighborhood i have noise monitoring equipment in the in the unit um you know we notify every guest of city noise ordinances we're we're responsible operators we provide a valuable service we bring in people who are here for tourism for wine tasting it spend money in this area i i just i can't fathom why they're being so restrictive and penalizing operators who are bringing in valuable tax dollars providing employment living wage for people it just it i don't understand it there's not that many registered or licensed uh short-term unhosted rentals in the in the city i think we're being fairly unfair or unfairly targeted the whole idea of banning barbecues and backyards for unhosted rentals is just ridiculous to me i mean it frankly it's discriminatory we're talking about a barbecue here we're not talking about open pit burning we're talking about a barbecue to try and limit that for non-hosted rentals is frankly ridiculous so i would encourage the council to you know respect property rights respect people's ability to to barbecue in their backyard when they're visiting the area i mean do we really want to discourage people from coming to the area not everybody wants to stay in a hotel room they'd like a kitchen they'd like to bring their their family uh grandparents children you can't do that in a hotel not the hotels in san rosa so please consider what what you're voting for here and also know that you know we're all paying attention to who votes in which way they vote and that's going to play a huge role in who we vote for and elect for future city council so thank you for your time and consideration thank you jay there are no more hands raised in zoom vice mayor we just had one hand pop up in zoom oh two more hands next up we have charles followed by lauren charles i've enabled your permission go right ahead hi thank you very much um regarding um allowing children to inherit assets i believe um kids should be able to do this that air should be able to and not just one child um a lot of kids they want to keep their family home they want to keep it um with all of the children and all of the children they want to enjoy it um and also shared with the public if um their parents had a short term rental format so i don't know why this would be an issue um people in the county who have county properties short term rentals they're able to do this um also um i feel that um i don't support the revocation of permits um i don't know that that they should be done forever um ice of sword suspending permits say for 12 months um from the third violation so a permit holder can renew when their suspension period is up also i would ask that you keep the daytime ordinance in line with the rest of the city so it's not confusing to to guests as well as the right to appeal um 10 days to appeal the denial of a permit is unfair and way too short when the city say takes so long up to six months or longer to consider permit applications a family should be able to research the grounds for their appeal and discuss with relevant professionals um and 10 days is just too short to do that um also there are already fines for tot and the bia if you don't pay them um so i don't think that there should be a fine an additional fine um for hosts um who are lapsed on their tot payment however i do believe that there should be a fine structure for people operating without a permit and for those who have never paid their tot or bia um thank you very much thank you charles next up we have lauren followed by alex lauren i've enabled your permissions go ahead whenever you're ready sure hi my name is lauren i'm a homeowner in santa rosa um i just want to share my personal opinion um that i do feel victoria flaming is on a mission to villainize str operators unfairly um i do not share her opinion that just because someone spends less than six months in a specific home or they own more than one str that makes them less likely to care about their neighbors or makes them any less likely to play an active role in their community that's that's just not proven uh i believe children and their heirs should be able to inherit assets i operate our home as an str as part of a multi-generational small family business that i cannot live without that income um and would not want to be faced with the situation where i couldn't then pass it to my children um regarding fines for tot i think fines already exist in the code for non-payment by the city revenue office they should be left as they are i do believe that there should be a fine structure for people operating without a permit most certainly for those who've never paid their tot um regarding the revocation of permits i do not support revoking permits for violators forever i do support suspending permits for at least 12 months from the third violations where the permit holders can review when their suspension period is up um additionally i do not believe that administrative violations such as advertising and listing requirements should count toward the three strikes that you have uh to have your permit revoked and then regarding the right to appeal i just wanted some clarification that the 10 days would be just to respond initially but not necessarily to um have it entirely resolved within 10 days so just want to i think we spoke about that you had spoke about that at the last meeting i would just like to clarify that so please let str operators continue to contribute to this community in the many positive ways that they they do thank you thank you all for your time and commitment to this issue thank you lauren next up we have alex followed by carl alex i've enabled your permissions go right ahead whenever you're ready hello my name is alex and uh i'm a homeowner in center ols as well and um you know i'm also very concerned about the villainization that's happening towards str homeowners um it's really concerning because you know we are a minority and what this ordinance and the discourse of this council does is you know opens us for attack and and frankly harassment and because this issue has been so polarized and so politicized especially by you know some of people sitting on this council now we actually the door for harassment is even wider and we already heard from some str homeowners that you know angry neighbors you know they're angry because you know yet again we're talking about this you know for three years you know angry neighbors are calling and it's fake calls there's no party so i'd really want would like this council to address you know the issue of harassing a minority we are good neighbors you know i actually text my neighbors every week um they're awesome um in fact they help me with some of the landscaping on the house um so it is not true that we're not part of the community if anything we're a bigger part of the community because we're very active um i'm very much concerned about uh you know center rosa city of center rosa setting up an ordinance under which permits are being revoked left and right without any diligence any proper diligence on whether the complaint is legitimate um these are brand new ordinances brand new rules we don't even know how it's gonna work out so now you know because johnny was you know had a few more dreams decided to a joke on me called reported me for not something that didn't happen now the burden is on me to prove that johnny is wrong and so i really really wish that you think through you know both both sides of the issue um not just you know the anti-short term you know the loud voices in the community that that are anti-short term rentals um because this is happening and and it's not fair and every time you uh you're abusing a minority um it's just it's just not right and i really think you consider that um i i'm a hundred percent against taking out people's right especially when you have something that's so new and untested just because somebody called two or three times and you take this person's right to operate that's that's that's just not that's just not thought through that's just intentionally um you know mean um and it is also an abuse on the minority so i would really hope that you consider the taking away permits after three calls and also really consider the right to appeal have you done your diligence what is the process you know everybody deserves due process whether they own an sdr whether they not uh so why is the burden on us to prove that johnny was right and how the house is going to work out so that's all i have to say thank you thank you alex carl you're next i've enabled your permissions go ahead whenever you're ready hi my name is carl um i wanted to uh speak about the idea of revoking permits um i wanted to really just stress and make sure that if you're going to revoke someone's permits it's not for minor infractions like getting your toot number wrong in your ad um i i got when we first started this program i got a five hundred dollar fine which they reversed thankfully for you know um where they thought my ad was wrong and i pointed out where my ad was right uh but my toot number was wrong and so so there was grounds to you know give me a fine i would hope that the violations that we're talking about for revoking of permits are around noise nuisance and safety that's what we really need to be concerned with right so i also think revoking a permit for forever i i don't know if there's any other operation nonprofit for profit uh other organization in the county where we do that where we just say oh you goofed you did something wrong so i'm going to take away your permit forever like that just doesn't make sense to me on any level um i would also like to echo something else i heard from some of my fellow hosts the way this is being handled in the city council has opened up such um uh what's the right word uh people are really going out of their way to not only put in false reports of infractions but the the way that that people who are against having short term rentals have responded they feel like it's open season on us the harassment really has got to stop and what i would say is excellent leadership would have found a way to workshop this brings different sides of the community together and find solutions that work for everybody and let me be abundantly clear that is not what happened here and it really is disconcerting that a lot of the language is being used on the city council and the way this is being done is fanning the flames of people like they feel like it's open season on short term rental owners and we are just trying to be part of a community bring good people into a community who who go to our restaurants who go to our wineries our cafes our bookstores and we just need this rhetoric and the harassment to stop thank you thank you carl next up we have dan dan i've enabled your permissions go ahead whenever you're ready yes can you hear me yes we can dan thank you yeah this is dan godino i own and i managed several vacation rentals in the county and in san rosa and um i just want to remind you all sonoma county is a tourist destination and as such we should leverage and take advantage of the tot tax that that can bring on i think that you need to keep perspective uh vacation homes is a different a different level of comfort and standard hotels people want to be able to cook you know watch a movie together in the living room our families and i think that what the focus should be is on uh professionalizing the operators so they can implement proper proper uh islands and not just attack um not just attack them with uh you know time to stop a what it seems to be a nuisance on only a few homes a few operators i did try to reach out to some of the uh the folks that have complaints to see if i can help out with some of the uh solutions and uh they do not want to get so i just want to bring that out that um you know we are community we can help them solve a problem if it's parking if it is you know slamming doors if it's noise if it's light pollution a lot of those things have a technical solution and there should be open minded uh about uh communicating with operators and you know if there's every a problem with a party then you know that can really quickly be addressed so i don't feel that you know too much regulation should come in it it hampers the process is is inefficient it just creates all these headaches and it should just be really a community based solution so that's what i'm trying to do with uh with a community with uh you know for and not and for anti sdrs and so i just like to uh bring those comments to you uh thank you for listening thank you dan it appears that we have no more hands i'm gonna give it a second still no more hands in zone thank you we will now close public comment and i will look to council member flaming for the first motion all right the first motion is that staff work with the city attorney to clarify language around principal residents second is there any discussion council member rogers yeah if possible uh my preference would be that we insert either something that we use elsewhere right now or the discretion that staff has to put it in the application and then we can talk about what that is uh my my preference is that we don't have to bring this back again and again and again and again do you have a friendly amendment to offer yeah my friendly amendment is i heard from staff that they can put it in the application and don't necessarily need it in the ordinance is there a second to that amendment well i i can accept the would you like to accept the amendment i'll accept the amendment thank you so with the acceptance acceptance of the amendment is there any more discussion on the first motion may i ask for clarification um the motion is to require that it be a primary for a hosted rental that it be their primary residence or is it's and that's is that your motion or is it simply regarding the definition of the primary residence i think the issue is is that it's not clear um what the primary residence is and that um for a hosted short term rental that it needs to be a primary residence and so i'm completely fine i believe that staff fully understands what that means and does not it doesn't need to come back to council but i just wanted it tightened up okay thank you is there any more clarification needed on the motion seeing none we'll go ahead and call a roll call vote on that councilmember staff hi councilmember rogers hi councilmember okrepke hi councilmember fleming hi councilmember alvarez hi vice mayor mcdonnell hi let's record show that vote passes with six affirmative votes and mayor rogers absent we'll go ahead and let's do your second motion council member fleming great i would like to um take out the language around trusts um to add clarity that these can be transferred between spouses registered domestic partners um or the like but that they are not