 Okay welcome everyone call to order or reconvene the March 3rd 2020 regular council meeting in the city of Santa Rosa. Could we have an announcement or roll call please? I let the record show that all council members are present with the exception of council member Rogers. Thank you Madam City Attorney do you have the report out on closed session? Yes I do the council meeting closed session on item 2.1 conference with labor negotiators that a council did give direction to its labor negotiators. Item 2.2 there was a brief discussion and then a continuation of that item that item is continued to a later date. Great thank you. Mr. Sory you have our proclamation for the evening. I do indeed and Jane Burns. Where's Jane? There you are Jane. Where did she come down? And we don't have I would say I'm not sure what where you you could where you could have a seat right over there and then I'd love to have you say a few words after the proclamation if you would like. Thank you. So this is for ArtStart whereas the nonprofit art education organization known as ArtStart has provided stimulating artwork experiences for teens while creating publicly and privately commissioned artwork for the community since 1999 and whereas each year ArtStart trains young apprentices who work under the mentoring guidance of professional artists who serve as role models to help them experience art as a realistic profession or course of study and whereas ArtStart provides teams with the opportunity to earn community service hours through drop-in winter sessions while participating in different forms of art projects and whereas aspiring young artists are provided opportunities to create environmentally themed art through art on the streets for cleaner creeks and whereas ArtStart provides individuals the opportunity to memorialize a child or adult through the Spring Lake Memorial project by creating a custom colorful cut glass mosaic to honor a loved one. Now therefore be resolved that Tom Schwet-Helmer the city center rose on behalf of the entire council because to hear by proclaim March is ArtStart Youth Art Month. Congratulations. Thank you very much. We are so pleased and proud to have this acknowledgement through a proclamation. It is our 21st year at ArtStart and we have created so many beautiful pieces throughout Sonoma County that I hope you'll all have an opportunity to see and I especially wanted to thank the city of Santa Rosa for its support over these many many years through funding and commissioning many of the artworks and of course also very generous with property that we were able to use for quite a few years. We're now in a brand new location and we hope everyone will find out a little bit more about what we do. I brought our brochures. Excellent. For you to take a look at and again thank you very much. We are very proud. Thank you for what you do. It's an amazing program and that's one of the highlights of Santa Rosa. Thank you. Okay before we move on to the staff briefing just want to give everyone a heads up at how the tonight's meeting will be going. So we'll be going through the agenda item. Gonna try to hear public comment as close to five o'clock as possible. As soon as we have public comment on non-agenda items we'll be moving to our first public hearing. Then we'll listen to public hearings and then after all the public hearings we'll revert back to the report items depending upon how far we get there and if anyone was here for item 16.3 of public hearing regarding the streetlight pole banner policy that item has been continued to the March 17th 2020 regular meeting. So with that Mr. McGlynn item 8.1 fire recovery and rebuild update. I'd like to invite Megan Bassinger down to give an update on Cal Home. Good evening Mayor Schwedhelm and members of council. Want to give a brief update on the Cal Home disaster recovery program. As you may recall in early 2019 the housing authority received $1.2 million from the California Department of Housing and Community Development to be used as gap financing for homeowners who are rebuilding in the fire damaged areas. In February 2020 HCD formally approved amendments to our program guidelines that allow the program to be used to households up to a hundred and twenty percent of AMI which is approximately a hundred and twelve thousand dollars for a family of four. So these applications are now being accepted and the other amendment to the program allows it to be used for the replacement of damaged or destroyed mobile homes in mobile home parks within the city of Santa Rosa. Be happy to answer any questions you may have and this information is available on the city's website has been put in the city newsletter and is available in handouts available from staff. Thank you Megan for that information. I do appreciate all the work that city staff has been doing to get to that hundred and twenty percent AMI our earlier efforts weren't as successful as we might have hoped so thank you so much for all the work behind the scenes. Council any questions about the Cal Home program? Seeing none thank you. Continuing on the positive news story Mr. McGlynn 8.2. Item 8.2 Kaiser Permanente fire recovery grant presentation for general plan engagement and collaboration with Latino service providers. David Gouin assistant city manager leading us off. Great thank you. Good afternoon Mayor Schwedholm, Vice Mayor Fleming and Council. We're excited to be here today to present two grants to the city and in partnership with Latino service providers. With me is Guadalupe from Latino service providers executive director there. But we're going to talk about the two different grants and what they are and how they work together. It's important that we brought this together the same night and the same night as we're bringing the general plan contract to you because it all ties together. The first grant is a six hundred thousand dollar grant from Kaiser Permanente to ensure that the twenty twenty fifty general plan will fully identify and respond to the health needs in our community and to do that what Kaiser Permanente has offered this grant for is to help us reach out to individuals in our community that don't typically get engaged in these type of activities hard to reach populations to make sure their voices are heard and find creative ways to get out in our community and make sure we have everybody at the table when we do our general plan effort. So it's a big boost to us to be able to have this resource to make that happen. And so that's the first grant that you're going to us receive tonight. And I'll turn it over to Lupe to talk about the second grant. Good afternoon Mayor and city council members. My name is Lupe Navadro and we are here to also accept the second grant from Kaiser Permanente and then I would just like to share a little bit about who we are who Latino service providers is and our youth promoter project. So on behalf of the LSB staff and youth promoters here present LSB was established over 30 years ago here in Sonoma County as a hub of information for the Latinx community. Today our youth promoter project engages with over 70 Sonoma County students between the ages of 16 to 25 as youth promoters. Our youth promoters then engaged with over a thousand community residents per year for the past three years. They have been discussing having conversations with the community about mental health and emergency preparedness. The role of the youth promoter which is also known as a committee health worker. The members of the committee thus can engage with the community members in natural gathering places and offer information in Spanish, interact in a culturally appropriate and acceptable manner and gain the trust of individuals and families. Thank you to Kaiser for this grant. LSB in partnership with the city of Santa Rosa. Our new cohort of youth promoters will be addressing housing as a health issue and form the community of mental health as mental health symptoms as a result of housing disparities, provide bilingual presentations to the Latinx community to be informed and engaged in current city planning and developments. And the aim of this project is to build Latinx community capacity, momentum for participating in current city planning and development. Thank you. Thank you. So with that I'd like to invite Judy James from Kaiser Permanente and her team to present the chance. Good afternoon mayor and city council members. We are very honored to be here today. So if you don't know me, my name is Tarek Slaue. I am the senior vice president and area manager for Kaiser Permanente in both Marin and Sonoma counties. As you know, Kaiser Permanente is very committed to being a partner with all the communities we serve, especially right here in Sonoma County. And today we're pleased to present a $600,000 check to the city of Santa Rosa and of course $150,000 to the Latino service providers to do exactly that, help improve the health and wellness of our communities. At Kaiser Permanente, we know that the environment right down to the zip code and even the city block level is a significant indicator and determinant for community health. We're very pleased to support the city of Santa Rosa as part of the three year planning process to update the general plan and to provide the Latino service providers funding to research to reach Spanish speaking members of our community and engage the totality of our community in this very important planning process. We have a unique opportunity to influence how our community rebuilds from the fires and to provide community health priorities in that planning process to help inform them so we're better suited to meet the needs of our community. The Kaiser Permanente funding to the city of Santa Rosa will ensure a lead city planner focused on engaging the hard to reach populations and a keen commitment to health by design planning. The funds will also help expedite environmental protective factors for vulnerable populations such as affordable housing, access to safe places to play, walkable communities, transit oriented design elements and infill building. In addition, our local leaders as well as Kaiser Permanente's national board of directors have approved simultaneous $150,000 grant to Latino service providers. The reputable partners at Latino service providers are a local community based organization that is trusted by many of our most hard to reach community members. This will help Latino service providers reach a minimum of 750 Spanish speaking community members and activate them meaningfully in the planning process. This strategy will help engage the totality of our community inclusively as part of the general plan process. Through youth action and community organizing efforts, it will also be incorporated in the update of the city's general plan. The two project work plants have been designed to complement each other and achieve a more equitable planning process for all of our community and it will help ensure environmental justice, civic equality throughout the city of Santa Rosa. These grants are designed to increase civic course and create a healthier Santa Rosa for all age groups and populations. We are very pleased to support the Santa Rosa 2050 general plan health city project and pleased to present a $600,000 check to the city Santa Rosa, as well as $150,000 to our partners that commute the Latino service providers. Thank you so much. Thank you. Okay. Now, if those checks go directly to our ATM, just slide them right in there. All right. City Manager, City Attorney reports, Mr. City Manager, would you like to start? I don't have anything in a report but the city attorney has has an item, I believe. Adam, city attorney? Yes, I do. I wanted to report to council as you may already be aware. Last evening, the city manager in his capacity as a director of emergency services proclaimed a state of local emergency in the city of Santa Rosa due to the novel coronavirus, also known as COVID-19. That proclamation requires ratification from the city council within seven days of issuance. We are recommending that the council therefore consider that ratification today in order to ensure the continued efficacy of that proclamation. In order to hear that the item is not currently on your agenda, so in order to hear that matter today, the council will need to make two findings under the Brown Act and our own local city policy. Those two findings is that there is a need to take immediate action. And second, that the need for action came to the attention of the city subsequent to the posting of the agenda. So it is a two-step process. First, by motion we would ask that you make those findings. That would allow the matter to be placed on the agenda for this evening's consideration. And if you are able to make those findings, we would then place the item on the agenda and we recommend that it be a report item so that you could hear more of the details of the circumstances. In terms of making those two findings, again, the declaration was signed by the city manager last evening due to events that arose over the course of the last couple of days and indeed even as of yesterday that there are two cases of coronavirus here in the city. The county of Sonoma, the public health officer, declared a state of public health emergency. I'm sorry, declared a public health emergency. And then the county of Sonoma declared a state of local emergency of county-wide. In terms of when you take that action to decide whether to put it on the agenda for this evening, you are free to take that up at any time. You could take it up now or you could take it up as your first item of business after approval of the minutes. That's at your choice. Great. Thank you for that. I'd entertain a motion if one is so inclined to do so. So I'll make two separate motions. The first is that the fine that moved the emergency declaration with the finding that the city manager made were after the posting of the agenda. We have a motion and a second on that and that meets the criteria that you just explained. There are two findings and I'm not sure if you're doing motions to separate those two findings. The two findings are there's a need to take immediate action. And second, that the need for action came to the attention of the city after the posting of the agenda last Friday. So I'm going to put a substitute motion on the floor. So move for the city attorney. Second. Any additional questions from council? Okay, we have a motion and a second. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Please. And that passes unanimously. Okay. And so I will move that to the item and we'll make that 15.1 our first report item of the evening. When do we get to that? Very good. Thank you. Anything else to report? I do not have anything else to report. I just want to make for clarity and so we don't get hit with a process thing here through the mayor. Okay. I move that we put it on the agenda. Second. Motion to second. Any other comments or questions? Motion to second. Your votes, please. And then also passing unanimously. So it will be item 15.1. Thank you. All right. Any statements of abstentions by council members? Mr. Olivares. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. After consultation with the city attorney and in an abundance of caution, I will be recusing myself from item 16.1 due to my position as a board member of the Museum of Cinema County. All right. Mr. Sawyer. Thank you, Mayor. And after consultation with the city attorney, I'll be abstaining from 16.1 due based on an abundance of caution because of my position as an officer on the Central's Community Health Board. All right. Any other abstentions? All right. Thank you. Moving on to council members' reports. You know, let's go over that. Anyone like to have anything in the elect report? Ms. Lemme. So busy couple of weeks. A couple of weeks ago, the mayor, myself, the police chief and the city manager went to Washington, D.C. to meet with our federal partners to continue to advocate for infrastructure funding following the 2017 Tubbs Fire and specifically to work toward getting a better location and help getting it for our fire station that was lost fire station number five in Mountain Grove. We are grateful that Congressman Mike Thompson and Jared Huffman took time to personally meet with us. And we feel that it was a good use of our time and city resources. Additionally, I'll be appointing Manza Atkinson to my measure oversight board and effective immediately. I also wanted to note that we had a productive meeting with the California State Treasurer and Treasurer Maw over the tax credit allocation committee. And it was my impression and I think the impression from staff that the concerns from the community were heard and that hopefully in the first rollout in July of the tax credits that Sonoma County and Santa Rosa will get fair access to these funds that were intended to go toward our disaster affected communities. Additionally, the Renewal Enterprise District met last week and we continue to work toward getting funding and working with community partners to increase our housing in Santa Rosa and Sonoma County. Thank you. Okay, any other reports, Mr. Down? I want to report that I attended the Russian River watershed agencies meeting last Thursday. We discussed where it was in budget and then also had further discussions about how to continue our outside engineering consultant to assistance. No action was taken. Okay. Anyone else? Thanks, Report 9. Just to add on what the Vice Mayor mentioned when we in DC, we also had a visit with the COPS office. It was very helpful meeting with the director. We don't oftentimes get to talk with the head of the organization who gave us some insights into funding moving into the future. And it was great to have the Chief of Police there to have that conversation, which I think will bring additional dollars to our community. And last week we had a City Council Board of Public Utility meeting on February 27th. Our Subcommittee considered two items for recommendation to the Board of Public Utilities. The first was a proposed general services agreement with Leistek International to provide biosolids processing services to the city. And then the second item was a recommendation from staff to proceed with negotiating with the Renewal Sonoma regarding the lease of property near the Laguna treatment plant for locating a regional organics processing facility. Some of you may be aware that currently this county trucks its biosolids out of county. So we're trying to bring it back. The Subcommittee unanimously recommended both items. And then these items will be brought before the full Board of Public Utilities on March 5th for consideration. Then we also had a leadership council meeting. Two action items I'll report on. We selected the Homeless Management Information System Consultant for the capacity building project. And then we also updated the coordinated entry referral policy for encampments countywide. And then last Friday along with several members of the Santa Rosa Police Department and the Housing and Community Services participating in the Point Time Count will be anxious. You'd like to get the information now what our Point Time Count is to see how our investments in homeless services have been paying off. But we probably won't be getting that until April. But it's great to see the number of volunteers actively participating in this very important effort. So with that, Board... Item 11.2, Board Commission and Committee Appointments. Earlier today council interviewed four applicants. We had five applicants but we interviewed four persons for the Waterways Advisory Committee. Mr. Alvarez, did you want to make a motion on this item? Yes, thank you, Mayor. I'll make a motion to reappoint the four incumbents. Kevin C., Mark Neely, Steve Rabinowitz and Arthur Dikey. Second. The Waterways Advisory Committee. Oh, sorry. Sorry. Second. So we have a motion and a second. Any additional comments from anyone on council? Mr. Rogers. Question for the Mayor. Typically when we do these appointments we do process of elimination, voting, as opposed to one blanket for all of the noncommittals. Is there a reason for the switch? Just because I'm entertaining a motion and that's the direction where I want to go. So it's six or one half done in the other. So I've got a motion and a second. Okay. No specific intent. Any other comments? Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to clarify it is my understanding. You mentioned that there were five applications. But it is my understanding and perhaps the city clerk can confirm that one of those applicants did withdraw from consideration. Which is why you had only the four interviews. Actually, one did withdraw but then one was also added after the close. I got that correct. Yes, we had a total of six applications. One incumbent cannot make it today to the interview and one candidate withdrew from consideration. Thank you and sorry for me not being up to date. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Your votes, please. And that passes with six eyes with no Mr. Rogers. No vote. All right. Proval minutes we have none. Mr. McGlynn consent calendar. Item 13.1 resolution contract award courthouse square ballards. Item 13.2 resolution transportation development act article four in state transit assistance claims the middle item 13.3 resolution. Authorizing the filing and execution of an application for funding from the federal transit administration buses and bus facilities program for fiscal year 2020 and appropriating necessary matching funds. Item 13.4 resolution authorizing request for an estimated $371,499 in low carbon transit operations program LCTOP funds for the fiscal year 2019-20 and authorizing the director of transportation and public works to sign the certifications certifications and assurances. Item 13.5 resolution authorizing the filing and execution of an application for funding from the federal transit administration low or no emission bus program for fiscal year 2019-20 and appropriating any necessary matching funds. Item 13.3 resolution acceptance of donation from Luther Burbank home and garden association and approval of professional services agreement with trainer HL to provide historical architectural design services for conceptual plans and construction documents for re-roofing of Luther Burbank home and carriage house. Item 13.7 resolution approval professional services agreement with Rene public law group LLP. Council, questions on the consent calendar? Seeing none, I do have one card here. 13.2 Dwayne DeWitt. Thank you, sir. My name is Dwayne DeWitt. I'm from Roseland. I ride the bus as often as I need to. And one of the concerns I have here today is you're asking for $14 million for a bus system that's very underutilized. I'm hoping as you go forward, because we may have an economic downturn if you've been looking at the stock market, that you'll perhaps take into consideration using smaller buses. Many times on the bus, there's only a few passengers, especially late in the evenings. And the drivers have a difficult time with the large buses we currently have. So I'm hoping that these electric buses you're talking about will be smaller and more efficient than the current system we have going on now. Thank you for your time. Great. Thank you. Council, any additional questions? That's vice mayor. I'll move all items on the consent calendar. Second. Motion to second. Any additional comments? Seeing none, your votes, please. And that passes unanimously. Thank you. Not being five o'clock yet, we will move to our report calendar. And the first one will be what motion was made today regarding the coronavirus and the emergency. So forgive me if I'm repeating some of the things the city attorney stated, but I wanted to go through this brief explanation for the declaration. Yesterday morning, the county of Sonoma declared a local public health emergency as well as a local emergency to respond to the novel coronavirus COVID-19. This included a partial activation of the county emergency operation centers to support the necessary activities. The declaration was in response to a county resident testing positive for COVID-19. The Sonoma County Department of Health Services has stated that the resident had recently traveled to Mexico in a stable condition in isolation at a hospital in Sonoma County. There have been subsequent reports of additional issues that the county has wrestling with around the virus. In response, the city will be declared its own local state of emergency. The declaration will afford the city the opportunity to mobilize resources, accelerate emergency planning, streamline staffing issues, facilitate coordination with our partners, including the establishment of a joint information center with the county, and allow for future reimbursement by state and federal governments. Santa Rosa will be taking a common sense proactive approach to prioritize the health and safety of those who live, work, and play in Santa Rosa. Again, first and foremost, we ask everyone to practice good public hygiene. Wash your hands frequently with soap or water for 20 seconds, or as I hear twice through the alphabet. Avoid touching your eyes and face, coughing or sneezing into your sleeved elbow, staying home when ill, and getting, and it's still time to do so, getting your annual flu shot. Today, staff from every city department was engaged in a series of meetings to develop a plan of action that ensures continuity of operations should the coronavirus spread. This working group is responsible for identifying both immediate and potential future needs for city operations as well as ongoing communications with city staff in the community. I reiterate that this declaration is a precautionary measure to prepare and respond to the possibility of community spread of the coronavirus. There is no immediate impact on day-to-day operations around the city, and staff should proceed as business as usual. I am aware that there are a lot of questions from the community and concerns about coronavirus. It is important that you refer to trustworthy and locally focused sources of information. We would direct you to the Sonoma County Department of Health Services and their website. You can get there through going through the Santa Rosa's emergency information page, which is srcity.org backslash emergency. We also would refer you to the California Department of Public Health and the Centers for Disease Control. Additionally, you can call 211 with non-emergency questions that you can get answered around the current situation and what you should do to protect yourself and your loved ones. As the situation evolves, the city will keep you updated. It is important that we all remain calm and encourage the good hygiene practice that I have referenced earlier in this statement. And that concludes the presentation. Great. Thank you for the information. Council, questions? Seeing none, Madam Vice Mayor, would you like to make a motion? Yeah. I so move to ratify the local state of emergency. Second. Motion to second any additional comments? Seeing none, here are votes, please. And that also passes unanimously. Thank you. All right, Mr. Wriglian, the former, the report item formerly known as 15.1. Item that used to be called 15.1, report, water supply assessment for the Santa Rosa downtown station area specific plan. Collin Close, a senior water planner leading us off. Good afternoon, Mayor Schwedhelm and members of council. The state of California requires water suppliers to provide a determination of the availability of water supply under certain conditions for developments that are subject to CEQA or the California Environmental Quality Act. So therefore we're bringing this project forward to you for the water supply assessment for the downtown station area specific plan as the planning department has determined that it does meet the qualifications for water supply assessment. So by law, once we've received that request from them and all the data that's necessary, we have 90 days to produce a water supply assessment and bring it to you for approval. So we're within that statutory deadline. It comes up next week. So we're in good stead with that timeline. And if this is so approved, then the planning department will circulate this with a draft environmental impact report as well so that the community has an opportunity to examine this in detail as well. Just briefly, what we'll be doing is a little background on the law, a little bit about the project from the perspective of water supply and demand. The actual demand projections are water supply portfolio, a comparison of the two, and then the staff recommendation. So I also wanted to mention that we did a competitive bid process to do this. There's a highly technical analysis. And so we did a competitive bid process and selected Woodard and Curran as the firm to help us with this work. So I have with me today Christy Kennedy, who is a senior water resources engineer and hydrologist to help present some of the information and address questions. Should you have any? And then we also have one of the key members of the team who worked on this, Katie Cole, who is a water resources planner, is also here and can join us at the table if there are detailed questions. So we won't be able to address questions about the preferred project alternative from a policy perspective or any of those other types of things. We will be focused strictly on the water supply and the assessment of that need for that project. So just to help you clarify that. Senate Bill 610 was adopted by the California legislature in 2002. And the idea was to ensure that land use and land planning agencies worked closely with water providers, particularly on large developments that could have water supply demands. And so SB 610 requires this determination of whether water supply is sufficiently available for projects. And the city's planning and economic department, as I mentioned, had determined that this was an appropriate next step to do this water supply assessment. The downtown station area plan includes a net increase of about 7,399 dwelling units over and above what had originally been planned for that area. And it is subject to sequence. So we moved forward with that water supply assessment. Looking at the project again from a water demand and supply perspective, the Santa Rosa downtown station area specific plan update proposes updates to the 2007 downtown station area specific plan. That was adopted by city council in 2007. It did have a water supply assessment that went with it. And so the water supply and demand was analyzed at that time. And this current updated project and the water supply assessment for that project looks at the incremental increase in water demand. The 2007 demand has already been accounted for. So we're looking at the increase with the additional density and housing in that area. We also look out over a 20-year period by law. We need to look at supply and demand over a 20-year period for large projects like this. The water department assumed that the project would be completely built out by 2040 within that 20-year period. We're not saying it could or would or should be built out in that period. We just wanted to make sure that we assessed the total potential demand impact on our water supply. This map might be familiar. This was presented to you by the planning and economic department staff when they came to you to talk about the preferred alternative some weeks ago in the study session. And so this area is about 650 acres. And as you know, there are residential sections, business park areas, light industrial and mixed-use areas. The water department used the data from that where footage of developed my land use type, the number of dwellings and types of dwellings to develop our water supply assessment. So again, we can't address more detailed questions about the preferred alternative. We'll turn to planning staff if you do have those questions. But we did use the data from their analysis to develop demand projections and compare it to our supply. So again, after having completed a competitive bid process, we selected Woodard and Curran to help us with this. So at this point, what I want to do is for the next few slides, I want to turn it over to Ms. Kennedy to talk about a piece of the work they did that was critical to this, which was analyzing the demand needs for this project and demand needs for existing and projected demand for the city out to 2040. Hi, thank you. So on this slide, what we're showing is the difference in change from the project before we looked at in 2007 to the project now. So as Colin mentioned, we have a net increase in residential units of about 7,400. And how we did this analysis that was done back in 2007 was to look at the residential equivalency factor. So the residential equivalency factor is the average amount of water used by a single family residence in one year. There's multiple ways to go about this type of analysis, but we felt best to compare apples to apples. So take a look at how we developed it back in 2007 and what has been the change now. So updating those, we have different land use categories as part of the project. So we developed residential equivalency factors for each of those. There's a conversion for each of those. And in total, we have around 8,026 residential equivalency factors. So what does this mean? This means in terms of water, the projected demand currently the net increases around 1,845 acre feet per year. This is based on 70,000 gallons per year per residential equivalency factor. That is a difference from our 2007 estimate. As you all know, we've been through the drought. We have some active and passive conservation measures that have taken place as part of going through the drought. We have changes in plumbing code. So overall, there is a decrease in the amount of water that's used per household. So we did see a change and we have accounted for a change based on actual water billing data in the last 10 years to develop those factors. So in 2007, we had around 2700 residential equivalency factors. So that was around 975 acre feet total. So there is an estimated net increase as we would expect with such a large change in the number of units. And that net increase overall that we're projecting is 870 acre feet per year. So our total water demand, again, is 870 acre feet per year. As Colin mentioned, we do need to do a 20-year projection that's required in Senate Bill 610. Also, that's the projection that's looked at in urban water management plans. So we did factor in the change and the number of units that'll be built on a five-year scale, projecting that a good portion of the project would be built in the next 10 years and then pedering out towards 2040. And in the chart, you can see how that ramps up, how that demand ramps up over the years through 2040. So thank you, Ms. Kennedy. We also, of course, need to then compare the demand to our supply portfolio. So this slide shows you not only what we literally used as a community in 2018, how much water we used in acre feet, but it also shows our full portfolio looking out to 2040. And as you can see, we're not anticipating that portfolio to change over the upcoming 20 years. So we have a significant portion of water that we purchased from Sonoma Water. We produce water from our own groundwater wells and we provide water to about 26 parcels for recycled water use in landscapes. You'll notice there's zero use in 2018 for our wells. That was simply because the pumps were being replaced. But typically, every year, we would use our wells to offset the peak demand on the system during the summer dry months. So now we need to compare this to the demand. And we need to look at it from three perspectives. A normal water year, a single driest year, comparing the driest year on record to supply and demand, and then a multiple dry year drought scenario. So when we look at the normal year, you can see we certainly have sufficient supply. So we look at that 31,548 graffiti a year. And we look at the demand as it increases over time with development and population and the project as well. And we have sufficient water supply going out to 2040. When we look at the single dry year, we first turned to our urban water management plan from 2015. It does a similar job of looking at single dry year. And we noted that we would perhaps have a water shortfall in a single dry year that imitated the year of 1976-77. That water year was historically extremely dry. And there was a shortfall in water supply that year. So if we look at that as our potentially driest year and we analyzed what