intergenerational trusts and i want to make clear that in this motion i'm not suggesting that the property is not heritable intergenerationally that would be absurd right i'm just suggesting that the permit is not heritable i second that it's been moved in second and is there any other discussion on this item councilmember okrepke question can a trust be the permit holder yes a natural trust trust made up of natural persons can be the owner of a permit so if this motion were to be approved the beneficiary of that trust can reap the benefits of this permit as long as they're in the trust but they can't actually take the permit outside of the trust that is my understanding yes okay i think i could use some clarity from our legal team i want to make sure that i'm proposing something that i mean to propose here which is that i i don't have a problem with um a minor child or a dependent adult benefiting from the from this but i what i don't want is that the trust can be intergenerational legally heritable i i don't have an issue with it going between spouses as such but again i was saying earlier we're not trust attorneys and i am reluctant to make um you know decisions about trusts from the dais i think that that's really complex because i'm wondering if you have a suggestion about how to simply allow for these to be passed from one spouse to another one domestic partner to another but not be passed intergenerationally i i don't have any suggested language at this point it's it's difficult because it depends on how the trust is set up and under certain certain circumstances the trust itself will hold the property and will and it'll it will go from one generation to the next and for us to try to delve into the details of each trust i i think is just not not practical i i'd also like to point out that i think you're getting lost in the intergenerational aspect of a trust an individual a married couple can have a trust that they hold the permit in and if they divorce and the wife takes control of that property your amendment would not allow her to keep her permit that she was using with that the way it is so i think when it comes to trusts i yes trust law is very complicated beneficiaries are not that is in the trust as to who specifically the beneficiary is it is listed it is not open for interpretation it is very clear so if you just want to make a motion that it's not intergenerationally transferable i think that would cover everything including beneficiaries of a trust okay so so that is then what i'd like to move is that that the permits are not transferable intergenerationally but are transferable in the context of registered domestic partners or married individuals with that clarification on that motion does your second still stand i have a clarifying question is your intent if this is a unifying or a permit held under that unifying relationship such as marriage once that once that marriage is dissolved would you want to see that permit still exist the issue is is that if persons are married and they they own one of these or one individual owns one and they pass on that their husband wife or domestic partner shall be able to hold the permit that does answer my question and that goes back to your comment as as i believe the original intent was if the executioners of this trust are holding this title and they change the relationship i believe it was your intent to also say that the permit was no longer held but seeing and the clarification and seeing that you understand that clarification i do continue to support the the amendment thank you thank you councilmember staff when you say intergenerational is your main intent that the parents couldn't pass this down to the to the next generation to their kids that the property could pass along generationally but not the permit not the permit so specifically the permit passing okay thank you is everyone clear on the motion may i know excuse me please go ahead may i get clarification so what we would be looking at is uh in the transferability section we'll be striking out um we'll just have it be transferred to a spouse or domestic partner and we'll be deleting child parent legal guardian or the trust language as well well perhaps at this point we this was councilmember okrepke's suggestion last time and i maybe he would like to offer some explanation as to what we're trying to get at here because i i think the council agreed that we don't want these permits to pass on the the majority of us agreed that we don't want these pass on intergenerationally you had some concern about dependence or disabled people or something not so my intention is that for a variety of reasons individuals group of individuals create trust to protect their assets and some of these individuals will get um a permit in order to benefit the trust whether that is for their child that's their way of basically investing in their child's future right that child doesn't have access to the money until they reach certain marks where that could be age graduation from college you know 50th wedding anniversary whatever but it's a way for them to invest in their child so that they can continue going forward my concern is if you have somebody who set it up like that right and is trying to benefit their three-year-old child and then both the parents die that child's future is then basically cut off financially from that aspect that their parents set up for them to go forward and to support them and i don't want to see that happen okay and and to my mind is that the child still benefits from the property can be rented out there's a number of things that can be done with it um the short-term rental is only one way to to utilize the property can be sold or anything so i i don't want to see the property pass down in that way so with the intent to the motion i think we're clear on what we're voting on we'll go ahead and call a roll call vote councilmember step no councilmember rogers i councilmember okrepke no councilmember fleming i councilmember alvarez i vice mayor mcdonnell i let the record show this motion passes with four affirmative votes with two with councilmember okrepke and councilmember step voting no and mayor rogers absent so move to my emotions then i'm sorry um may i read how that section will read now with the amendment please do um this is section um oh four oh point i'm not getting the right section um it'll read this is for the transferability in the event that a short-term rental permit owner is incapacitated deceased or otherwise unable to carry out the terms of the short-term rental permit a valid short-term rental permit may be transferred to a spouse or domestic partner period yes thank you i have a clarifying question on that how could a trust be incapacitated trust cannot be incapacitated so all this chance for ability would still remain if it wasn't a threat of thank you trust are we clear as mud or are we actually clear we're clear thank you okay i'll go ahead and move to my two motions the first motion i have is that it is stricken from the ordinance that it be brought back to council in two years second is there any discussion councilmember rogers yeah i i understand the concern um it's a part of what we talk about a lot is not being able to tie the hands of a future council which is true if you want to strike that it is specifically about the cap issue but still set for us to review how the ordinance is working in two years i'm totally good with that um because we don't need to define the scope for a future council on what they can and can't discuss but i do think given that this ordinance is being put in place that it's worth reviewing and so my friend the amendment would be if you want to strike the language around the cap sure but i still would like to see us suggest a study session in two years on the impacts of the ordinance i'll accept the amendment councilmember staff did you have something else to add to that okay is there any councilmember okrepke i would agree with councilmember rogers but i'd also like to offer if we're gonna have a study session on this and we strike the study session on whether or not to put this on the ballot that's a separate amendment i that's a separate motion i believe i'm going to call that as a separate motion if you'd like to bring that forward so i'm going to go ahead and call roll call vote on my motion on the floor to clarify did uh councilmember fleming approve the friendly amendment i apologize were you still okay with the friendly amendment except the friendly amendment thank you councilmember fleming thank you madam city clerk with that we'll go ahead for a roll call vote councilmember staff hi councilmember rogers hi councilmember okrepke hi councilmember fleming hi councilmember alvarez hi vice mayor mcdonnell hi let the record show that passes with six affirmative votes and mayor rogers absent thank you i'm going to move with my second motion and then i'll go to you councilmember okrepke if you have another motion on this item so my second motion is to clarify that after the third violation of the permit is revoked permanently that it would then um also work on all the other properties owned by that owner however we said it before in the clarification of the ordinance there's been a lot of discussion so i just want to make sure that staff knows the direction of of what i wanted to do on that so if i understand it correctly and i'm actually going to want some clarification on a couple other items as well but for this particular one for the revocation so it would be to amend the uh last sentence of subsection c of 20-48.080 to state that the owner of a short-term rental permit that has been revoked for any reason shall be permanently ineligible for future consideration of a new or renewal short-term rental permit within the city limits of santa rosa correct so with that motion on the floor can i get a second second thank you is there any discussion on this item may i just note um a legal a potential legal issue um with a permanent ban um there may be we may face an argument that that's a um uh not commensurate with the violations themselves so i would just ask if the council would prefer some time limit rather than permanent so for clarification would you say that they couldn't they their license would be revoked on the property that they had violations but you're saying that on the other properties you would need to have a time limit like a suspension i'm not clear on what your suggestion is i'm sorry um you would still the language that i was going to suggest is in that same section is that it's the you're permanently ineligible for future consideration of any new or renewal short-term rental permit within the city um and i'm just questioning i'm a little concerned that a permanent ban on someone um could be seen as um an excessive penalty it's a risk it's up to the council whether it want you want to take that risk but that is a concern i will note that at this time there are no new applications being taken so but it would apply to just to the renewals so and the current language actually does say that will revoke and they are not allowed to to go back so your concerns city attorney would be that it would be um too excessive on the addition of the other properties correct i'll leave it up to council as far as when we do the roll call vote if they're be willing to take that risk thank you for that council member staff just to clarify a question to our city attorney so you're suggesting if we have a time limit there say time limit a couple of years because of the property holding costs it would effectively it might effectively look like a permanent ban or be a permanent ban but keep us out of legal legal hot water correct there you know it's it's always a gradation of of risk but yes um the thought of that you can never come in and apply for any short-term rental permit for the rest of your life could be seen as an excessive penalty you might say you're not eligible for five years or some other number of years i think would be would be safer it's not you know we may still get a challenge but i think it would be safer to have some limit on the time would you like to offer council member flaming i'll go to you and then back to you council member staff might we set a time limit of five years on are you offering a friendly amendment i'll accept the amendment i'll accept it as your second thank you council member staff did you have something else to add thank you for that is there any more discussion on this item council member okraki yeah can i just get all this discussion in in amendments what exactly the motion is so the motion on the table that i hear was that they that at three violations we would revoke the permit on that property but that the other properties owned by that owner must have a time limit of five years if i'm hearing what city attorney had said um let me try to clarify it would be and then i have an additional comment as well if i may what i was suggesting is that you would be ineligible for future consideration of any new or renewal short-term rental permit within the city limits of santa rosa for a period of five years so are you suggesting that on all properties including the one with the third violation correct that would be on all of the properties i will also note um that we do not this would be unique in our code in terms of banning someone due to violations on one property banning them from operating on another property so i do believe it's legal as long as we i i'm comfortable with the legality if it's if it's a more limited time period that you're barred from from operating a short-term rental um but i did uh it feels to me like there's some complexities about the additional ones as opposed to the ordinance of how it's written now that allows us to revoke on the third violation there there didn't seem to be a problem prior to me bringing this forward that we were going to revoke that permit so i would not be in favor of then changing it to then allow it to be five years to be brought back i would prefer to keep the ordinance as it is and if we're unable due to the legalities to attach additional residences then i would withdraw my motion on that i'd prefer to get rid of all those but if you're telling me from here that that is going to be problematic because of each one owning a permit separate and that it would be considered egregious in some way um i'm i'm comfortable that yes you do a permanent ban on the location where you had the violations of three violations then i will go ahead and withdraw my motion if council member flaming okay thank you so much and i apologize for a lot of discussion on that and i appreciate the clarification up here so that we don't get ourselves into hot water staff yes so if i may i think we might need some uh adjustments to this language as it is written if we're going to go in this direction so again the sentence reads the owner of a short-term rental permit that has been revoked for any reason shall be permanently ineligible for future consideration of a short-term rental permit within the city limits of santa rosa so i think we need to clarify that it is for the the property that has received the three strikes or yes yes and i you know i don't want to let me try clarifying it again so we have one property that has three strikes that's shut down permanently in terms of you you can add again we've not done it anywhere else but you could add that that operator cannot yet another permit whether it be a new permit or a renewal permit for some period we're talking about for a five-year period the ordinance currently reads that they're unable to do business so you're suggesting that we amend the current language to limit that on the other properties right for a period of five years as opposed to the because i believe the way the language is now it would be interpretive up to how whoever's reading it let me look to council council member rogers yeah just as a point of clarification for the city attorney last year we had a business come forward for a permit on a separate business than a business that they had repeated alleged violations things that were being reviewed and we were told that we could not consider because of some law we could not consider what happened on one property when assessing the validity of a permit on another property so why is this different i'm not not arguing the merit that i'm asking from a legal perspective right what why were we told then that we couldn't take that into consideration under may be able to right under our normally a permit runs with the property my understanding is you have made the short-term rentals by the it's it's the operator the owner of the property it's running with the owner of the property rather than running with the property and and to me that's the difference again it's not challenge proof but i do think that there is some room but you are exactly correct that the normal rule the standard rule in all of our other permits is you don't consider a you don't consider what someone did on property a when you're considering an application for property b so this would be unique but again because you're counting it it's almost like a home business so you're counting it that way that it's personal to the person who's operating it's not running with the land that clarification is helpful thank you councilmember okrepke yeah just further clarification um when when you say this hasn't been done and there is risk is that based are you saying that because it you're your recommendation your recommendation your opinion is just your opinion it's not based off of case law or things that have happened before um what what are the risks i guess i i you know you say there is a risk what is that risk specifically the risk would be um a claim of taking of of taking's um you know how great is that risk um i i don't have you know i can't cite to a case sitting here right now um i was looking to see if our i don't know if um miss crocker would like to weigh in no she's saying um so i i do think it it's risky it's not how things normally run do i think that it's absolutely prohibited no i think that there's um that if it's a limited period of time where you are prohibiting a bad actor from re from obtaining a permit which is essentially uh a personally held permit not a permit that runs with the land because we're not even allowing transfers you know if the property gets sold that's the end of that permit so in that way it's similar to some of our um i haven't looked at them recently so staff can correct me if i'm wrong but home occupations that are um you know what if that person shuts down the business or it doesn't necessarily run run with the property so okay the only thing that i can think of that's similar to that maybe lou or jesse can chime in would be um construction permits those are attached to a property and an owner correct so if we red tag one site in rican valley do we red tag that builders all their sites that are going on in the city santa rosa that would not happen no that would not happen just for clarification i believe i would drew my motion so no changes need to be made at this point but we can keep talking about it if you feel more comfortable no i i'm just clarifying for a clarification let's go ahead and move for clarification from staff yes i think if we are not wanting to move forward with this applying to other properties we need to clarify in that sentence that this would be um applicable to the subject property that received the citations correct it seems that there's a portion of the ordinance that needed the clarification so with that clarification yep yeah did did staff have any more questions for counsel on the ordinance now that we've amended it since i drew my motion on that one okay and that was the last one that was the last one okay so i do have a couple of other clarifying questions thank you um so with regard to the first item that you discussed principal resident before we move on to make that change um that it'll be revoked for any reason be permanently eligible for free consideration of uh a short term rental permit on that property will be how it reads okay thank you so that amendment would need to be clarified yeah do we need a motion on that amendment or we can we do need a motion on that yes please so moved second thank you it's been moved in second and is there any more discussion on that did you have discussion i apologize we'll go ahead and move to a roll call vote on that amendment councilmember step hi councilmember rogers hi councilmember okrepke hi councilmember fleming hi councilmember alvarez hi vice mayor mcdonald hi let the record show that passes with six affirmative votes and with mayor rogers being absent did you want to go ahead with your questions yes thank you sure um so on the subject of the principal residence so what is in the application and that we can work on with the city attorney's office and continue to keep in the application is the requirements for identifying that you are the primary resident i'm i'm concerned that if we don't have clarification in the ordinance that the owner of a hosted rental is it must be it must be their primary residence that we should add that clarification to the ordinance i believe that was the intent of the motion okay do you need us to provide the language in the ordinance or are you comfortable with that direction so i think what we're looking at is adding that language to the definition of hosted short term rental and then um to section 20-48.040 b1d to clarify that it also is um the owner's primary residence thank you for catching that i believe that was the intent of the motion was that it was amended in the one section and anywhere else throughout that it's necessary okay i do think that we need further clarification on what we're going to use as the definition of either principal or primary residence i believe we gave the purview to staff to do that through the application process so we don't need to have that as a motion i don't believe so i think that the motion included that perfect thank you was there anything else you have one last item so as i heard it we're going to strike the language on requiring that the uh in two years we come back with a discussion on the uh the city-wide cap but that it would be the full ordinance that would come back in two years for discussion that the item the intent was as i understood it from when we discussed it that night the intent was already to have a broad discussion about it uh we specifically threw in the cap because that's what we kept hearing from the public again we can't tie the hands of future councils on what conversations they do or don't have in that study session um so i'm fine if we want to remove that language i'm certain that in two years some of these are going to bring up the cap for discussion anyway but i do think it's good for us to lay that marker to review the ordinance in hall in two years got it thank you thank you okay so there's no more motions on the floor with that direction are you comfortable with everything that you receive from council thank you so much so now we'll go back to the motion as a whole to approve item 12.5 councilmember alvarez if you would put that on the floor please my pleasure madam mayor move item 12.5 and wave further reading of the text with the amendments that were provided yeah that's great that's great 12.12 thank you sir 12.5 as amended thank you thank you so with the amendments that were made today in the different motions we are approving item 12.5 if there's no more discussion we'll do a roll call vote can we clarify the second Fleming thank you councilmember step hi councilmember rogers hi councilmember okrepke hi councilmember fleming hi councilmember alvarez hi vice mayor mcdonnell hi let the record show that passes with six affirmative votes and mayor rogers absent thank you and thank you to council for going through that with us once again we are now on item 13 public comment on non-agenda matters madam city clerk thank you we are now taking public comment on item 13 non-agenda matters if you this is a time on the agenda 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 if you are in the chamber and would like to comment but have not provided a speaker card please make your way to the podium if you are participating via zoom please raise your hand or dial star nine you will have three minutes and a countdown timer will alert at the end of that period the first public comment in the room will be dwayne dwitt as the overhead projector okay one moment hello my name is dwayne dwitt i'm from rosalind i'm a member of the sonoma county housing advocacy group what you see before you hear from 1914 is a danish document about how to do building culture and get the housing that you need i brought that today so i could show you some examples we could use on sabastopol road in the downtown plan that involves rosalind also copenhagen denmark is well known for what they call the finger plan this hand right here is your right hand this is copenhagen right here and when they made this plan over 70 years ago they pointed out that you needed to have these fingers out into the green areas near the urban area so people would be able to have better health it's very important especially here in santa rosa where rosalind has a rosalind creek running right nearby sabastopol road goodman avenue runs down to the creek and it's been a topic that the city paid a hundred thousand dollars for almost 20 years ago for the rosalind creek concept plan in which you looked at how to use that rosalind creek riparian corridor in a sense to be our own finger plan here in our most disadvantaged census district in the entire county rosalind if you use these types of approaches which the danes have done you can get these types of houses this is a six-story house fronting on a street sabastopol road could be that type of street and you could utilize this type of housing down that 1.2 mile corridor from all of street to stony point road even further to the west one of the things that's most important about all of this is that when you use health parameters you can get a better situation this is from a danish newspaper it's called saturday live it's talking about going out and walking in nature this nature is right near their city center area we could do that and we need to do that because over in rosalind we have a high rate of childhood asthma we also have so many uh senior citizens being affected by the diesel particulate matter pollution that comes from the trucks using sabastopol road you could help us there because you're talking about urban green you've got a new general plan that's come out but we need to have you folks look to this most disadvantaged area and help us to get ourselves what we need nature saved as close to the streets as possible these areas have trees that act as natural filters of the pollution creeks nearby with trees and paths which are called greenways can help rosalind residents health we need your help to keep that thank you for your time thank you there's no one else in chamber i will turn it over to our zoom host for public comments from zoom thank you we have one hand raised eric frazier i've enabled your permissions go ahead whenever you're ready yes thank you this is eric frazier again and um as usual i do have some additional comments but please i don't want to offend anybody uh if i could from the vice mayor my comments are about strs you just had a couple hours on a consent item about strs even though i know the time is past the comment on that i do have information about strs i care to share so please if that's not allowed tell me now okay so thank you i did mention that the work that we've been doing to pay attention to observe to participate uh and to funnel that information into more of our research agenda i believe we've already taken public comment on strs thank you is there any more public comment i apologize my ears don't always work that well so i appreciate my colleagues letting me know that's what he was talking about again thank you there are no more hands raised in zoom thank you so much we're going to go ahead and move to item 14.3 so we're going to be taking the agenda out of order so that we can talk about the declaration and future of the southeast greenway we do see there's a large number of folks here in the audience so we are going to go ahead and take that item first so um item 14.3 item 14.3 is a report declaring the future southeast greenway property for a public purpose approving a deed restriction for the same and establishing parkland requirements for land retained by the california department of transportation we'll take this item if we have staff and chambers ready to present thank you good afternoon vice mayor council members i'm jill scott the city's real estate manager and we're here tonight to talk about the southeast greenway as you can see by all the green shirts represented here tonight one second sorry i'm having a little difficulty here there we go so the greenway is a a little bit of background for folks that haven't been around for a while the greenway is property owned by the california department of transportation it was 65 parcels that were purchased by caltrans in the 1950s 60s and 70s that was meant to be an extension of the excuse me it was meant to be an extension of highway 12 back in august 20th of 2014 the ctc which is a california transportation committee commission decided adopted a resolution to rescind that freeway adoption citing that there was no public support for that so council actions taken since then back in 2014 the city