we would need to do, we would need to ask our community to reduce water use by 14%. When we add the project in, we would have to ask our community to reduce by about another 3.6%. Now, that might seem like a heavy load to bear, but ultimately what we've seen over the last 30 years, we've had three droughts that lasted longer than three years. And in every case, a couple of things are important to note. We actually did not have a water shortfall. We actually had sufficient supply through each of those droughts over the last 30 years. In addition, every time we've asked our community to reduce their water use, they've been very generous about that 15%, 20%, 25% reductions with each call that we've made to them to conserve water. You'll remember the most recent drought, 2014 to 16, and we asked for a mandated reduction in water use that was driven not by our water supply. We had sufficient supply, but rather by the state's mandate. The state mandated that every water supply or reduced water use by a particular amount. For Santa Rosa, it was 16% was our mandate. Our community actually reduced by more than 25%, sustained that throughout the drought. So we know our community is very responsive when we ask for their help with water conservation. So with a single dry year, we feel very confident that if there were a shortfall, we could implement our water shortage contingency plan and be fine and make sure that demand does not exceed supply. With multiple dry year scenarios, again, we've never had a multiple dry year scenario where we had a water shortage. And so we have put demand at a normal year's demand and said supply would definitely meet that. If we add the project, there's a potential for a 3.1% shortfall. We honestly don't think there would be a shortfall, but again, we're being very conservative. And so if we needed, we would implement extra water conservation measures, ask for voluntary reductions, and if needed, implement mandatory reductions. And again, our community has been incredibly responsive. So looking at the entirety of our record for weather conditions, our community's responsiveness to water conservation, our water supply system, we feel very confident that the project would be fine in terms of water supply, that we have sufficient supply for our existing planned and future uses as well as for the project. So with that in mind, it is recommended by the water department that the council, by resolution, approve the water supply assessment for the Santa Rosa downtown station area specific plan update. And with that, we'd be happy to take any questions that you might have. Thank you so much for that presentation. Colin has always used an excellent job, complex data to make it actually very readable and understanding the system. So I really appreciate your efforts there. So any questions on what we heard? Seeing none, we have one card on the side of Mr. DeWitt. Hello, DeWitt from Roseland. Back in 1976 and 1977 during that drought, no one told us that it was never a water shortage. I'm really surprised to hear that today from this gentleman. And I'm real concerned because essentially this is all based on projections and predictions. And they're often incorrect because no one really knows what the future holds. It's really important, I think, that if the demand needs to become crucial that the public be given accurate accounting of the water supply and the users plus have transparency so that it can be given to them so they'll know the actual numbers at the time. This was rather a glib presentation saying, well, it's all good because the people of Santa Rosa will tighten their water belt and they'll just do what we need to do. This might not be the same situation in the future, especially you folks here have already declared a climate emergency and things may get worse. So we just had the driest February ever in recorded history of the state of California. That's only 150 years, but still, that means something. I'm hoping that what you'll do is make sure that not just transparency of the reporting of actual numbers in a timely manner for all of the water users, but especially during a dry water year starting right now. This may be the beginning of another dry water year. Conditions must be adequately reported to the community in a timely basis and do so in a forthright manner. Put it up on your websites and all the other things that are available to the public. Don't make us have to look deep down to find out what is really occurring. I myself have to be a bit skeptical. I understand that the gentleman is saying, well, it's all good. We're going to have a general plan out to 2050. We're going to do all these great things. But somehow I don't believe that anyone in this room can actually control what's going to happen in the future. So I just ask you to be extremely resolute in making sure you accurately report everything that's happening with our water supply, share it with the public as often as possible. And if it becomes a drought situation, that you've not asked the smallest water users to tighten their belts the most, but actually ask the commercial users and the organizational users such as Santa Rosa Junior College and other places to tighten their belts first. Thank you kindly for your time. Thank you. Do we have any other cards on this item? Okay. Any additional questions? Seeing none, Mr. Dowd, do you have this item? First of all, I want to thank the staff for putting together a thorough analysis. It's a little complex, but it certainly addresses the issue. I also understand Mr. Dewitt's comments, but I also have witnessed this city and its citizenry. And as things change, they do a good job of adapting to the situation. And Mr. Dewitt's point that we keep them informed as we progress through this timeframe, I think the city will be fine. So with that, I would move the resolution of the council, the city of Santa Rosa, approving the water supply assessment for the Santa Rosa downtown station area, specific plan update and waive the reading of the remainder of the day. So we have a motion and a second and additional comments. Seeing none, your votes, please. And that passes unanimously. Thank you. All right, being five o'clock, we're going to go back to item 14 for public comment on items not on the agenda. Right now I have one card, Mr. Dewitt. Oh, thank you. My name is Dewain Dewitt. I'm from Roseland. Due process is something that I have come to talk about today because the time frames for appeals in order to respect quasi judicial and or adjudicative actions seem to have been ignored recently. Over on Burbank Avenue, the Burbank Avenue subdivision, it went before the zoning administrator first. At the time, there was no information available to the public on the project. Nothing was brought to the hearing room for the people to see the project. The people in the room asked for minutes to be taken to the meeting. They also asked for recordings. If that couldn't happen, both were denied. When it came time to go to the Planning Commission, it was stated that the other item was going to be appealed. There's a 10-day period in which to file an appeal. They went to the Planning Commission before that process was complete. So then that means that the residents of that community had to then also appeal the Planning Commission decision. That decision will be coming forward to you in the future. I bring it up because although I'm a supporter of the Caritas project, that's happening again here today. This item was just heard last Thursday at the Planning Commission, and if somebody would want to appeal, they were supposed to be having that 10-day window for appeals. But this project's come forward in less than that time period. So what's occurring is we're basically putting the cart before the horse and we're going to have concerns about something being done. And I can appreciate it. I'm a member of the Smilma County Housing Advocacy Group. I've always been there to advocate for affordable housing, but I also still have to advocate for our true due process and fairness in all of the governmental processes that we are involved with. If we let one thing slip, then it basically becomes a little bit of a slippery slope, and things begin to slide on down that slope and you say, well, that's okay, we had to do this because this was needed so badly. I really think it's so important for us to maintain our integrity in this process, and also make sure that if there's any opponents of a project, that they be given their fair opportunity within the existing, this is a framework that was already set up by our governmental agencies, not by anybody that I know, so our concerns out in Rosalind, especially for the Burbank Avenue project, also are playing out here today because this is going forward without that 10-day appeal period being respected from the Planning Commission last week. And that's not fair to folks who may be opponents of this project. I'm not one. I support Caritas, but I also support integrity and fairness in the governmental process. Thank you. Thank you, Joanne. Brenda Gilchrist. Did the time start already? Okay. Hi, everyone. I'm Brenda Gilchrist and how many of you are here from Citizens for Action Now? Wave your hands really high so I can see all of you guys. Thanks for your support and being involved. So we are supporting an initiative to request that the City Council agendize to have host expand its hours to evenings and weekends. So the process we thought was we would propose to you guys to add it to the agenda as an item or at least to know that on behalf of the over 1,500 members or can and 5,000 that have signed our petition that we'd like to have the City Council consider extending the hours for host because we feel that there's a lot of people that are in need to have an outreach worker to support their needs and then on weekends we feel that there's a lot of activity that's not being managed. So we want to be able to provide the support to people that need it at all hours of the day expand the outreach program of host at additional people, at additional hours and time for the evenings and weekends. So thank you for your consideration. Great. Thank you. Any additional cards? Got a couple. Christine Vannoni followed by calling from all Christine Vannoni, and I just am here from Can and I just want to say a support brand of Brenda Gilhurst in the host extended hours. We do need it for the weekends. There have been a number of people from our group who have tried to help and call host on the weekends to get a message on the weekend so that's all I have to say thank you thank you calling for an all good afternoon council public mayor did you put me down when you were doing the homeless count I told you you broke me you got to fix me we need to work together on resolving the issue more on that later every single one of you when you were running for office raised your hand and swore the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution even before they're elected every candidate has to so when you marked your ballot I hope you bore this message in mind oldie but goodie I had to amend it though war is not healthy for children and other living things but the problem is we haven't had war since World War two everyone who swore an oath is duty bound to uphold it to deal with this part of it undeclared and unconstitutional because I don't know if you heard because you weren't doing anything about it the house passed and then it takes some of the war powers back and then the Senate took some of it back as if that's going to matter with the president who's not going to sign anything so it's up to every single person who's sworn oath and every single person before they give a vote to say you uphold it no more war crimes no matter which party's in charge unless you declare war and you make it for defense not offense it's a war crime what is the city of Santa Rosa doing about that but funding unconstitutional wars of choice every time you don't uphold your oath or do anything about it so will today be the day you grab your oath your conscience stop the debt spending that is making all of your challenges so difficult even emergency preparedness so difficult just like I warned you since 2003 but you did nothing about it so now I don't trust the Congress don't trust the president I trust the Supreme Court but two-thirds of the states on the same page of any one issue can overturn what they do that's article five of the Constitution when you pick yours up and read it again two-thirds of the states don't you think you can get two-thirds of the states to agree on that stopping the war crimes stopping the debt spending what else you want legalized pot make it medical so the doctors and insurance companies understand all plants is medicine not just mere one in him all plants is medicine wellness care don't like the Patriot Act citizens United what else do you want to change two-thirds of the states it's simple math 23 states took on after the Occupy the big bad banks the state's attorneys generals because they were pushed by the people working with your governor instead of suing all the symptoms of the problems you could be solving the problem two-thirds of the states we've had a constitutional crisis since unconstitutional ward day one the way you worked around the Constitution with the War Powers Act okay it's time to reconstitute the Constitution who's with me great thank you do any additional cards on this time okay we're now going to go to our first public hearing item 16.1 mr. mcglenn item 16.1 public hearing two recusals i think you gentlemen we're going to be item 16.1 public hearing keratoss village environmental impact report and planning project 431 437 439 465 a street and 506 512 516 520 600 608 and 612 morgan street p rj18-052 and claire hartman will lead us off all right good afternoon so we're bringing you a project that is set in some very special context and so i wanted to kick off so what is the context in which this particular item is entering the city has declared a housing crisis we have also declared a homeless emergency at the local level the city council for the last two years have been earmarked on very specific council priorities we call those tier one council priorities and these priorities include not just the preparation of a comprehensive housing strategy but implementing it so implementing the initiatives out of our housing action plan and also implementing other initiatives consistent with state law but also taking those as opportunities to add our local flavor to those initiatives also part of council priorities is to focus and promote downtown housing affordable housing and also addressing homelessness so the project that is before you tonight for consideration includes downtown housing includes affordable housing includes transitional housing includes a homeless shelter but also homeless support services so as a result of that what's different about processing this application and before you as an application it's for your consideration and decision tonight is that the city organization aligns with council priorities in terms of what's important to you for us to organized collectively interdepartmentally so we have done an all hands processing approach on this we prioritize projects that include homeless support elements or affordable housing elements but even despite that prioritization it's a complex project this particular project it's downtown we are in the midst of updating our downtown plan and so it's trying to work within this this sort of environment and because it's complex it it essentially needs every planning entitlement we offer except the hillside permit so it's got a general plan amendment rezoning map use permit and we'll need design review so because of its complexity and it's crossed all the departments of the city in terms of processing it identifying issues resolving issues working with the community it's taken us two years to get here and this is a prioritized project but it's quite complex so i wanted to preface your role in that process with that context but also how the council weighs in on a project like this the planning commission the council are really looking at the if this project is appropriate for the city is this the appropriate land use designation for the site is this the appropriate set of land juices for the site is this the appropriate level of intensity for the site so those are sort of the the crux of what you're looking at tonight and plus you have the environmental document which is the highest in document that we can provide which is an environmental impact report what you're not looking at tonight is design because design you have review authorities that speak to design that process has begun with two concept design review joint concept design reviews which we'll talk about and should this project move forward from your hands tonight it will go back into that design review process but a more detailed level so that is what the purpose of the cultural heritage board and design review board will be is sort of the how this project gets developed and designed not the if you get to decide the if with that i'm going to turn it over to bill rose mr. mayor members of the council thank you it's a pleasure to present to you tonight the caritas village project we have a comprehensive presentation we will be mindful of the time and try to make it as efficient as possible uh we'll begin with the kind of the typical presentation from staff christen a two million senior planner will give you a powerpoint presentation of the project the history of the project the issues that we've identified and evaluated and of course the staff recommendation planning commission recommendation as well we're then going to turn it over to stand tech consulting that's the city's eir consultant on this project we also have a number of city staff here present tonight we have representatives from housing building engineering traffic fire and police and they're all available to answer questions as well and excuse me lastly we have patty cisco chair of the planning commission and she will be able to at the conclusion of the eir presentation provide the council with a summary of what happened last week at the planning commission when the planning commission took action on this project so with that i'd like