joined the southeast greenway community partnership um which consists of sonoma water the southeast greenway campaign which are all these folks up here in these green shirts sonoma county regional parks sonoma land trust and land pass um back in 2015 the city 14 and 15 the city adopted a resolution in an mou an intent to purchase the property from caltrans and then in 2019 after a lot of community work by the partnership and work by the planning economic development department um the council adopted an environmental impact report um a general plan amendment and also um all of the zoning for the property so the south uh the southeast greenway property itself the the property itself is just a really big swath of land it doesn't have any parcels it's just a big piece of of right away with so we've spent a lot of time putting this into tracks these this went through a huge community process when planning economic development went through the environmental process so these tracks were zoned and through the community process three of the tracks which is a little over 10 acres were zoned into what is developable tracks for housing so they were to be set aside for housing those tracks will remain for housing development affordable housing development with caltrans that actually be transferred to the department the state department of general services to find an affordable housing developer so from now until then the city now desires to purchase the remaining 49 acres for an urban park which would be for a public purpose so recent developments on this as you know the city you've seen staff here over many years and the city's had many developments over years recently the uh campaign and city staff have completed mapping and the title work which has been very extensive on this project um caltrans has approved the mapping which doesn't sound like much but was a long um and tds process and a and a big feat um another really big milestone was that the california department of general services approved the sale of the caltrans excess land to the city um and the city would really like to thank senator maguire the california department of dgs hcd and caltrans for working with us to make that happen so um they accepted the land the way it was mapped um and accepted those lots so all of state land runs under governor newsom's executive order so all excess lands are looked at for affordable housing first and after they looked at it um they agreed with the way that it was mapped and the developer units and they were happy to take the 10 acres and look for affordable housing on that so we can see up to 244 units um adjacent to the greenway of affordable housing which is a really big milestone um we began negotiating easement with sonoma county um agricultural and preservation and open space they're a major contributor a grantor for the purchase of this of the greenway um we began negotiating an mo u um and of understanding with the sonoma county water or sonoma water for all of the utilities all the water utilities which will be underneath um the greenway and the appraisal was finally completed on the southeast greenway property and that appraisal has been accepted by city staff as well as caltrans staff and is now with caltrans headquarters for its final approval um city staff and caltrans like i said have signed off and then we're just waiting for that final approval so the public purpose one of the reasons that we're here tonight for this very we have a resolution that's packed full of things that we needed to have council consider tonight um the next steps in this project in this process were caltrans looking for a certain a few things for council um they want a declaration from council um that the southeast greenway property will be used for a public purpose and perpetuity and of course that's what we're looking for we're looking for this beautiful urban park in perpetuity and then they also would like to see an approval of a deed restriction at the time of transfer of the property for the same and then a little bit about the public purpose so the southeast greenway property may include but obviously is not limited to many different things but i wanted to touch on a few of them it would definitely include include a bike and pedestrian path which is going to be really important here because the connectivity um actually for many different reasons but i'll talk about the connectivity for a second this is going to connect all the way to the east side of santa rosa to spring lake regional park all the way to farmers laying on the west so our our bicycle and pedestrian master plan is just about to update so our transit planners as a major piece of that update are looking at low stress options right now for routes to connect that westerly portion to prince memorial greenway which will connect to the joe ruda trail which gives us a complete connection all the way to west county so this is a major connectivity piece for not only santa rosa but all of the county and not only is that important but think about the how that helps for non-motorized vehicles for traveling helps meet our ghg reduction goals and our climate goals um the greenway really has a lot to offer to our community and that's why looking at this picture i love this picture because as some of you have seen in the paper people have been calling it santa rosa central park and this picture kind of makes it look like santa rosa central park um i wanted to talk about also that the next the next big step so this project you know came to us the greenway of course campaign started this as a grass a grassroots campaign um to to not have that freeway started it's really they are the ones that really started this and got this going the council decided at that time they wanted this to happen they joined the partnership it came to planning and economic development and then it came to my team in real estate services and then after we're done it will go to recreation and parks when it gets to recreation and parks there's going to be a really long public master planning process so the public will be extremely involved everyone will have ample opportunity to talk about everything that they'd like to see in this long urban park and it's over 49 acres and almost two miles long so there's plenty of room for everybody to have everything they want okay so back to the developmental pieces the the development pieces for a minute so those uh 10 acres of development pieces where we're going to see um hopefully 200 plus acres of affordable on the east side of santa rosa um those are going to be retained by the department of general services i said by the state they're going to be looking for a developer right now in our city code it may be uh it says right now for one or more developer units are being built that it could be possible that developer would have to donate parkland to the city well kelchand said really on the green way we would have to develop we'd have to donate more parkland and staff said recognize that future residents are adequately served by 49 acres of parkland on the adjacent property so we're requesting again in this really long resolution tonight that council um agree or uh you know allow these developable pieces to not have to dedicate parkland and then i just wanted to talk a minute about the acquisition funding um this acquisition is there's because of the greenway campaign and land trust um who have gotten all the grants and the donations for this none of this is being paid for from any city funds um they are is completely grant funded as i said and donations so there's funding coming from sonoma county ag and open space um we have pending funding right now from state coastal conservancy community foundation of sonoma county the mead foundation and then a lot of individual donors of the campaign and the land trust and i do want to touch on that we may or may not need all of these funds for the actual acquisition price of the property and if we don't we may be able to use or we're hoping to use these or other grant funds to be able to maintain the property until the park can be built so the next steps um and another piece of what i keep saying is the long resolution is staff will work with with caltrans to negotiate a purchase and sale agreement with the price and term parameters that were approved by council just a little while go in closed session and to meet caltrans is a requirement it's a little bit different than what how we usually do it but we're asking tonight in a resolution if you can approve or authorize the real property manager to negotiate the agreement with caltrans and then authorize the city manager to actually execute the agreement approved as deformed by the city attorney and then the next step after that once it's negotiated is that we would be in in front of the california transportation commission the ctc and they would hear the item for final approval and with fingers crossed we're hoping that could be as early as january of 2024 which is very exciting after this really long process and so the recommendation tonight which i think i can speak for all of the campaign comes from them as well um from real estate services the transportation public works and recreation and parks departments is that council by resolution one declare the future southeast greenway property will be used for a public purpose and perpetuity to approve a deed restriction to be recorded upon the transfer of the southeast greenway property for the same three declare that the future development of one or more dwelling units located within the developable parcels shall not be required to comply with santa rosa city codes pertaining to parkland dedication and four authorize the real property manager to negotiate the price in terms of the agreement five authorize the city manager to execute the agreement with the california department of transportation for the purchase and sale of the southeast greenway property approved as deformed by the city attorney and i am here and happy to answer any questions that you have we also have jen santos here who's the interim wrecking parks director if you have any questions about the future and what's going to be happening and i know there's a lot of folks out here who are excited and and happy to talk to council tonight thank you so much for the presentation i'm going to look to council for any questions councilmember staff jill thanks to you and your team for for a lot of years of work um in in where this this project was kind of fit in on the side of a lot of the other city priorities but you managed to keep it going in spite of the complexity and in spite of all the all the hurdles in the way thank you so much and thanks in advance to jen santos because now it now it's heading over to her department for the fun part of this project where we start talking about what comes next and i i know that we have at least a a rough outline of what the next steps are not only not only involving the purchase of the property but in terms of getting community involvement and really starting in with some of the detailed planning are you and jen able to to give a very broad rough outline of what's happening over the next let's say you know 12 to 24 months i can start from my end and then jen can take over so um once the property is purchased um my team will be working on finishing up all of as jen seems starts to take over and they'll be working with the campaign we'll be working on the back side of it then on the back end kind on the quiet end working to create the parcels do the apn's and clean up the land itself um to make it actually usable parcels and then jen seems going to take over the the front end thank you jen santos interim director for recreation of parks and as jill's team is wrapping up those last few you know things to do with her team will be engaging in putting together a plan to engage the community and hire a consultant very similar to other master plans we brought to the council this is going to be a much more expanded version of that so we're looking at a multiple year process to engage citywide and receive feedback on not only like jill mentioned the trail through the park for connectivity but other potential um compatible amenities for the park and so we're going to go through that process of hiring a consultant to assist the city with that process and then we'll be looking for um funding opportunities to implement that master plan that gets comes before the council a couple year process it will also go before the board of community services for feedback prior to that master plan coming here so really looking forward to working with the greenway i certainly know they are all looking forward to this next step after we purchase so that's the general process the couple years thank you both for that um and i i want to i want to thank the southeast greenway volunteers as well it's been 14 years so far officially probably a few years before that as well um to see this finally come to fruition uh it's going to be just a fantastic new new space for the city thank you thank you so much for pushing this forward all those years thank you thank you anyone else we'll go ahead and conduct public comment on this item then madame city clerk thank you we are now taking public comment on item 14.3 if you're in the chamber and would like to comment but have not provided a speaker card or your name please make your way to the podium if you are participating via zoom please raise your hand or dial star nine you will have three minutes and a countdown timer will alert at the end of that period i do want to note that we were having some feedback issues with the podium on the west side so if you want to step over towards the eastern lector and i appreciate it hopefully it won't get that circular loop of feedback uh the next the first public comment will be from dwayne followed by linda no please use the eastern lector and oh and please note that we are having public comments on this um item and all the report items for the remainder of the evening limited to two minutes i'm miss dwayne de wid i'm from the sonoma county housing advocacy group i'd like to recognize june and howard mose they were the forerunners of the effort to stop the freeway that would have gone through and to save the land for what we have now coming forward congratulations to everybody involved on these efforts that they've been doing i'm holding with me today the preferred alternative from the may 15th 2017 meeting at what was then the bennett valley senior center recently torn down by the city the um highlight of that meeting to me was that there had been a class from the uc berkeley department of city and regional planning that had done a graduate student studio and they had recommended that there be more housing along this because there's the opportunity to help to deal with our housing issues and it's also about social equity and promote public safety that was from page five of the staff slides back in 2017 one of the things that's really important whenever you put forward the idea you'll have a green space is that you have some maintenance and some management of it so that it will stay nice and if you don't have eyes on the prize you'll end up like the joer dota trail think about that folks i'm all for these bike ways we want the roseland greenway along the creek to be the southwest greenway and we've talked about that for decades but if you don't take care of this you're going to end up with serious problems tens of millions of dollars have been spent to try to deal with the problems along the joer dota trail so i just ask you to go ahead and go forward with this but put more housing in all along wherever you can so you'll have eyes on the prize we'll have social equity and we will have public health all the best to you all good night thank you mr do it the next public comment will be from linda followed by john hi linda go ahead thank you good evening vice mayor bick donald and city council members i'm linda pru i'm a volunteer and also a founding member of the southeast greenway campaign and tonight i'm here speaking for the campaign we're very pleased to support the draft resolution that jill just presented to you as she said before caltrans goes through with the acquisition process they clearly need a strong commitment from the city that this land will be used for public purposes and i think jill did a great job of explaining some of those public purposes and i i want to just add a few in addition to active transportation and the connectivity that she mentioned um there are many other benefits including recreation for people of all ages easy access to the outdoors for both residents and visitors habitat and creek restoration climate enhancing improvements and many many more we so appreciate the city's strong commitment to this project over many years jill mentioned that the greenway joined the community partnership and she mentioned also the members back in 2014 it has proved to be a really productive collaboration most recently as you know the city's real estate department has worked so hard and for so long on the very complicated process needed to actually acquire the greenway so we want to commend all of the city staff um and thank them for their commitment their competency their hard work and their perseverance in this long and challenging project they have really been fabulous to work with from planning parks to dill thank you so much and we ask for your support thank you the next public comment will be from john followed by eris good evening council members my name is john mccall i'm the land acquisition director for sonoma land trust and want to echo what linda and everyone in this room is saying which is a big thank you to all of you to the council i started working on this in 2019 and the planning department it was a hot summer night just like this one uh when the general plan amendments were approved so so wonderful to be back here at this important moment the the thing i want to um maybe get across is that you're not alone in this uh the land trust has been working the the slide that jill showed with the funding um that's been raised already that's work that we did in cooperation with the city those funds are in hand and we're not going to stop with the acquisition funding our commitment to you as the land trust the partnership that you've seen built is to help with the costs that you're gonna that you heard about earlier that you know you're facing immediate maintenance public safety etc we want to help on that two of the main funders the coastal conservancy and ag and open space district they have built in funding for operations and maintenance for initial public access so there's there is um a commitment to keep going here and keep working with you through the planning process as well including funding for planning to help the city so that's our commitment thank you so much for your good work on this and look forward to continuing the partnership thank you the next public comment will be from eris hi i'm eris weaver the executive director of the sonoma county bicycle coalition which is a big supporter of the southeast greenway and in fact um the share of board member between the organizations as an advocate i am hotheaded and impatient and the women who started this whole campaign you have been such a role model for me of patience persistence fundraising taking the long view being it's gonna say a word i probably shouldn't say in public when you need to be to get things done and i am so so proud of everybody and so happy to see us here this day and um i'm completely confident that y'all are gonna vote for this thank you thank you see no additional people in council chamber wishing to provide public comment i will move to our zoom host thank you uh we have no hands raised i do have some prerecorded voicemails did i hear correctly that there were no hands raised there are some prerecorded voicemails coming up we just have to load the presentation i apologize hi my name is allison ford and i'm calling about um agenda item on the july 25th meeting i don't actually know the agenda number yet but it's regarding the southeast greenway land acquisition i'm just calling to say that i am in strong favor um and support the land acquisition and look forward on the greenway project for public purposes um and all of the the work that the southeast greenway coalition has done to make this happen thank you so much for considering my perspectives and the work that you're doing to make this public space the possibility hi my name is Elaine Walter i've been supporting the southeast greenway project since almost its inception financially um i worked at harvest with hungry garden and live in the neighborhood and uh i think it's very important for all of us that live in the eastern part of san rosa to have another way to access spring lake and anadale um and i think it will be a wonderful addition to our community so i would urge the city council to uh help promote this project and open a new chapter uh by helping us complete the long-awaited purchase of the property at um as a park and an open space area thank you very much hope to hope to watch you online hi this is lori landhogan and i'm calling on item 14.3 the southeast greenway i'm hoping that you all will vote in unanimous support of the greenway moving forward the acquisition um and all the all the stuff that's going on there so uh thank you for your support and looking forward to our greenway continuing to unfold on time and on schedule thanks bye my name is tia hensel i'm commenting on item number 14.3 the southeast greenway campaign i want to thank you for the special interest that so many of you have shown for the san rosa southeast greenway as acquisition phase heats up today's vote is a milestone along this path many of you can see the long-term vision and benefits that go far beyond the greenway becoming one of the most important parks in san rosa some of those benefits include things like green infrastructure stormwater management heat island mitigation carbon sequestration just to name a few things you might not think about when you think about a park the mere fact that the greenway has continued to have public support as shown today and the dedication of our partners both public and private illustrates the importance of this land and what it will become that completes our prerecorded messages for this item vice mayor i do want to circle back there is one hand now being raised via zoom do you want to circle back to the speaker will allow public comment yes thank you zoom host can you please put up the timer slide and i will enable the speaker's uh permissions to speak mr furan go ahead thank you um madam vice mayor thank you very much for allowing me to speak i very much support the project i've always supported it and i want to congratulate jill and tia and all of the greenway activists who are really putting in front of you uh an epic decision that will have uh decades and decades of impact on san rosa i also want to say to mark there's another fun part of this that we're missing today but will come in the future and that's the housing that's going to be built i want to bring all of your attention to the actions yesterday by your housing authority uh who spent eight and a half million dollars with four projects uh approving and uh created 204 more units in san rosa 105 of which were very affordable down at the 50 percent and below uh of median income uh and uh 46 of them as i count um are aimed at homeless and at risk of homeless so that's an example of how the city can be with its partners really creative in creating housing uh those four projects are all over san rosa um speaking to dwayne uh they're they're not in sound south san rosa exclusively uh so i think you know what i'm saying is the city's doing a good job as far as i can see of trying its best to get to low income housing and very low housing and this parcel as you know doing housing development land is a big cost uh and if we can figure out a way of getting from caltrans this land as cheaply as possible we might actually be able to get a variety of incomes into that property uh and have some uh some stewards that dwayne will be proud of thank you there are no additional hands via zoom thank you i'll go ahead and bring it back to council and ask councilmember stapp to put a motion on the floor and then and then we'll go to final comments after that all right this one's a complicated one let me see let me try to get this one right um i would i would like to move that the council that the council approve it's a resolution of the council the city of san rosa declaring the future southeast greenway property for a public purpose in perpetuity approving a deed restriction for same declaring that the future development of one or more dwelling units located within the developable parcels as described below shall not be required to comply with san rosa city code sections 19-70.020 through 19-70.050 pertaining to parkland dedication authorizing the real property real estate property manager to negotiate the price in terms of a purchase agreement and authorizing the city manager to execute an agreement with the california department of transportation for the purchase of the southeast greenway property second there were three of us with our microphone on up here running to do that i'm going to have to give it to councilmember bronchers even though you were trying so we'll go ahead and go i will go to councilmember okrepke for first comment sure so the reason why i wanted the second is i grew up in benet valley i was strawberry slater mcgummery and i traversed that greenway many times probably not within the law trespassing on my way to and from school you know in that area many we'll just say decades ago but it's it's been some time that this is this has been overdue and that's not due to any efforts of lack of effort from the greenway campaign here you guys are awesome in your advocacy and you're awesome because you do it in such a positive manner we don't always see advocacy in such a positive polite and cooperative way and i just want to say i really appreciate that from all of you here and all of you that are watching at home or may hear about this but that area is sorely needed of transformation has been sorely needed of transformation for many many years and i enthusiastically will support this because yeah no kid going home from slater back to the uh benet valley area should have to trounce trounce through that in the condition it's in now um which can be a little sketchy at times and in certain weather so i'm very happy this is going forward i'm very excited for it council member alvarez see i was a peacekeeper i just kind of laid back a little bit i was like all right we can't do a third so i'm just going to watch all right i'll keep it short tenacity passion where's a green shirt it says greenway on it thank you thank you for looking after the future generations of every sand and rosin my district as a child riding my bicycle to anadale howard park it wasn't an easy track and i can only imagine the great experiences that the kids are going to have moving forward that they actually can make it out to howard park and do a little fishing i mean the amount of activities that the kids are going to be able to enjoy the safety when you leave school and play thank you council member rogerson thank you vice mayor i love southeast greenway day at the city council not just because it's moving forward but it is always just a tremendous excitement and energy from all of you if you've been involved in the greenway since the beginning can you please stand up today is acquisition day which is a really special day for all of us i just want to thank those of you who have been leading this charge i want to thank our team and our partners i was chuckling a little bit at two comments that were made one was john saying people are still going to be involved moving forward yeah we got that yep thank you i know folks have thought that this was a sycophian task from the get go trying to move bureaucracies and trying to acquire the land and now we get to the fun part now we have the land and that vision can be translated into something that's seeable we can get those fences down we can see kids playing on it i want to thank caltrans and our other state partners this has been a slog for them as well and our entire team is just so excited to see this across the finish line thank you for being here not just today but every single time i'm really excited about it and thank you all right we'll give you a little applause well done um so i just want to say thank you so much to all the advocates out in our audience and those that were also involved i know um thea isn't here and bob and there's so many of you that put it on my radar literally the first week i was on counsel so i appreciate that i appreciate your continued coming to goal settings so that it's on all of our radars and i really want to say thank you to staff for the so many years of working together um as partners and senator maguire as well as caltrans and the land trust and everyone as we move forward on this project we know it's going to be a road but we're really excited to be part of the decision making today so my grandmother was a teacher at strawberry school i think long before jeff went there but i i do want to say thank you and and to eddie's point the excitement to have a safe way for children to get back and forth to school and enjoy a green space the areas that surround the schools that are already there really my hats off to all of you to keep