to turn it over to christine thank you mr rose thank you mayor schwad helman members of the city council my name is christine a two million senior planner and i'd like to walk you through the caritas village project caritas village is a 2.78 acre project site within the west part of downtown it's bordered by seventh a street six street and morgan street and the project site is currently developed with a homeless service center operated by catholic charities the applicant is requesting to redevelop the city block for a 126 unit affordable housing development known as caritas homes to be operated by burbank housing and a comprehensive family and homeless support service facility caritas center to be operated by catholic charities a caritas center would centralize their services and programs that are currently located on the site into a more comprehensive homeless support service center and caritas homes would provide up to 126 permanent affordable housing units plus two units for managers and would target people who have experienced homelessness or who are at risk of homelessness this project has had quite a history on march 21st 2018 before the applicants submitted for their entitlements city staff held a pre application neighborhood meeting that was well attended by 50 plus people and there were several attendees that were in opposition to the demolition of the contributing structures although some felt strongly uh some supporters felt strongly that the site was well suited given that it was bounded by on two sides by a parking garage and on one side by a highway highway 101 on april 1918 planning staff presented a concept design to a joint meeting with the chp and drb on september 10th 2018 the applicants submitted for their entitlements on october 12th 2018 this planning staff sent out a notice of application within 400 feet of the project site and on november 1st planning staff mailed a more comprehensive four-page color notice of application to property owners within 1 000 feet so extending our noticing radius on january 24th 2019 a notice of preparation of the draft eir was sent to various agencies and those comments are included in appendix a of the draft eir and on february 6 2019 planning staff held a scoping meeting in the round barn um and that scoping meeting was well attended with approximately 25 to 30 people and there uh the common summary and transcripts are included in appendix a as well more recently in october 16 2019 planning staff presented a revised concept design of the project um with a second joint meeting with the chp and drb on november 15 2019 city staff mailed and posted a notice of availability of the draft eir that notice was published in the paper and there was a 45 day public review period that began on november 15th and ended on december 30th 2019 because there was a planning commission held on february 27 2020 where notices were mailed to all property owners within a thousand feet there were on-site signs installed on each street frontage and there was a notice in the paper the same type of noticing was sent out for tonight's city council meeting including the on-site signs that were installed by the applicant the applicant is requesting the following entitlements general plan amendment is specific specific plan amendment rezoning tentative parcel map and minor conditional use permit should the applicants move successfully um tonight their future actions um required actions will be a joint meeting with the drb and chp the chp will review the major landmark alteration permit that will include demolition of the existing structures the new construction within the st rose historic district and the drb will review um the major designer view for the new construction within the downtown area and that meeting will be noticed um to owners and tenants and we'll keep the thousand foot radius that we've maintained and on-site signs will be installed and a notice will be in the paper for that meeting on february 24 2020 the housing authority took action approving conveyance of four parcels located on sixth street between a street and morgan street and the city council um was asked to approve acceptance of the remnant parcels and those would be included in the project site and the project development this is the current general plan designation as you can see the property is divided in half north the latest south southerly with the east side general plan designation as retail medium residential and the west side being medium residential the applicants are requesting a general plan amendment to tvm which requires that there be a minimum density of 40 units per acre and there's no maximum density for this designation the way the the project the applicant is requesting the project be subdivided um the two uh 63 unit residential structures will be on a 0.69 acre lot and a 0.6 acre lot and that would result in a density of about 91.3 dwelling units per acre and 92.64 dwelling units per acre and currently the transit village mixed use um general plan designation is the only designation that would allow for this kind of density once someone applies for a general plan amendment we typically ask four questions as to why a general plan amendment is appropriate in this situation um and the current general plan limits the allowable density on the site and the project benefits from proximity to multimodal transportation and promotes several general plan goals and policies to encourage dense pedestrian oriented development in the downtown area now what changes our events have occurred or what new evidence has risen since the general plan was adopted that would warrant a change well um as was mentioned earlier the downtown station area specific plan which was adopted in 2007 predicted that there would be 34,000 approximately 34,000 new residential units but halfway through the planning period we realize that only 100 residential units were developed with an additional 275 units approved but not yet constructed in addition um city council has stated five council priorities and four out of the five priorities are related to spring housing development in the city and identifying downtown as tier one priority as in this hartman stated earlier and the tier one council uh city council goal is to bring in a mix of affordable market level transit oriented housing and um to create a uh sustainable uh walkable um better quality of life describe says the fourth question is describe the effect the proposed change will have on the surrounding uses and how it'll affect achievement of the general plan in this in the surrounding areas so the the requested general plan designation um the transit village the village mix use is designed and oriented to create a central note of activity at or near a transit facility and requires a minimum density of 40 units per acre with no maximum density um the proposed general plan amendment would promote higher density residential development currently bordered on two sides by the three-story uh parking garage and the tall freeway sound wall the each district or the each overlay would maintain additional design review or any new construction within a historic district it would require an applicant to go before the cultural heritage board for any new development as far as rezoning again the parcels are divided in the same fashion with r310h on the west side and cnhsa on the right side and the proposed project would rezone the project site to tvm hsa to allow formal t family dwelling units and that zoning designation is consistent with the general the requested general plan designation and again it has a similar goal and it's designed to create housing near a transit facility and it also requires um a minimum density of 40 units per acre and again no maximum density the entire project site is also within the historic combining district or the each district and is within the st rose historic preservation district and the parcels along a street are also in the stationary combining district or the sa district and that stationary combining district is intended to enhance and reinforce distinct characteristics within the downtown station area specific plan and create environments that are comfortable for pedestrians caritas center is proposed at up to three stories and caritas homes will range from two to four stories and in transitional and emergency shelter uses are allowed in that in their requested zoning district of tvm hsa in addition um as mentioned the project is also located within the city's downtown station area specific plan and it has two different um sub areas the parcels along morgan street are within the downtown station area specific plans historic residential sub area and the parcels along a street are within the downtown station area specific plans courthouse square sub area and those two sub areas have very different goals the courthouse square sub area is designed to be a commercial core and has a mix of retail office and um the area is envisioned to be a vibrant mixed use area with new housing whereas the historic residential sub area consists of the four preservation districts um with this site being in the st rose historic district and that sub area envisions the maintenance and enhancement of existing residential character of the historic residential sub area the proposed project because of the proposed height and stories would require a specific plan amendment um since the density and height of new development within the historic residential sub area is limited by three stories which affects effectively limits the allowable density on the site in addition the downtown station area specific plan includes provisions for roundabouts at seventh and a and sixth and a proposed project includes modifications um of the downtown area specific plan to include roundabouts at a specified 80 foot diameter reducing the diameter of the roundabouts 80 feet would allow truck traffic to access the downtown plaza but they would not be able to make a left turn on to a from sixth or access a on the um a and seventh although limiting that kind of truck traffic um is desirable when creating a pedestrian um environment um fire trucks and emergency vehicles wouldn't have a problem navigating either roundabout here are the renderings that were presented to the joint cultural heritage board and designer view board here is a rendering of center the center entrance on sixth street and sixth and morgan you can see the downtown parking mall parking garage on the right here is sixth and a street and seventh and a street seventh and a you can see primarily the keratoss homes portion and sixth and a would be the keratoss center primarily here's seventh and morgan and morgan street and here is the st. rooster preservation district boundary as you can see the project site is located within the southern most portion and the project includes the demolition of all structures and that includes two two structures that were identified in the eir as being contributors that's five twenty morgan street and six oh eight morgan street five twenty morgan street is a most recently it was used as a single family residence and six oh eight morgan street is a forplex and the project would require a major landmark alteration permit to allow for their demolition and the construction of new buildings within the st. rooster historic preservation district planning staff received several comment letters and support of the proposed higher density downtown and near transit as well as support for homelessness services and affordable housing but we did receive several emails that voiced concerns regarding the following topics the first one being parking and as the council knows there's no parking requirement for non-residential uses in the downtown stationary specific plan therefore there's no parking requirement for the non-residential portion of keratoc center or the the shelter portion however the applicant is is providing 45 spaces dedicated to the shelter they also provided a parking study that concluded based on standard parking demand rates the residential portion would be expected to generate a peak parking demand of 49 spaces and the proposed parking supply of 54 spaces would be sufficient although it wouldn't meet city requirements here is the parking parking count chart showing what city code requires and what the applicant is proposing the other concerns many concerns with the historic value of the neighborhood and the demolition of historic structures the project does involve demolition of historic resources resulting in a significant unavoidable impact mitigation for the loss of those resources would be accomplished through preparation of salvage report development of interpretive materials and documentation of historical resources that mitigation would not reduce the impact to a less than significant level there are also concerns with biohazardous waste such as needles and the mmrp included with the eir requires that the applicant ensure that hazardous materials are proposed are properly disposed of by obtaining a home generated sharps consolidation point permit from the county there were concerns with traffic and cumulative traffic the city's downtown station area specific plan is intended to create more opportunities for alternative transportation through walking and bicycling the specific plan area contains a well-developed pedestrian bicycle network and includes smart multis um path the transportation improvements to affected intersections may include signalization around a bus that would enhance both bicycle and pedestrian safety of which the applicants are conditioned to pay their fair share for those improvements there were concerns with increased calls for service and public safety the proposed project would include a medical service doctor's office that may help reduce the number of calls for service by providing trained medical staff who could respond to minor incidents on site and reduce the number of calls for service for medical means uh staff is uh recommending that the planning and economic development department certify the eir adopt the findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations approve a general plan amendment approve the specific plan amendment adopt a rezoning approve a minor use permit for the shelter and approve a tentative map with that i'll turn it over to our consultants thank you mayor um so my name is alena nuneau and i am the uh my name is alena nuneau and i am a project manager with stantic consulting services and with me this evening is trevor mesenski our principal with stantic consulting services and daniel herrick our architectural historian and preservation planner and i managed the preparation of the environment environmental impact report and just we're going to just have a brief presentation on purpose of sequa go over the sequa process and then trevor will run you through the sequa document that was prepared we'll discuss alternatives findings um statement of overriding considerations and then we'll be available for questions so um purpose of sequa is to identify disclose and consider the potential environmental impacts of proposed discretionary actions that lead agencies are considering for approval the eir was prepared subsequent to sequa guidelines sequa requires that state and local government agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority before acting on those projects so to summarize the sequa process and where we are right now as christine mentioned we had the notice of preparation that was issued and the scoping period of 30 days and that was that ran from january 24th 2019 through february 22nd 2019 the scoping meeting was held february 6th 2019 and then the draft eir was issued for public and agency review for the statutory 45 days from november 15 through december 30th 2019 the final eir was issued on february 3rd and that included responses to comments received on the draft eir we received one written public comment and then uh to a an agency comment letter um and then where we're at today is presenting the eir for your certification and have a decision made on the project good evening council my name is trevor mesenski as alina had mentioned i'm just going to kind of walk you through the environmental document and answering questions you may have um just to start off this is not an unusual type of sequa document but it's not a you're not going to see all the resource topics in front of you probably in your packet uh the reason being is is part of this process we prepared a focus environmental impact report which allows us to basically scope out topics or resource considerations that need not be evaluated underneath the statute the benefit of utilizing this document is where you actually do more analysis up front engaged the community in uh presenting what we feel are concerns that need to be addressed and they provide us input and feedback um that actually took place rather thoroughly throughout this particular project process as part of the scoping and notice of preparation process we engaged the community and received feedback to actually include additional resource topics in the analysis and we did so here in in the document and sir if i could get you to eat that microphone i'm seeing some people in the back we're having a hard time hearing you absolutely is that better there you go um so just for uh clarity the resource considerations that were scoped out of the analysis included those presented here uh obviously some of them are rather perfunctory relative to the project for example there's no active agricultural resources on the project site uh or mineral resources so you can see as to why but in the initial study and notice of preparation there was analysis documenting why they weren't considered further in the eir um as i had mentioned before during the scoping uh we had previously identified resources to be scoped out of the process but receiving public comment we we pulled them back into the analysis and those were particularly related to hazards and public services in the entire notice of preparation and initial study were contained in a panic sign so as uh staff had mentioned we are a consultant to the city and doing so there was a number of technical reports that were prepared by stante consulting on behalf of the city and those included a comprehensive air quality