pushing this through so we have this gym in our community so thank you so much and i'm very excited um and we'll be voting yes on this tonight as well so with that if there's no more comments adam city clerk will you please call roll call vote thank you councilmember step hi councilmember rogers hi councilmember okrepke hi councilmember fleming councilmember alvarez hi vice mayor mcdonnell hi let the record show this passes with five affirmative votes with mayor rogers absent and councilmember fleming absent we're going to go ahead and do a two minute recess to let people clear out of chambers who would like to go you're welcome to stay of course and then we're going to be moving to um our public hearing item 15.1 we're going to go ahead and extend our two minute break to a five minute break to let you set up thank you we're going to go ahead and get ready to start our our public hearing thank you vice mayor item 15.1 um do we need to do roll call first yeah never mind madam city manager go ahead please start i'm going to do a quick roll call vice mayor councilmember step here councilmember rogers here councilmember okrepke here councilmember fleming councilmember alvarez president vice mayor mcdonnell here let the record show that all councilmembers are present with the exception of mayor rogers and councilmember fleming item 15.1 is the public hearing center osa fire department annual weed abatement program report good any vice mayor members of the council my name is paul onfall fire marshal for the fire department here for the annual weed abatement public hearing the weed abatement program is managed by the fire department the program goes into effect upon the declaration of our local fire season here for the city of santa rosa once the season is declared the ordinance requires properties either on a half acre of undeveloped land throughout the entire city on all properties within the wildland urban interface or all undeveloped properties in the city of santa rosa to come into compliance with the program itself once the season is declared those inspections start if a property is inspected and found to be out of compliance it receives a notice that requires the property to come into compliance once the reinspection takes place and subsequent inspections verifying that the property is not in compliance those non-compliant inspections become a a fee associated with our time if a property is put into compliance after our first notice there's no charges ultimately if the property remains out of compliance we have the authority by ordinance to bring a property into compliance through our abatement contractor those costs associated with the abatement as well as the inspections that take place are then essentially charged to the property owner for failing to comply so the recommendation is that the council by resolution confirm that the item is report from the fire department for the costs associated with the breed weed and rubbish abatement as provided in the subsequent sections of the santa rosa city code be approved essentially it allows us to take those fees and charges and bring them forward to the county as a lien on the property and i'm here for any questions thank you i'm going to look to council for any questions council member rogers yeah this is a quick question there's a couple that are listed where it doesn't actually have it says unknown number is that just because there isn't a number that's assigned to that parcel yeah that's correct so a lot of the properties that we find out of compliance are not associated with an address meaning they're undeveloped vacant and so they don't have an address associated with them but they'll have an apn and a property owner okay great thank you any more questions from council i'm going to go ahead and open up the public hearing and madam city clerk will you please conduct public comment thank you vice mayor we are now taking public comment on the item 15.1 the public hearing if you are in council chamber please make your way to the podium if you are participating via zoom please raise your hand or dial star nine vice mayor i see no one approaching the podium in council chamber there was no one signed up to speak and i see no hands being raised zoom host do we have any prerecorded public comments there are no prerecorded public comments for this item thank you that concludes public comment vice mayor for this item we'll go ahead and close public comment on item 15.1 i'll bring it back to council and see if there's any more final questions we'll go ahead and put a motion on the floor this one goes to councilmember Fleming so i'm going to ask councilmember alvarez to put this motion on the floor thank you madam mayor i move resolution of the council the city of san rosa confirming the itemized report of the san rosa fire department of the cost of removing weeds and or rubbish from upon or in front of certain lots or parcels of land within the city of san rosa and wave further reading of the text second it's been moved in second and we'll go ahead and do a roll call vote thank you councilmember staff hi councilmember rogers hi councilmember okrepke hi councilmember alvarez hi vice mayor mcdonnell hi let the record show this passes with five affirmative votes with councilmember fleming and mayor rogers absent thank you we'll now move on to item 14.1 thank you item 14.1 is a report water supply assessment for the san rosa general plan 2015 and if you could introduce yourselves for the record please thank you good evening vice mayor mcdonnell members of the council good evening i am calling close i'm a senior water supply planner can you can you sorry i don't mean to speak up please we have fans behind us so absolutely thank you thank you so i'm calling close i'm a senior water resources planner for the city of san rosa's water department and with me tonight is chris hughes chris good evening i'm chris hughes and i'm water resources planner with woodard and current a water waste water engineering firm all right thank you so much so tonight before you is a water supply assessment for the 2050 general plan so what we'll do is provide you with a bit of information about the regulation that requires this water supply assessment remind you at a very high level about the san rosa general plan talk about this particular water supply assessment as it relates to the general plan look at the analysis share with you the determination and then ask you to adopt the water supply assessment for the general plan so senate bill 610 was adopted in 2001 and it requires that certain development projects that are subject to sequa and have a water demand associated with them must include a water supply assessment that's an assessment of whether or not there is sufficient water supply to meet the demands of that project plus any existing water demands and any other planned uses for water over a 20-year horizon the process works that when a land use authority determines it's necessary they ask the water supplier to prepare the water supply assessment and then the governing body of course in this case our city council has 90 days to adopt that we can request a 30-day extension and we did so for this item the total 120-day deadline ends tomorrow so we're before you tonight just in the nick of time and just a reminder i know you're fairly familiar with the general plan but it is being prepared by the planning and economic development department our land use agency it's a long-term vision for santa rosa and it does include future growth projections those were essential to the development of this water supply assessment we use their projections for population housing economic development and services etc so that we can make sure to understand the additional growth impacts on water demand from this general plan the santa rosa general plan is subject to sequa and it does fit the definition of a project according to california water code so therefore it is subject to and requires a water supply assessment and just a moment i'll turn this over to mr hughes but just to let you know the document covers an introduction the applicability of the law future and existing supplies demand analysis a dry year analysis was which of course you can imagine is quite important in this age of climate change and then a sufficiency determination so at this point i'll turn it over to chris to tell you more about the work that he and his team did thanks collin so the water supply assessment consistent with the timelines that are considered by the other planning efforts of the general plan uses 2019 as a baseline starting point and 2050 as a projection endpoint for new development and the next couple of slides i'm going to be eventually walking here how we calculated those projected water demands associated for with 2050 we also compare those demands to both existing and projected water supplies under as collin said several of the standard water planning scenarios that are used in other state statewide planning efforts normal water year a single dry year as well as a multiple dryer scenario i'll explain a little bit more when we get there a side note i just want to remind you about in a couple different places is technically sb 610 does require or dictate a 20 year planning horizon from this current year so actually we're a little bit more conservative and i'm assuming that those 2050 demands for water would be fully realized by 2043 today plus 20 years when we did our comparisons of supply and demand next slide so our demand production projection methodology starts with something called residential equivalency factors or refs for short they're really used as a standardization method across various land use categorizations that are used in this general planning process they there's a lot of assumptions i'll show you a table with more of them but an example is 1,000 square feet of retail development land use would be equal to one ref what's a ref and ref is actually a volume of water it's the average water use of one single family home per year in this case we use 65,345 gallons this comes from a long-term average of single family home usage that was relatively recently updated in the 2020 urban water management plan incorporates across that period a variety of wet and dry years so as you can see with that calculation at the bottom of the last slide we just are simply multiplying the number of refs by that 65,000 or so gallons per ref to get our total demand to get to that point we have to cover all the future projected land uses to refs so on the screen here planning an economic development department provided information on both baseline and build out conditions broken down by several different land use types i'm not going to read all the numbers here but i just want to call your attention to the green box that it does show the growth increment for each row that's really the difference between baseline to build out and is what we used as an input to the wsa's calculations and as we flip to the next slide you'll see that same exact green box it's just splitting it out into a couple of different columns in the ref conversion factor column on the right side you will see how each input was converted from some kind of value for land use so they square feet or rooms and students into refs residential detached and first row is pretty straightforward we're just assuming that one detached home is a single family home that's you know used as defining basically what a ref is you see one ref per unit residential attached represents multifamily where each multifamily unit is equal to 0.7 refs reflecting you know less water use at a multifamily unit compared to single family and then the rest of land uses as you can see there's a variety of factors used to convert their various square footages or number of rooms or students associated with hotels and schools into refs and at the very end we end up with about 29,823 refs so here is how we then convert that to water demands straightforward calculation about that almost 30,000 refs times 65,000 gallons per ref about 2 billion gallons or more standard unit we use for talking about water demands is acre feet so we're about 6,000 acre feet just as a side note we do add in non-revenue water to that 504 acre feet you see in the box in the bottom that includes uses like firefighting some miscellaneous sales from construction and we end up with a final growth number of 6,484 acre feet so when we get the total projected demand for general plan 2050 we take our existing demands from 2019 about 17,832 acre feet we add on the number I just mentioned for the net demand increase and our total water demand at 2050 would be 24 about 24,000 acre feet now we want to look at what compare that about 24,000 number to our demands to our water supplies the city has three main sources of water supply which are shown these three tables three rows of this table the columns show different years with the actual water supplies used in 2020 first and then projected available supplies in five-year increments thereafter these volumes represent water available in a normal water year you can see that water purchase from Sonoma water is the largest volume followed by city-produced groundwater and recycled water and that from 2025 to 2045 it's the same same value each year assuming no impacts from drought which will be the next slide sorry the following slide so when we look at our demands against our supplies I've got a reminder that we're conservatively assuming that the projected growth happens over a 20-year planning horizon so it's really fully coming online that 24,316 acre feet comes online in 2043 rather than 2050 to be in compliance or with the the dictations of SB 610 we estimated the water demands on a five-year basis starting in 2023 based on a consistent annual growth rate so when we compare the supplies and demands in a normal year you can see that there's always a surplus of supplies and of supplies above demands there's no shortage expected you see that zero percent in each of the projected five-year increments the picture is a little bit different when we're looking at a single dry year here's the same table but looking at a single dry year scenario aligning with I kind of how we've done this in a standardized way for the urban water management plan this is based on the actual hydrology of the single driest year on record which is a water year 1976 to 77 you do see that there if a single dry year scenario were to occur in 2033 or later we see that there's a shortage in supplies compared to the demands in 2043 when we have our maximum demands that shortage is about 12 percent however when I make it really clear these are these are basically normal year demands the city has a robust water shortage contingency plan that would be implemented as needed to ensure demand does