greenhouse gas analysis health risk assessment a biological resources memorandum an archaeological survey report a historic resources report a traffic analysis and a noise analysis and that is in addition to the more planning or social like social planning sections that are required in a secret document so this is your eir on one slide so buckle up um what i wanted to try to do here is present those impacts which required mitigation so the first part of the the slide and these are all presented in uh es table one which is the executive summary mitigation table in the document uh air quality one required mitigation for common construction mitigation such as dust control and construction site cleanup and idling times for equipment um impaired quality impact three is a required filtering technology that came out of the the use type and close proximity to the freeway and the potential for diesel particulate emissions that would impact the project uh bio impact one is a one and two are relatively common for any construction project which has any type of tree vegetation one is related to the migratory bird treaty act and nesting birds and the second is required planting and according to the tree ordinance the noise impact one for mitigation is common noise exposure measures for construction activities and limiting hours activity for construction transportation one as was alluded to earlier because of the construction traffic and kind of this rather isolated area there was a requirement for a construction traffic management plan to try to help alleviate some of that congestion during construction not lastly but there was concerns related to bio hazards and needles as well as naturally occurring asbestos and asbestos containing material coming from construction activity so that is what's addressed in hazard one and the mitigation measure has one um i gave cultural resources and the built environment a little bit more airtime because as you'll know in our presentation the proposed project it has significant unavoidable impacts related to historic properties and so to do to try to address that and seek what we have to identify mitigation measures to try to reduce those impacts to lessen significant level so we've identified four specific mitigation measures trying to do so the first is a salvage report which is a kind of common practice to document resources that are associated with historic structures and see if they are salvageable the second is a public report documentation to determine the significance of such resources the third is interpretive materials to be incorporated to determine how we would incorporate selective features that are of salvage need into either the project or the surrounding community and the fourth is kind of compatible design so as i as we alluded to earlier there are significant unavoidable impacts to the built environment so quickly and alternatives one thing to make sure that everybody understands is alternatives related to sequin need to come out of the proposed projects impacts so for example we can't just derive alternatives that we think would be a good use of the site that isn't proposed we have to identify what the proposed projects impacts are and identify ways to reduce those impacts through an alternative consideration so in doing so the alternatives analysis for this project looked at both alternatives which were considered and rejected which include an increased density alternative an alternative site location alternative a site redesign and ultimately those were considered to be rejected because they didn't align with the project objectives or determined to be feasible we can talk about the level of feasibility later in the question and answer if you like what you should know is that the sqa statute requires a reasonable range of alternatives to be considered were statutorily required to look at something called a no project alternative which was included there was alternative two which was a site redesign and alternative three which was a partial preservation alternative for the ease of comparison of all these alternatives analysis there's actually table in the eir it's table five dash one on page five dash 19 and what that'll do is we'll compare all the alternatives to the proposed action so you can see what is less or greater than because our proposed project has significant unavoidable impacts you have to make specific findings underneath the sqa statute there's three specific findings in which you have to make to adopt overriding considerations i presented those three findings here just for your education if you would like to discuss any of those further i'm sure you can ask questions because we have significant unavoidable impacts you have to make findings and then adopt something called a statement of overriding consideration which is basically acknowledging that you have enough information in front of you today and to make an informed decision and even though that decision could result in significant unavoidable impacts you're making overriding considerations to do so and the overriding considerations particularly related to this project are one in that the project addresses the homelessness emergency and housing crisis in which the city is documented two the project provides affordable housing in downtown is outlined by the city's objectives and three the project provides new employment opportunities so with that we will entertain and answer any questions you may have for for us let's go ahead just finish with the presentation we have now the planning commissioner and then the applicant presentation and we'll open up the questions for council good evening mayor and council members patty sisco chair of the planning commission here tonight to summarize our work last thursday on the caritas project um at the time we heard this item we had six commissioners that were available to hear the item because one needed to abstain in our exporter disclosure we each disclosed that we had met with the applicants at least two times within the last year and took a walking tour of the saint rose neighborhood with neighborhood leaders following the staff and the applicants presentation we conducted the public hearing from my notes which i hope the count is good did bring in notes but i counted about 26 total speakers so our public hearing lasted about an hour and 20 minutes each had three minutes to speak i counted that there were 24 in favor of the project mostly appreciating the design noting that there's better pedestrian safety lighting and appreciating the increased services there were two of these 24 that while in favor of the project did cite some concerns with the managerial stewardship with regard to the current conditional use permit and also wondered about a potential compromise in relationship to the destruction of the historic structures two of the the 26 were opposed uh definitely concerned with the demolition of the historic structures concerned about a precedent being set as to uh sacrificing our historic resources they were concerned about unraveling policies that have long stood to protect historic districts they were hoping for some type of compromise on saving the structures that are to be demolished as part of the project following the close of the public hearing we had staff and the applicant address those specific concerns of the public and then moved on to commission questions just summarizing the kinds of questions that we had there were questions asked about the number of code enforcement and police and fire calls for service to the current site there were questions regarding the process of a denial of the recommendation of the project again our purview was looking at a series of resolutions recommending your action so we were asking about that process and how that was going to move forward with with you there were questions about at what point with the cultural heritage board and design review board review what would be the impact if there was an appeal of their decision regarding design questions there were questions about how the historic overlay zoning interacts with the actual underlying land use the prioritization of the land use versus the overlay and how that interacts with design questions there was there were a lot of questions looking into the definition of feasibility and its application to alternatives in the eir page 24 of 88 was quoted many times so we really wanted to be clear on that there were questions regarding the timing of the cbdg funding the timing of the site work the guidelines for occupancy of the apartments the affordable apartments to be built questions regarding the actual costs of rehabbing and moving the structures the pathway of the remainder parcels convenience by you operation of the roundabouts and traffic patterns so that was the mostly the theme of the questions that we looked at when it came time for our decision the eir was unanimously recommended for certification by all six of us then there was a division in deciding on the project itself the six five commissioners that were in favor of the project cited the benefits versus the impacts really reciting their respect for the historic districts and not acknowledging the the unique time that we find ourselves in with the council having indicated you know emergency housing crisis emergency with regard to homeless homelessness so citing your goals the urgency ordinances in terms of looking at this project and how the the costs outweigh the benefits really relying on the strength of the statement of overriding considerations and looking at the other alternatives as infeasible in terms to that definition which I'm sure you're going to hear a lot of as well and that in approving making the recommendation to you to approve the project that we would also be looking to our cultural heritage board and design review board to do their work with regard to the salvage report the interpretive materials to really respect the the quality of that district and the the buildings that will be removed if approved the concerns cited by the commissioner voting no basically that commissioner said that they would be for the project if adjacent if it were adjacent to the boundaries of the historic district as opposed to being within the district saw this project is redrawing those boundaries and had concerns about the fact that the applicant having utilized those buildings had allowed them to degrade and not knowing what to do about that but definitely made comments about their concern about that the the voting no was seen as a protest vote and also wanted to get in front of you their their request that the council offer more guidance for projects in this nature particularly for the protection of the historic districts so that was our decision with five of us writing voting for recommendation of the project to you one voting no and one having to abstain great thank you for that now the applicant presentation we'll be having questions after all the presentations this is the last presentation can you hear me okay yes no yes you're live speaking yeah there you go okay thank you mark getting to mayor schwenholm and members of the city council i'm len marabella the ceo of catholic charities thank you for your attention and consideration of caritas village and thank you to the city staff for your hard work and focus on this application we're here to request your approval of the caritas village project we have a homelessness emergency and lack of affordable housing in our community and caritas village is a significant part of the solution that is why we need this project by the way caritas comes from the latin and means love for all it really speaks to our mission and speaks to why we are doing projects of this type there are two components of caritas village caritas center and caritas homes caritas center consists of a family shelter children's program medical services doctor's office recuperative care for a person exiting the hospital who doesn't have a home to go to and a drop-in center and most importantly at caritas center all is focused on one theme permanent housing for people with a need and that permanent housing with support to be sure that it's going to be successful our goal is to significantly increase the number of people we move into housing every year caritas homes we are partnering with burbank housing to build affordable housing currently burbank properties are homes to more than 10 000 community members in over 70 sites yet there are still over 15 000 people on a waiting list caritas homes will provide 126 units of affordable housing they'll be focused on the most vulnerable with 49 percent of the 64 units in phase one set aside for homeless individuals and the remainder for families and individuals with very low income for those in need case management and stabilization services will be present to ensure housing success caritas village and burbank housing are ready to go we are ready to start construction drawings we have engaged the public in the neighborhood in numerous conversations regarding services and this project we have knocked on doors multiple times we've held quarterly neighborhood meetings sponsored cleanup campaigns and more disengagement and outreach will continue during construction and operation funding for both caritas homes and i'm sorry funding for both the center and homes is strong there has been great community support catholic charities has already raised 21.7 million dollars towards a capital campaign goal of 26 million dollars this is augmented by city and county grants burbank housing has won 11.6 million dollars of no place like home housing that comes from funding that comes from the state and 1.4 million from the county more funding is needed and both catholic charities and burbank housing have extraordinary funding opportunities right now delays in the project jeopardize these funding streams and delays our ability to respond to the emergency of people experiencing homelessness rebecca kendo leads our fundraising effort is here to answer your questions you may have in this topic later rebecca is sitting here this is an urgent situation every day we see the suffering of people on the street caritas village is a key part of the solution we need to move quickly we request your support for the caritas caritas village project as recommended by city staff and i thank you for your attention and i'd also like to request that we reserve our rebuttal time please and our caritas team is here to answer questions and give a little more detail and to be available for you as you might develop questions over the evening and now i'd like to introduce mark crueg who is our partner and project manager for the burbank housing part of the project and mark crueg i asked him to come up and say a few words good evening mayor schwedholm council members mark crueg with burbank housing burbank is entering its 40th year we're been a we are and we have always been a santa rosa-based non-profit affordable housing developer we have either completed or are now constructing 1000 units of affordable ownership units and as lin said we have 70 rental communities all affordable throughout sonoma county with a couple in napa county and of those 70 communities the total 3000 units of rental housing 23 of those are here in the city limits of santa rosa totaling 1280 units in our portfolio in the city burbank is really delighted to have been invited into this exciting project by catholic charities and i just want to conclude my brief remarks by telling you really kind of a personal story as it were i've been working on affordable housing and homeless issues for 25 of the last 30 years here in sonoma county and i can say without hesitation that this is the most consequential and exciting project that i've seen in that 25 or 30 years and so we're encouraging you tonight to support this and approve this project as presented in your packet and as recommended by your staff and planning commission and as lin said i'll be around with others if you have questions later in the evening thank you for your attention and i'd like to introduce our architect it's uh pride in architectural services for both caritas center and caritas homes and mike pie attack good evening mayor and members of the council and this is too high how you know so i can see you and you can see me thank you um and i guess staff will have to advance the slides because it doesn't seem to be any control up here i have just a few slides to give you a general overview if we can go to the next slide please um as has already been stated there are two parts to this the residential permanent long-term housing which we placed on the north side of the site immediately adjacent to the residential neighborhood and the services building of caritas center is at the south end of the site and in our efforts to align our building marry our building to the neighborhood we looked at two other structures that bound the neighborhood and within the neighborhood that are of this scale one is the saint rose professional building and the other is the sonoma county museum so the housing the two phases of the housing pick up the clues cues from from those two buildings so we're making a kind of 21st century cousin to those early 20th century buildings so the colors will be similar we'll be using tile roofs and wood details where appropriate and we're lining the front face of the building that is the one immediately adjacent we can go to the next slide the edge of the building all along seventh street are actually two-story townhomes each with their own one-story porch facing the street so it's very much like the scale and character of the rest of the neighborhood the four-story apartment building is set back from that edge that diagram also shows that the automobiles are entering the garages and parking for the site at the midpoint of morgan and a street away from the neighborhood the entrances to the residential or on the residential side of the neighborhood the two green arrows at the north end are coming in to the lobbies of each of the phases of the housing and then the caritas center has the entrance to the day center for homeless singles coming in off of sixth street at the corner with morgan they enter into their own courtyard so there's no lingering lingering on the street they enter the day center and