not exceed supply in this in this situation the water conservation measures in that shortage plan are anticipated to be sufficient to reduce the demands based on successful implementation during several previous droughts including the most recent from 2021 to 2022 lastly our third water supply scenario here is the multiple dry year scenario it's based on the actual hydrology of the driest five-year period rather than just focusing on one at a time this is based on water years 1987 through 1991 under this scenario rainfall is below average but generally enough rainfall occurs due to large atmospheric storms that sufficient water supply is maintained in Lake Sonoma so similar to a normal year you can see that while the surplus may not be quite as large we still have plenty of supplies compared to demands no shortage is expected under this standard scenario thank you so much mr. Hughes so in terms of the sufficiency determination this is sort of the culmination of this water supply assessment the water supply assessment finds that santa rosa has adequate existing and projected water supplies to meet existing and planned development including the new development in the proposed santa rosa general plan 2050 with the implementation of demand management measures in dry years as needed it is recommended by santa rosa water that the council by resolution approve the water supply assessment for the santa rosa general plan 2050 and at this point both chris and i are here available for your questions and can i just ask city clerk should i stop sharing at this point thank you thank you so much for the presentation i'm going to look to council for questions council member rogers thank you vice mayor i just got a point of clarification to make sure i understand it so for the single dry year calculation that assumes no contingency plans no reductions no rationing of water but for the multiple dry years that assumes that we've implemented our shortage contingency plan i'll give that a shot first and i'll make sure that chris can back me up on this but essentially both of those tables look at before any conservation has occurred so would there be a shortage based on normal demand without any water conservation measures in place and as chris mentioned we do get enough atmospheric rivers in the driest five year period on record that the lake would have enough water supply however as you've seen with the recent three droughts that we've had since 2007 we're very conservative so if we get into a second dry year even if the lake is adequate it's very likely we would be asking for some measure of conservation to make sure that those would last throughout the region for an extended period of time but those tables themselves assume what the what we might call unconstrained demand would be before any measures are in place okay so that makes a lot more sense to me so in the single dry year it's showing a three percent reduction for that individual or three percent shortage for that individual year but we do assume some level of rainfall even if it's severely dry in multiple years which is why on the second chart the same 20 33 year shows that there is no shortage correct because we assume that there would be sufficient atmospheric rivers for folks who may not remember 76 77 rainfall year i believe we only had about five inches of rain so that's a very specific scenario where we would absolutely anticipate we would have shortages a dry five year period could be similar to what we had recently where certainly there was still water in lake sonoma but it was getting lower and lower and so of course we had water conservation measures in place okay great i appreciate the clarification thank you any more questions from council all right we'll go ahead and put a motion on the floor councilmember stop this is yours thank you vice mayor i move that the council of the city of san aroza adopt the water supply assessment for the san toroza general plan 2050 second is there any more discussion from council madam city clerk will you please conduct a roll call vote thank you i'm sorry about that we got to go to public comment even i keep forgetting that one i apologize it's good that my technology was um slow anyway so we are now taking public comments on item 14.1 if you are in the council chamber and would like to speak please make your way to the podium if you are participating via zoom please dial star nine or raise your hand i'm seeing no one approach the podiums vice mayor and i'm seeing no hands be raised zoom host do we have any pre-recorded public comments on this item we do not thank you thank you with that i'll bring it back to council there's no more comments we'll go ahead and call a roll call vote councilmember step hi councilmember rogers hi hi councilmember okrepke hi councilmember fleming is absent councilmember alvarez vice mayor mcdonald hi leather record show that passes with four affirmative votes with council member alvarez councilmember fleming and mayor rogers absent thank you thank you for the presentation again we'll now move on to item 14.2 item 14 point but item 14.2 is a report police department annual military equipment report good evening vice mayor mcdonald and council i'm john cregan our chief of police and i'm joined tonight by captain dan marinzik and captain marindic is truly one of our department subject matter experts on our tactical teams our tactical equipment and he's put a significant amount of work into creating our ab 481 annual report so i'm going to turn it over to him to present that report a good evening council members um dan marinzik i'm a captain with the san rosa police department so like chief cregan here said we're here today to seek approval of a resolution to accept our military equipment report and renew the ordinance so i'm going to go over um a quick summary of our report give you some historical context regarding it and then just a summary of our uses um and then some future acquisitions that we plan to have in the future so last year or actually in september of 2021 assembly bill 481 was passed and it was put into law and pretty much what that bill required law enforcement agencies in the state of california to do was to seek approval from their governing body in our case the city council about equipment that was deemed military equipment and so we were required to uh detail the funding acquisition and use how we're using that equipment and go before board and uh seek approval so we did that last year in july of 2022 and that ordinance was adopted um the following month in august of 2022 and as part of that ordinance we are required to put together an annual report which we provide to you which we provide to you um tonight and so i just want to throw a little caveat and there are report for this evening it's not for the full calendar year it's just from july of 2022 to june 1st of 2023 and the reason that is is because just the way the law was timed and the way that our ordinance was approved um it was easier for us to do it this way but our hope is in subsequent years that we will be on a calendar year and provide these equipment or annual military reports uh calendar year okay so this is a quick synopsis so ab 41 it divides military equipment into 15 different categories and then one of the things i just want to clarify is that this doesn't necessarily need to be equipment that we have purchased from the military or obtained from the military in fact the san rosa police department doesn't have any equipment that wasn't obtained from the military it's just stuff that was deemed through this assembly bill that was military equipment so when you look at this list right here we have eight categories of equipment i'll just um run down them really quick what they are unmanned aerial or ground vehicles those are drones and robots armor personnel carrier it's a rescue vehicle command and control vehicles we talked about that a little bit a couple weeks ago uh those are those mobile command vehicles we used to dispatch units and help communicate with units in the field um battering rams and this is a specific type of battering ram which i can talk about in a little bit more detail later uh specific firearms um outside of our standard issue firearms that we have flash bangs chemical agents in that a long range acoustic device and projectile launchers which again i can talk about in more detail or take questions on so really briefly um dealing with category one as i go through my okay our drones um these are unmanned aerial vehicles so there's a more detail in the staff report but as you look up here you can see that we had 165 deployments of our aerial drones last year and we use these drones for a variety of things one of the important caveats i want to put out there's they're not used for random surveillance activities we're not using them to look into people's yards um we primarily use them for suspect apprehension uh we use them to search for missing people and one of the main uses we've noticed with drones is the ability to diagram crime scenes or traffic accidents so what we found is that using drones it allows us to document scenes quicker in greater detail greater accuracy than if we were to go out there measure things by hand or the other methods that we'd use prior to so i'll break down these numbers for 165 again i talked a little bit about what some of those uses were were so of those we had 20 times they were used for suspect apprehension 16 times we use them for search warrants nine times for missing persons 41 times we use for crime scene or accident scene mapping 66 of those incidents they were used for training six for demonstrations for community events to detail and talk about what the drones do and why it is that we use them and then seven of them were used for interior searches during tactical search warrants it's a little bit about just the uses of drones again i can take more questions later if you have some and then you'll get the cost that $15,288 that's what we spent in this last year from June of 2022 or July 1st of 2022 to June 1st of 2023 on drones and then you'll notice under there there's a section with future purchases we've identified some future purchases and i just want to clarify because of the way the law is structured we're putting down things that we hope or we think that it might be possible for us to purchase this next year but a lot of these things are going to be dependent upon the budget upon operational needs just upon the necessity of us having of having them and you'll see down here that there's actually 10 drones we've listed for the hope to purchase in the fiscal year and one of the reasons that's on there is there's been with some technology the drones that we currently have there's been some security issues and concerns because of where they were manufactured they're internationally manufactured so it's been the recommendation of local law enforcement agencies as well as the federal government to change that brand of drone and go to a new drone the next item up here we have is the armored rescue vehicle if you recall for those who run the council then we came in October and presented to make an amendment to our military equipment ordinance to allow us to purchase of the armored rescue vehicle so you can see that cost up there and the reason why that cost is so high is because we initially purchased this vehicle last year and we had to pay to have it outfitted um this is a vehicle we use during tactical situations it can be used for officer rescues it can be used for active shooters for really those tactical incidents that really go beyond the scope of what our normal officers can do on the street you can see up there that there was 14 appointments um some of those appointments before we actually had our ARB so six of those deployments were with our ARB that we purchased another five we used the Sonoma County Sheriff's ARB before we were in possession of this one of those deployments was used during a barricaded situation before our SWAT team which primarily uses this ARB was called out to the scene and we use another two incidences we use them for community demonstrations and we don't have any and under future purchases we don't have any future purchases planned other than the ongoing maintenance that we'll have for this vehicle in the upcoming year and then I just want to clarify you'll notice with most of this report when you see the deployments talking about what the deployments are in our actual annual military equipment report you'll see that most of these deployments are for SWAT tactical missions and it actually details those in greater detail in the report about what the specifics were behind each deployment the next item up here is the mobile command vehicle when this slide was initially made it was not currently in service it's since been repaired and back in service that five thousand dollar cost you see for the years just for ongoing fuel maintenance to be serviced by the city and then also two weeks ago when you look under future purchases we talked about a mobile command vehicle that was going to be purchased during grant funds that's what we had presented two weeks ago to council for that mobile command vehicle that's going to be purchased with grant funding in the upcoming year okay the next category it's explosive breaching we haven't had any deployments with that over the year no costs when you look under future purchases you'll see that we are requesting that we purchase a kinetic breaching tool and if you look at the bottom right of the screen that's what a kinetic breaching tool is and really the the simple way to explain that is it's just an item that we can use to open up doors to breach doors so one of the things that we have to use currently is a battering ram oftentimes it's not as efficient it takes multiple times and actually to have a successful breach this item right here it uses an actual 40 caliber blank that goes in there and it's just like a piston it pushes forward and pushes back and allows allows the teams or tactical teams which this would be used for to breach doors so something like this and one of the reasons why we're requesting it for future purchases it's something that during an active shooter situation where multiple doors have to be breached the efficiency and the ease of being able to use something like this would truly benefit our tactical teams if that unfortunate incident never happened the next item on our military equipment it's specialized firearms and ammunition and you can see a picture of a rifle down there these are specialty rifles that are assigned to our SWAT our tactical team um and you look up there under deployments it says it's been deployed 11 times just clarifying there was no officer involved shootings they were used during specific search