then there's a large courtyard in the back where they can relax and interact with the social workers the families have their shelter entrance from a street and they also have their own courtyard in the back the main entrance for visitors is in the center of the sixth street side those images that you see on the right emphasize the importance of the landscape we noticed from all that we photographed every house in the neighborhood and we're very impressed not only with the houses but the degree of love and care that people have put into their front yards so we envision all four sides of these buildings on all blocks to be lined with landscape that's not only on the ground but will grow up the surfaces it's very much a part of the architecture just as it is in the rest of the neighborhood next slide please you can see from these images the lower left is the um on the far left side is the entrance into the courtyard of the day center on the right hand side the lower end you see the family shelter above each family has their own room with offices social workers at the corner of the intersection bringing eyes not only to the um shelter inside but also bringing eyes onto the street and those are classrooms on the ground floor to provide those kinds of services for the residents to help help them up by their bootstraps on the upper right you see sixth street that's the main entrance as i mentioned before again it's draped with vines to shade it protected from the um sun on the south side but working with our landscape architects we are choosing vines that want to be flowering all year long so the whole complex will be like a large bouquet if you will if we can go to the next slide please next slide yeah and then the homes if you see the one on the lower left at seventh and a that's directly addressing the neighborhoods two-story homes with a three-story piece at the corner and then the four-story building behind that each of those homes has a porch which you can see in the middle of the uh three slides on the right images on the right there are one-story porches in the front of the two-story houses behind which is the four-story apartment building the tile roofs the details the way windows and the proportions of the building and its colors all speak to as i said earlier the two other large buildings in the neighborhood so that's really the the gist of it i won't go into any more detail unless you feel you want to know more we have a few extra slides with the floor plans if you want to know where various program elements are in the building the entire ground floor of the housing is lined with housing units and their own porches so there are lots of eyes on the street to interact and provide surveillance through the street thank you and our final speaker is Jenny Lynn Holmes who's a chief program officer Catholic Charities uh thank you very much what Hillman members of the council for this opportunity we're very honored to talk just a couple of minutes to conclude our presentation around what we plan to do here and what we have done with our operations here at Caritas Village just to kind of mention one of the things most significant things we've done in our community to this date in our opinion is the palms in there we house individuals who are the most vulnerable in our community that we're experiencing homelessness and we found some very interesting information upon that in the first six months of the operations of the palms in we saw a 77 reduction among the population with law enforcement interactions we saw ambulance transportation to the emergency room and inpatient hospitalization reduced by 45 percent and we're able to also see that inpatient hospitalization was reduced by 56 percent in the first 12 months of the palms in we saw that veterans homelessness declined by 23 percent chronic homelessness declined by 20 percent and homelessness in Santa Rosa declined by 16 percent there we house people with intensive onsite supportive services and people stayed housed and we also found the negative impacts on the community reduced this is what we are proposing here by having onsite supportive services through Caritas Center co-located with an expansive housing complex we will be able to duplicate the success that we found in that program to date now homelessness affects us all and for us we very much emphasize the importance of good neighbor relations we expect our staff and volunteers to utilize several different approaches to proactively address neighborhood concerns we look at having participant adherence to our good neighbor procedure in all of our program agreements asking that that become a part of their program compliance we have neighborhood patrols in response a 24 hour phone that is staffed by multiple individuals onsite management and neighborhood engagement opportunities throughout this process we've talked over 200 neighbors and worked with several individuals hosting community events and be participating in neighborhood dialogue around this project and our ongoing operations we will continue to actively engage with the neighbors to proactively address any concerns they might have we all know this is a crisis but what people may not realize is that this crisis is affecting our entire community for us we're working towards minimizing number of people experiencing homelessness in our community and I can say in my 12 years of experience here at Catholic Charities that this is one of the projects that we believe will really change how we provide care here in Santa Rosa and here in the county of Sonoma with that I would like to conclude our presentation and turn it back over to the council. So that's the end of your presentation. All right is there anything else from staff to add? Okay before we go to questions from council I would like to have all council disclose the ex parte disclosures so Mr. Dadmon we start with you any ex parte disclosures to make conversations with anyone else about this project outside of the chamber. I guess my first comment is I am particularly impressed by the amount of work that has gone into the design of this project to make it fit in this location to me it's phenomenal to have done all that work. Okay Mr. Rogers do you have any ex parte communications? Yeah so over the last two years because this project has been ongoing I think I've walked the neighborhood with neighbors three times I bike through it twice a day I have discussed it with the applicant multiple times as well as I think I've exchanged about 250 emails with people who live within the neighborhood. I don't believe that there is anything in any of those conversations that isn't in some way captured in the 500 pages of documents that we have before us with one potential exception I read the Saint Rose preservation district ordinance that created the district ordinance 2861 that I think was referenced in the documents but I don't think is actually in the documents. So that'd be the one thing that is potentially not in the public element but you can definitely look that up on the city's website. Great thanks Mr. Divits. Thank you. I've met informally with a handful of folks from the application team. Mr. Vice Mayor. I have met multiple times with members from the applicant side as well as neighbors taken a walking tour got a call today from Vern Losh and watched the Planning Commission meeting. I don't believe that any of the information that I have obtained is outside of the public documents in this report I've been preparing this council hearing. Great thank you and I also over the past two years have had a number of different conversations with different aspects of the appellants. Neighbors walk the site watch the first part of the Planning Commission meeting I've talked to Planning Commissioners about it but as Mr. Rogers saying I didn't count all the pages but everything that I have encountered is contained somewhere in the public reports. So with that I will bring it back to the council for questions on any of the presentations that we heard this evening anyone like to start? Go ahead Mr. Rogers you have that look you have some questions? All right thank you Mr. Mayor. So fundamentally between all of the different outreach that I've done and that the city's done most of the concerns really fall into two separate buckets and so I'll have questions that fall into those as well. One is on the conditional use permit side and the actual operations of the center I'll set that aside first. The other is on the historic preservation district status and I think we've at the day as we've talked quite a bit about with our focus on downtown housing that we were going to run into these conflicts pretty frequently where the need for more housing is going to abut with the historic districts and what level of continuity or congruency are we going to be able to find there. It's specifically and I mentioned that I had went back and read the St. Rose ordinance I do want to read before I get to questions that it does call out preserve and enhance the historic resources of the St. Rose neighborhood retain and preserve the existing historic single family neighborhood provide additional downtown housing while preserving the existing single family character of the neighborhood encourage the adaptive reuse of historic buildings and one of the ones that pertains particularly tonight is assure that alterations and new constructions are combat compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood so first and foremost by question is less one about housing and homeless services versus the historic nature of the neighborhood but more how can we make sure that this project is compatible in its architecture and in its design with the preservation district that is sitting there to me it's not an either or what does the process look like going forward with the cultural heritage board with the design review board and what level of say will the council have going forward on not just whether there's a project there but how the project integrates into the historic district. All right that's a big question I'll kick it off and see if we need some help I'm going to focus on sort of the hierarchy of how these decisions fit in the tools that you have to make your decision tonight so first we have our general plan and it has policies is like those that you reference preserve our historic districts preserve our historic buildings in those districts and we also have infill policies and support housing so our general plan provides sometimes competing policies when you're looking on a case-by-case application application and this is no exception to that in fact two are sort of hitting each other quite directly preservation and supporting homeless services and and housing in our downtown so that balancing act is your prerogative to balance those and select those that you think is the best fit for your decision. We have not shied away in this presentation that those are hitting each other quite directly even in the environmental sense so your EIR has the statement of overriding considerations. It is a significant impact to remove the resources on the site. You would have to find that the benefits of the proposal outweigh those those significant impacts and then bringing down to like the historic development standards and design guidelines which is the how it looks so the development standards are you shall do this and you shall do that and those are embedded in our zoning code and for example there's not just the base district development standards that generally protect and building compatibility across districts but you have the historic combining district which is one of the reasons why it's included in this project they're not proposing to exit out of that and that provides quite a bit of protection with this proposal and would be in the future if it keeps its historic combining district which is the part of the proposal and in that historic combining district you have clarity on all of our different preservation districts character defining elements these are defined specific development standards as they relate to east preservation district so while each of these districts were created uniquely and on their own they went through community process and public review to develop what was appropriate in terms of you have to do standards so this project needs to comply with those and then in addition we have design standards or design I'm sorry design you have development standards which you have to do and then you have design guidelines which it goes through a discretionary review process which I discussed earlier is the purview of your design review board and also you're in historic districts your cultural heritage board and they have to balance this we have very specific guidelines that are different than outside preservation districts and again these are developed over time through public process with participation of residents of these preservation districts and they build those guidelines so for example when we did our downtown station area plan 2007 there's quite a bit of process involved and the adoption of that plan and then a few years later in the zoning update to that plan to update our design guidelines to speak to those original documents and so that's why those documents do change after those processes so that just speaks to basically how this fits in and so um you're looking at this at the highest level and then the design review process will look at the the the details of the the guidelines yeah so I think one of the things that's um different about this process is that typically we have a fully fleshed project come to the council by the time it gets here what happens if the council approves the project tonight and then the cultural heritage board votes against allowing the demolition of the historic homes or that the project itself doesn't adequately meet those standards and those historic design architectural guidelines well I think you're right typically you get the whole project because it's before you for design on appeal and that is the only way that you get really involved with design at this level at the council level otherwise what you get is the result of two years of community process and designing process so you get the details that you have tonight because it has been such an expensive process including two joint design reviews but there's still more work to be done in the process for design and this is the way this system works is you have these these boards that really get into the details and only on appeal does it come up to you for things like design or landmark so in the event that somebody in the public disagreed with the outcome of cultural heritage uh the cultural heritage board decision they could appeal that to the council and that'd be the only other time that we would see it correct yes otherwise if there's no appeal tonight's the night the the only time we'll see it at council right it's it's so I I did ask I'm not sure I heard an answer if the cultural heritage board denies the project after the council approves the project what happens just the same the applicants could appeal that and then that decision would be brought to the council for final action okay just just one quick item excuse me you do have a use permit tonight and one of the things that the use permit will do is it effectively locks in the site plan so you heard some discussion from the architect and staff has certainly focused on that as well in terms of the overall site plan so although it's not specifically architecture in terms of colors and materials and window placements doors things like that it does have some relationship to the neighborhood so I just wanted to make sure that the council is aware that through their action through its action on the use permit you will be effectively approving that site plan right Claire you mentioned sort of the hierarchy of planning including the general plan and some of our specific plans one of the plans that is specifically called out in the staff documentation is the northern pedestrian linkage study which for the public it's about 45 pages long and it's a plan or a study that was put in place to connect essentially from downtown Santa Rosa through the area to railroad square and it's an acknowledgement of some of the historic districts that are there whether it's St. Rose or West End or railroad square it's not a fully adopted plan per se from the council but there are four elements of that study that specifically reference this site or this area and if you'll indulge me the first number three of their recommendations is the two roundabouts I believe from from reading through the documents we are proposing in this plan to reduce the size of the roundabouts but it doesn't eliminate them number five on it was closure of seventh street between a and the alley there's some other parts that are to it but it does propose that that becomes a pedestrian and bicycle walkway along seventh street I saw staff was proposing that instead of closing it off to cars that it instead gets rerouted as a one one-way street can you clarify because I couldn't find in the documents of which direction the flow of traffic would be it seemed to imply that it would go west to east from morgan street towards downtown as opposed to from downtown over towards morgan street we'll bring rob sprinkle at please the city's traffic engineer getting in council rob sprinkle traffic engineer yeah the seventh street would be going from the west to the east in the one-way direction so it would be up through morgan street the flow of traffic would be up through morgan street and then out towards the museum along seventh street there would still be flow on on a street from sixth street to a street around the roundabout and then the seventh street around the roundabout but there would be an opportunity to well let me let me back up just a little bit because the seventh street would be a one-way exit into the roundabout it would still be two-way within the street and within the alley access to the north and I'm thinking specifically I know that there is one neighbor right on the corner of seventh street there I'm trying to figure out the flow of traffic there if they were to try to come downtown that would be an exit for them to be able to go that direction if they wanted to go that direction is that correct from the neighborhood yes to enter to the downtown they would go from this drawing you have shown they would go up from seventh street to the right around the roundabout and then on the seventh street okay great thank you welcome and then uh bill the number 10 for the northern pedestrian linkage study was gateway monuments and one is specifically called out on the site at seventh and a has there ever been a plan adopted by the city that would require the historic district gateway monument to be constructed there I'm going to defer this to Gabe Osborne our deputy director of engineering sorry folks looks like we're pulling in everybody from the city good afternoon or good evening members of the council um typically with the study it has not formalized into a specific plan and a lot of times with the adjacent development what we have to look at at that specific plan is the nexus associated with that so the plan or the study lays out goals they don't necessarily pin that down to a certain development so when we look at it from a proximity standpoint the development must meet the general intention of not being running a foul to the plan so that really looks at creating the room and the roundabouts the prime example of that so that has not materialized in a specific plan that would then link into the city code to give the nexus to require to the project if it's in front of it so it's it's one of those where we can encourage we can create the space but without the nexus to say that the development has to do it it doesn't materialize as a condition of approval so in this specific case for the gateway monument could the council condition the project approval on that being a component that is built into the plan sorry about that you repeat the question so in the northern pedestrian linkage study it specifically calls out five different sites across the city across the downtown that are supposed to create gateway monuments that announce the entrance way into these historic districts one of those sites that's identified in that study is this site would it be possible for us to condition the approval of the project on the construction of that gateway monument that's called out in the study my understanding is it's a study and has not been incorporated into a plan itself so i'm not sure i don't see a basis for requiring that if i'm correct with the status of the study it's simply a proposal so there would not be a basis for conditioning the project on that construction okay so i'm guessing that that's going to be the similar answer number 11 in that plan was the use of the historic gardens and historic urban sidewalk treatments and historic street lights and benches as well so beyond and maybe this is a question for claire beyond the construction guidelines that have been put into the downtown specific plan would those include consistent sidewalks and light fixtures with the rest of the historic district i will add just a piece to that which is the street lights so typically we have decorative street light standards that we can apply in certain situations typically what you see are cobra head style lights those are the standard metal pole the arm and they provide down lighting to the street the neighborhood street lights are the decorative or more of what they refer to as an acorn style they are built into our standards and that's more of a light affixed to a pole that has more of the historic look to it we can look at implementing those we do have the option in the standards and much of that actually kicks to the plan review process because we have those options and that street and that type of street we would normally go with the standard cobra head style because of how it lights the street and we have those lights out there now so we would have to look at how that fits into the overall neighborhood and how it properly lights the street for safety reasons so that would how that would be how the street light works as far as the hardware and anything else the seating and all those components that come in once again the way we look at it from a nexus standpoint is if it's not built into a plan that's that purely puts forward the requirement on a specific site then we look at how we can incorporate those in the future if that study does materialize in that so once again it turns into area so we look at width of the sidewalk we look at how those pieces would potentially be incorporated to make sure we're setting it up properly in the future if that doesn't materialize okay I appreciate that I've been obviously not doing a terrible job of tipping my hand but in the event that the council chooses to move forward and demolish homes that are identified of significant historic value to the city at a minimum I want to make sure that the project contributes to the historic district and is consistent with architecture and things that enhance it as is spelled out in the St. Rose preservation district ordinance I have some questions about the conditional use permit oh go ahead Bill there may be some things in the EIR that might address some of the items that you just mentioned so if you don't mind I like to turn it over some of it's pulled out in alternative three but I'd love to hear it we're back just real quickly the what I wanted to bring to your attention was mitigation measure cultural four so as part of that that's the compatible design component which requires approval through the St. Rose Cultural Heritage Board and they would deem the project's design consistency with the surrounding district so in the event as a recommendation because I think is where you're coming from if you wanted to require through the fulfillment of that particular mitigation measure the incorporation of the signage say in the center of a roundabout to say you know the historic district name or whatever it may be it could be implemented through the the cultural mitigation measure number four great thank you should I keep going to talk conditional use permit or do you want to give somebody else it seems like you're on a roll keep rolling all right and then from a specific day-to-day operations standpoint the number the top three complaints that I hear specifically from neighbors or C as I mentioned biking through there to get to work and then home every single day is camping in the streets and around the in the public spaces around there trash and litter specifically around the sharps issue and then parking I know we have tried to address parking already at that site with some of the the signage can you talk a little bit about that what that would look like so the project does include a podium style parking for the homes portion and surface parking for dedicated to the keratoss center and the applicant is proposing the keratoss center actually be over parked to what the city would normally require even though we don't require parking downtown for non-residential uses they took the parking requirement for a emergency shelter maybe not in downtown and they chose to over park the emergency shelter portion I think I appreciate that thank you and I think actually for these issues part of the concern is actually less the folks who are there accessing the services and more additional people who either come along or have been banned from the services but still hang out in the area take up some of the parking do the camping create the trash so as it pertains to the catholic charities conditional use permit to operate there that's where I hear a lot of concern from neighbors is yes you have a good neighbor policy for the folks who are accessing your services but what else can we as a city do to help mitigate the impacts of other folks who come to the neighborhood as well two points on that one we've heard a lot of those same concerns as well operationally there are impacts to the neighborhood city what is happening we respond to code enforcement actions so as part of our review of this project up until just recently as last week we were looking into our historical records we did not see any active code enforcement cases on this this site that said some of those those operational elements might be best directed towards the applicant so they can give some feedback on what they're currently doing or things that they might be able to do in the future and then we can see if those might be things that can be incorporated into the use permit perfect does the does the applicant want to answer some questions is that jenny lin okay i think i captured all of it um thank you council and rogers um i'm going to talk quickly about our current operations and then our architects will talk a little bit more about the design so the three things that i'll mention the well we can come back to the design later let's talk specifically about the conditional use permit and operations okay so the first thing i'll just mention in terms of the camping and streets so as we mentioned earlier we do have our good neighbor policy that if we find part of that is if people are doing things within the neighborhood uh that is not in compliance with what we feel is being a good neighbor and or illegal activity or anything of those sorts we will suspend them from services we keep a pretty rigorous list around who that looks like and we do work very closely with the santa rosa police department on all matters around camping in the industry and surrounding area as well as they're surrounding a city of santa rosa to help mitigate those impacts as best as we can uh we have a security company that we currently utilize to help with these rounds they give us daily logs to see what's going on in the surrounding neighborhood after hours as well as during hours and we also have our own um individual staff members who also are working within the neighborhood doing patrols and um working with individuals who might not be in our services but might be experiencing homelessness and potentially creating a a nuisance out in the community additionally with the trash we have as part of our program there we also have our transitional residency program they help us with on-site security after hours as well as they work on helping us with the trash pickup we also through the city of santa rosa and the county of sonoma have what we call a conservation crew where we actually pay stipends to people experiencing homelessness to help us do trash pickup in the surrounding area as well as in other parts of the city primarily focused on our st. Rose neighborhood i appreciate that thank you and then i i think some of the concern that i hear from neighbors and as well as from my own observations is that even with some of those elements in place there is still significant trash issues there is still a significant issue with folks who presumably have been banned from services camping along the street there and still providing a nuisance to the neighborhood is there something that catholic charities can do to be more proactive about engaging with those folks or working with the neighbors to help clear up some of those nuisances absolutely so we so as i mentioned we can you know increasing the number of eyes on the street some of the things that actually i think the design element is really focused in you know our architects have really spent a lot of time to figure out how we can take our current operations but enhance how we are providing the on-site management and security through the design in terms of you know being able to have a larger space for the people to be inside having interior courtyards you know moving foot traffic to 7th street dealing with the housing on-site which will also include additional staffing on-site resident managers so more eyes on the on the property as well to try to help mitigate these issues be more proactive we do have our 24 7 light phone call and hotline that we also can will continue to publicize an outreach to the neighborhood as well okay would catholic charities be willing to set up a standing meeting or have a offer monthly to meet with the mayor the council member of the district downtown enforcement team and neighbors to address any of the concerns that they are seeing i think that we do many of those things already and i can see us definitely being okay with having additional monthly thank you mentioned meetings with all of those individuals the more that we have ongoing dialogue and communication the better we can do to respond to care to community concerns as quickly as possible great thank you those are all your questions okay miss vice-mayor hi thank you very much i appreciate all the work that's gone into this i'm particularly interested in evacuation planning and i'm wondering to whom i should direct my questions i'll kick it off how about you can all right so i heard i spoke last week with the applicant wherein they said there was going to be 60 spaces for the car for the catholic charities portion and then listening to planning commission i heard 45 spaces and i'm wondering with a proposal am i getting this right that car taught that catholic charities is proposing 180 residents on their site and i understand that park i'm the last person advocate for more parking but when looking at evacuating people i'm wondering if we're expecting the residents to self evacuate in the event of a disaster i think that would probably be best to go to the applicant how they will monitor that from an operational standpoint just for the applicants i will be asking both catholic charities and burbanks separately since you have separate operations on this so i don't know if who is going to speak to that on operations so i'll start up jenny lin hi good to see you what is your evacuation plan so we currently have evacuation plans for every site that we manage in the entire city in particular we have evacuation sites already our evacuation plans already in place for our existing operations down on the caritas village property i can talk about what we did during the concave fire to kind of paint a picture of what that looks like we currently have safety plans for every single person who moves into one of our facilities that is living on site they are clearly mapped and mapped with their outdoor building in the case of our recent experience with the concave fire we were closely coordinated with the city's eoc knowing that we had a very vulnerable population with high transportation needs to make sure that anybody who needed that extra transportation was able to get access to that care additionally we know that we are co-located right next to uh freeway which is helpful to us to be able to get people onto a main thoroughfare as quickly as possible and get them to the safe location wherever that might be within the city so that was our plan during the concave fire and we have onsite evacuation plans for every single one of our facilities so given the the nature of your population the folks that you serve do you evaluate with them prior to them getting settled what to do in the case of an emergency or is it a response thing well in terms of every individual that we work with so we do have well that's sleeping there let's let's let's sleeping there so yeah we do have we do as part of our intake and orientation of people who come into our programs we do work with them and make sure that they know that they have um they know our evacuation plan we also do monthly fire drills on each shift so our graveyard shift our day shift and our swing shift so that every one of our staff members knows how to evacuate the facility and all of the residents who are living there also know how how and when to to evacuate so we do at least three fire and or evacuation drills a month and have you been considering what happens when we get the big earthquake absolutely our evacuation our evacuation plan considers earthquakes fires floods all the different scenarios that are likely to happen and who knows there might be others as well but we can they all follow the similar pattern of how we move things and how we evacuate and specific to your side of operations on the proposed site would you be expecting that the 45 cars that are there for the residents would be primarily responsible for transporting folks or do will you need additional transportation for your residents i would probably be a mixture of both in again in the example of the concave fire we did have some residents who had their own vehicle and we helped them safely evacuate even though we weren't in an evacuation zone some of them wanted to just in case it happened and in the case of those that did not have any transportation as i mentioned we were coordinated with the city's eoc and we also had our own staff that came in off on off shift to provide transportation if we were to be evacuated so that all sounds really great especially in the case of an emergency like the last one we have with kinkade where we sought coming how would you evacuate folks in an unforeseen emergency well the you know depending on the scenario we have very we have a desktop guide for all variety of different scenarios but you know post the certain situation happening it would be a shelter in place in some scenarios and then get them to our evacuation play our evacuation zone which we've had clearly identified in our parking area and that's where they are always practicing and during our drills so we would likely handle in that scenario we are happy to follow up with the detailed evacuation plan and our desktop guide that has all these different scenarios that we kind of play play out i believe that it would be helpful for the residents as well as helpful for for my peace of mind and knowing that we have something that we can implement on the fly and that is going to get a lot of vulnerable folks out of harm's way quickly i i'm going to turn to the staff and ask about ratios in terms of vehicles to residents what is typically viewed as as safe for assisted living facilities or other types of facilities that are housing vulnerable populations i don't know if this is a fire marshal question or a staff planning question yeah i think from the image we have up on the screen we have the parking requirements but i don't think that's addressing you know like i can't see that and see i mean it's so this is just the typical zoning code parking requirements but i think your question might be a little bit different in terms of just in terms of the