warrants where they deployed with the actual rifles um the cost no associated cost during this reporting period and under future purchases you can see that we're requesting to purchase some ammunition two different types of ammunition one for the SWAT rifles the other for specific rifles for our scout team which uh they can use to make accurate shots with a it's a longer rifle pretty much it is more accurate and they can use in specialized situations and we're also requesting to purchase eight new rifles for our SWAT team and the reason why we're requesting to purchase those is rifles have a finite life so as you shoot them the barrels that the bullet travels through it eventually wears down the barrel and it becomes inaccurate and more inaccurate over time so you ultimately end up having to replace the rifles so we're slowly phasing that process in so we're not purchasing them all at once but we're staggering them so the request is to purchase eight rifles in the upcoming year flashbangs chemical agents so flashbangs for those who don't know they're called noise diversionary devices and what they do is they emit a really loud sound and a bright light these are used by our tactical teams um in the event that they need to make a quick entry into building and use the element of surprise and speed in order to get in um and then chemical agents uh I think we've talked about them before but they are just a lot of them come from um organic chemicals and what they do is they they're called a lachrymator and so what they do is they provide the swallowing up of what we call mucous membrane your eyes your nose um things like that and you'll feel a temporary burning sensation and so those are used in a variety of circumstances um primarily by our tactical team and our mobile field force team um but those are the situations that they're used in and so if you look in here for the reporting period there was zero actual field deployments for the last year however they were used 41 times or 41 devices were used over the course of training and again those trainings were for our mobile field force team um as well as our SWAT tactical teams under future purchases you can see we're requesting to purchase a few different items um I think it's a do some quick math 106 160 items that we're requesting to purchase and one of the reasons for those is we use them up in training but like a lot of things that we purchase chemical agents flashbangs they have a finite life and they have a five-year shelf life after that they're not covered by manufacturer warranty and the manufacturers don't assume any liability if something's to go wrong so once that five-year date hits we don't use we'll not use those items any longer we'll have to replace those uh next item that falls into category it's our long range acoustic device um we use this for communication what it is it's a big communication tool there's some proprietary technology and because of the way that it's designed and the technology behind it it really allows us to focus the direction of sound and allows a much more clear um communication between us and whoever it is we're trying to communicate with so we can use this for a variety of things tactical incidents crowd control incidents we can use it during natural disasters for evacuations anything where we really need to be able to project ourselves and communicate vital information to somebody so they can hear it you can see up here we use it 11 times during the course of this reporting period those were all during SWAT tactical operations no cost associated other than training and we don't have any future purchases planned last item on here is projectile launcher there's a photo one on a on the bottom of the screen as well as a less lethal round that can be used in it we had three deployments this year they're used often in times of combative situations where somebody's combative there's a threat of suspected perceived or violence going on and we need to um we need to subdue them one of the things is reasons why we use this is this having this option of using a projectile launcher as opposed to something else it really gives us an additional tool so we can use a lesser amount of force because often in times like this the alternative would be possibly to use deadly force or lethal force as opposed to using something like this so again three deployments um there was no cost associated we are um planning or hopeful to purchase a hundred additional of those sponge rounds on the bottom of the screen and again just like all the other munitions that we have there's a finite shelf life of five years and we have to start replacing these items after then and can no longer use them okay i went through that really quick some of those items again it was just a real basic summary um i know we had presented before to counsel and in more detail last year about all these categories and the items but i just wanted to give a quick real rundown and then some of the things we use them for and really just answer any questions that you have or or any input or feedback that you want to provide to us i look to counsel go ahead councilmember rogers i really appreciate the uh the presentation on this and the in particular walking through in the report the different circumstances around the deployments for each of these things um could you remind me with the bearcat vehicle i know prior to us purchasing it we would borrow it from time and you reflected that in the report uh from i believe it was the sheriff's office do we have anybody who is requesting to borrow it from us i can't remember if we built into when we approved it that it that it had to say srpd with our trained individuals but i can't remember it's the way it's worded in the in the policy in the way that we have is we are allowed to um other agencies can request it from us but they also have to have it approved through their governing body to use so if you had another agency um you know and they did not allow the use of an actual armored rescue vehicle then we would not lend that vehicle for their use i don't believe we've actually had a request to use it um during this reporting period um but there are times you know thinking of what could happen or the contingencies in the future that i could see other agencies requesting our armored rescue vehicle as well as using an additional one as well right thank you and then for the uh flights for search warrants there's two different categories that were there for the for the drones one was uh during swat operation or i think it was a high risk uh search warrants that swat did and i think that was seven and then the regular search warrants at 16 can you just give us a little context around the benefit of having a drone during a search warrant uh that's being administered yeah absolutely um and i know it's sometimes we talk about the concept of de-escalation and what de-escalation is and i mentioned swat and sometimes it's tough to picture how is that de-escalating an incident but here's how using a drone is actually beneficial it allows us to get into less lethal or or high-risk use of force situations so the concepts of de-escalation the basic tenants it's it's built on distance and time right having that distance from somebody and having that time from somebody it allows us to communicate with people and if we're able to communicate with somebody then we're allowed to more successfully resolve that incident without using a higher level of force so having that drone um whether it's going inside and doing an interior search of a building or whether it's up in the air and looking in the backyard if we can see what's there before we go in we can actually put some more thought and have the ability to think of a plan is how we're going to address this so if you have a drone that's inside and they see somebody with a gun inside of a living room and we know that person's there we have the ability to set up that contingency so provide distance allow us to use that time and allow us to call to that person hopefully communicate it as opposed to just going right in there we're working fronting somebody armed with a gun that's that's really helpful thank you councilmember staff this was a very helpful presentation um and i i was caught by a point you made about how the drones are it's if i heard correctly they're off they're offsetting officer time or staff time to some extent at accident scenes um can you say a little bit more about that i mean how much are these drones actually to some extent paying paying themselves back with with their with with the way that they're offsetting staff time yeah that's a that's a good point that you uh that you bring up and and they do they're allowed to i'm gonna preface this with i'm not the the expert on crime scene mapping with drones but prior to drones we used a system of lasers and i won't get into all this business was called total station but the issue with that is it required an officer or a field evidence technician and somebody else to physically go to each piece of evidence hold up a reflector and have that laser shoot out at it so they would constantly have to go through the scene and it would take several hours sometimes more so now we compare that with sending a drone up there and they're allowed to actually map a crime scene or an accident scene in you know in minutes in 15 minutes and 20 minutes as opposed to several hours so we're definitely saving staff time when it comes to that well thanks for mentioning that that's great that's great to to know um and my second final question is around um it was actually the ammunition purchases both the let's see the the sponge rounds um as well as um some of the traditional ammo rounds i know that i know that uh training is an issue i've heard the training is an issue in terms of having access to ranges and being able to you know having opportunities to to um practice with these weapons um are those are those ammo or do we have with the with the um numbers or ammunition rounds that you're specifying here um are those are sufficient for our training needs yeah i'll preface these um this specific ammunition um related to the rifles that's not necessarily it is used for training and it's also duty ammo so just like most of our munitions there's a finite shelf life so we cycle through the stuff um there's a separate type of training round which isn't um which is an assembly bill 41 which isn't included our military equipment because it's not doesn't fall in the category if that makes sense but this is sufficient for for the duty ammunition but we do find when it comes to training ammunition that not having a training area has been a huge issue um there's not one in Sonoma County so our officers actually have to go you know several counties over to Richmond in order to be able to shoot um you know in order for us to shoot at the the junior college up in Windsor that requires a specific type of ammunition um which is very costly and cost i think it's about twice as much as our normal ammunition so there's an extreme you know increase in our training costs to to use that thanks for clarification yes thank you any more questions from council councilmember O'Crabke we put a motion on the floor sorry public comment we are now taking public comment on item 14.2 if you're in the council chamber would like to comment please make your way to the podium if you are participating via zoom please raise your hand or dial star nine you'll have two minutes and a countdown timer will alert at the end of that period thank you sir please go ahead with your comment if you so choose please identify yourself for the public record my name is Victor Castro and i just have two questions i think that the drones are saving a lot of money because it's $90 per deployment but does that include the labor involved in operation because that's saving a lot of money for the city because the officers would have taken a long time to to do what the drone is doing and mapping out the crime scenes so we're not allowed to answer public comment we're allowed to receive your comments and if somebody on council wants to go through and and ask questions on your behalf they are able to but we're not allowed to respond to that okay i'm done i had others but i'm done thank you thank you i'm going to look to zoom we have no hands being raised via zoom and we had no prerecorded comments on this item i'll go ahead and go to council member krepke pardon me go ahead and answer the question yeah it was sorry art i'm gonna it was to quantify how much cost savings we had in relation to using the drones instead of staffing time to use other methods i don't have a dollar amount or can't i sort of quantify it i mean if i was to make an estimate i would say it you know over the course of a year it's probably hundreds of hours of staff time that we're saving being able to use those as opposed to using you know actual people to do the job that the drones can do thank you council member krepke all right i'll move a resolution of the council of the city santa rosa approving the santa rosa police department military equipment report and renewing city of santa rosa ordinance number o rd dash two zero two two dash zero zero seven codified as chapter two dash three eight of the santa rosa city code military equipment ordinance and wait for the reading of the text second are there any more discussion from council we'll go ahead and move to a roll call vote thank you council member step all right council member rogers hi council member o krepke hi council member fleming is absent council member alvarez hi vice mayor mcdonald hi let the record show this motion passes with five affirmative votes and two absences with mayor rogers and council member fleming absent thank you we're now to item 16.1 under written communications there's a list estate in federal legislative updates that are listed in the packet does council have any questions or comments on these items okay seeing none i don't believe we need to make a motion to accept those but we'll go to public comment on item 16.1 thank you if you wish to provide public comment on 16.1 please make your way to the podium or if you're participating via zoom please raise your hand or dial star nine vice mayor i see no one raising their hand via zoom and no one making their way to the podium thank you we're now to item 17 our last public comment on non-agenda items for tonight again if you would like to make a public comment on item 17 the second part where you can make a comment on non-agenda matters please make your way to the podium if you are participating via zoom please raise your hand or dial star nine vice mayor i see no one approaching the podium and no one raising their hand via zoom thank you there is no item 18 so we will go ahead and adjourn at 733 thank you