occupants that are in the the building so i would i would ask for our assistant fire marshal to see if he can add a few comments to that i we just want to see everybody come down we don't want people to get left out certainly wouldn't want to get here all done in time for the returns to roll in good evening council so as far as safe number you know cars versus people ratio there's really no set standard that we've utilized in the past to evaluate that obviously the more we can carpool or coordinate people multiple people into single vehicles it reduces the number of vehicles on the roadway that are trying to evacuate i don't really have a a clear straightforward answer for you to what is safe and what isn't safe okay i'm wondering can we condition ultimate approval of this i know we were talking about that we can't really condition it and i will just say that it is challenging to make policy when we can't condition things at this point but can we condition it on having a fire marshal approved evacuation route yes and that if i didn't mean to give a misimpression that my answer or my last my prior answer i'm certainly you can condition the conditional use permit that my response was specific to to the signage that council member rogers was discussing but in terms of requiring a fire marshal approved evacuation plan you can do that okay so now mr hardage stay there because i think we're going to need you in a second miss holmes would you be open to that condition or your organization yes thank you fantastic and mr hardage you'll have to make sure that happens all right next up burbank mark krug burbank housing hi there so how many if you're proposing last time i heard to hear to have 220 residents it's 128 units 128 units and it's hard to hard to know the exact occupancy but it's probably 200 and some yes okay and of those uh how many are you expecting to have vehicles um based on a similar property we found that about four tenths of um a unit is adequate for parking so if that holds our 56 or so parking spaces will be a little bit over parked so short answer is probably 40 some cars so you're saying 40 percent yes parking on 200 individuals or on 128 units on the units okay all right and so you heard the whole line of question that i went down so if you're okay with just responding i can save my questions and just hear your response i think i know what your question is so i'll start by saying our evacuation plans really hinge on our resident managers at caritas homes will have two resident managers because there's two phases of housing so there'll be two units one in each phase will have a resident manager in there it's worth also noting that this is independent living it's not custodial care and so when people move in just like any other apartment complex we would work with them to have their own evacuation plan and facilitate and help them come up with their own plan that said our resident managers do what's necessary when emergencies come up i'll give you a couple of examples in the 2017 fire where there was no warning an example is this comes from lavel village which is the property we have in wikia in 2017 our resident manager at that property got up in the middle of the night and drove around the block honking her horn nonstop four or five or six laps to wake everyone up because there was no time so that was what the resident manager did in that instance to get everyone up another example in concave when there was a warning this is a Windsor example there was a warning the resident manager knocked on every single door of every unit got people up and out and got them you know into the cars there was one recalcitrant resident who refused that and we referred that person to the fire department who evacuated that resident so we really rely on our resident managers and we rely on them to help the independent living folks understand they really have to take responsibility for their own evacuations but we are there for support and our resident managers do have 24-7 access to regional managers and burbank senior staff so when the emergency is hit it's sort of an all hands on deck kind of response well i do appreciate that you have great resident managers what i like over good actors is good policy so to that end would you be willing to accept fire marshal approved evacuation route okay great thank you and then moving forward i'm gonna i'm gonna move on past evacuations and go toward the good neighbor policy because i did get an opportunity to tour the the area yesterday and was curious to know how the good neighborhood good neighbor policy fits in with what i saw and i'm wondering miss homes if you can describe in detail for us what it is that you do to prevent some of the things that i saw yesterday and how we can be more proactive so i mentioned several things earlier but just to kind of get a little bit more in depth on our good neighborhood procedure i actually have a copy of it here and again we'd be happy to share it if helpful so the first is that all of our program participants will be screened through an intake and assessment process once granted admittance to the program we ask individuals to sign a program contract with program rules as well as one of those rules including the good neighbor adherence or good neighbor policy adherence this kind of includes that we will have programmatic decisions made with the neighborhood in mind that program participants are expected to be respectful neighbors while they are participating in our programs we also have in there that we will participants will be expected to remain out of the vicinity of the neighborhood during non-operating hours and non-operating hours and will not be allowed to be wandering as best as we can patrol and understand those participants will be held to the good neighbor policy and violation of this could jeopardize the participants continued eligibility for the program we also provide daytime patrols through our staff and volunteers we also have a higher security agency that also patrols the neighborhood we have them that come in the morning as well as after hours they provide a daily log or a weekly log of all daily activity so we can track trends of what might be happening we also coordinate as I mentioned earlier very closely with the Santa Rosa police department on any potential individuals who might not be working or might be in our program right now but might be still creating concerns in this surrounding neighborhood we do have we're required right now to have semi-annual quarterly meetings or semi-annual neighborhood meetings but we do them quarterly and also have our 24-7 phone that individuals can call whether they call our facility directly our host hotline or they also we publicize other individuals numbers as well okay thank you and so yeah what I'm just looking for is to hopefully hear come coming forward how that will continue and expand to meet the needs of the neighborhood with an intensified usage I'm going to move on to the cultural assets and I do have a question for you again Ms. Holmes when we did the tour last year you I went out with you and Mr. Cardillo from Burbank and we talked about the two homes on the 600 block that at that time you were planning to relocate and I did watch the planning commission I did you know read through the documents but I want to hear what changed from you expressing your intent and plans to move them to now where we're not moving them I'll actually because that's a those ad information is a little more detailed I'm going to defer to Tina Wallace to respond to that okay thank you very much and I'm going to ask Rebecca Kendall and Mark Krug to make their way to the microphone a number of things changed we submitted a letter from the project manager for Caritas Village his name is Burt Bangsburg and Mr. Bangsburg look at the cost of particularly alternative three relocating the two houses over to 501 A Street and 507 A Street and what he looked at is that that would delay the construction of the project by I believe an estimated 15 months and the cost of that 15 month delay for Caritas center only is 2.25 million dollars and there are a number of reasons for that one of which is that construction costs are increasing at a rate of four percent per year so anytime you spend anytime your project is delayed your costs of construction are constantly escalating and many sources of funding are jeopardized by the delay and again Miss Kendall can speak to this in greater detail so your costs are going up but your funding and your ability to build the project yeah I'm not particularly that a lot of things affect the cost of construction what I'm trying to understand is how we get to determining that these cultural resources aren't worth the expense to an organization that is very good at fundraising again that comes back to the financial implications of the delay of the project so telling me it's expensive is not answering my question about why it's not worth the expense well perhaps Miss Kendall could explain the financial implications of that because the financial implications of the delay are incredibly serious and we would ask you to give them great weight hello council member Fleming I'm Rebecca Kendall we've met and as far as the fundraising component it's true that we have raised 21.4 million dollars toward our capital campaign goal of 26 million dollars I don't in any way want to make light of the work that it took to make that progress and specifically the 26 million dollar capital campaign goal which we have yet to reach is only a portion of the funding that we are proposing for Karychos Center alone there are two other primary funding streams one of those is the new market tax credits and that represents 7.5 million dollars of our budget the other piece is government funding which is represents over over four million dollars and and then some other sources as well the not only do the funds that we have already received for the capital campaign some of those come with time restrictions on when we must begin construction so some of the funding that we've already received specifically at the two million dollar contribution we would potentially be forced to return if we are not able to begin construction in early 2021 the other piece is that the 7.5 million dollar new market tax credits are contingent on our not only on our project approvals but on also on the date when we begin construction so there's a two-year look back period that those funds can be applied to so every day that passes any funds that we have expended on the project for pre-development continue to become less and less able to be applied to that doesn't you understand what i'm saying like the i hear you i hear you i understand that there's finance that there are timelines and that it's expensive to do this what i'm really trying to grapple with and i'm not trying to give you guys a hard time what i'm trying to grapple with here is why why it was said that they were going to be moved and why they're not going to be moved and i understand that financing is one part of it but um this the status of the structures is another part of it and so i'm looking for at what point that decision was changed because i do feel like we owe it to balance these priorities and they're significant both you know for what you're trying to achieve and also for the residents and the the asset that is our cultural heritage um neighborhoods and so you know telling me that it's expensive and that there's deadlines i get that but also why we decided um or why that you guys as the applicant decided that this was not worth the expense or worth the time or if the structures weren't able to be moved what we can do and the purpose of these questions is to get toward a solution not to give you guys um you know show you the door it's to move forward sure i appreciate that thank you i would say that as the process developed as we learned more about the time that it would uh take um for the homes to be moved when we realized that that 15 month uh delay would was what um would necessarily follow from agreeing to move these homes that was when we all had to take a collective step back and say okay the implications of that delay were basically a major driving factor in in helping us understand all of the funding ramifications and i again i i don't want to make light of those funding ramifications when we learned what the ramifications were and the extent to which it would significantly uh hinder our ability to to build this building uh that's when we had to stop and take a look at whether this was feasible so feasibility is fully financial it has nothing to do with one of the structures being too too um and too bad of this repair to be moved um let me uh council member fleming let me read the definition vice mayor vice mayor fleming excuse me um let me read the definition of feasibility from sequa to you this is a sequa guideline section 15364 and feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time taking into account economic environmental legal social and technological factors and the applicants take this issue very seriously however they concluded that because of the delay that the this alternative these alternatives were not feasible because for reason time reasons because of the delay they will cause and the applicants aren't diminishing the value of the structure and you may want to hear from the city's eir consultant on this uh stand tech these approvals include a statement of overriding considerations under sequa and that statement of overriding overriding considerations basically says that there's a resource that's very important however because of other competing interests such as a declared emergency on homelessness and an affordable housing crisis the city is looking at these two competing interests and saying that because of the value of finding part something that will help address the homelessness situation and affordable housing that the city is willing to give more weight to those issues i understand our priority is what i'm trying to get at and i guess i'll just ask it directly is are both structures capable of being moved and i don't mean financially capable i mean can they be physically moved from an engineering not a fiscal perspective good evening vice mayor mark satterland consulting engineer for caritas village i was involved early on with answering that very question so um catholic charities engaged a structural engineer to do a review of three specific properties i think it was 512 520 and 608 for the sole purpose of determining could they be moved and also on 608 if the structure could not be moved could the facade be removed relocated and attached to a new building so i was on site at the time that mkm staff did the review i consulted with them i also worked with them in developing their report in the end they determined that the 512 structure single family residents the 520 morgan street single family residents could be relocated however there would be significant impact to each structure in that porches would have to be removed the lower skirting would have to be removed and um during the moving process there would likely be minor to moderate cosmetic damage but in the end they could physically be moved it would likely change the look slightly when the exterior porches and elements were rebuilt which could affect the historic appearance of the building but they could physically be moved in the case of 608 morgan street which is the foreplex the review that was performed and as is indicated in the report from the structural engineer the condition of that structure has so deteriorated and is too large to be moved in one piece that it was determined that that structure would not be feasible to be relocated okay so do you know and this may be a question for operations of catholic charities how long that um this organization has had a lease or ownership of 608 that i can't answer someone else from catholic charities would have to answer that yes i can uh we uh have had the property we purchased property in 2015 and i'll also just mention how long have you had control over the property not just a lease as an owner since 2015 how long have you operated out of the facility we've been in the property for a little over since early 2000s we're gonna double check that number um i do want to just add really quickly if i can another component that played into our our decision around the delay once we got more information realizing that there'd be a 12 to 15 month delay for us what that means is people experiencing homelessness living on our streets even longer as we all know that homelessness is an emergency people who are experiencing homelessness i get all that and i've heard it already so i just want to hear about how long your agency has had control over 608 i was just adding on to the answer the question that you answered you asked earlier so there is a multitude of perspectives that we took to look at and that was one of the things that was very real for us and very important to us that when we talk about delays we're talking about the human beings that we're trying to serve and save in terms of the 30 years is how long we've been on the property years and we have but we purchased the property in 2015 so it's in such bad disrepair it can't be removed and what i'm curious to know is what your organization has done to maintain it in the past 30 years uh vice mayor filming if i could just um ask uh for additional assistance with this it's not um the decay of 608 that is one component of why it can't be moved another component is how it was constructed and i'm going to ask for assistance from our engineer answering that question to make sure you get accurate information but in a nutshell the way the structure was constructed in order to move it you have to remove certain elements and the structure will collapse on itself thank you so the type of construction that that building is um the way that it it's built um all the parts the walls the floors the roof elements are all integral the structure is a little too large to move as a single piece so if someone were to try to move that they would likely have to slice it into two pieces essentially and and by doing so would so seriously compromise the already diminished structural strength of the building that it would not um still be standing in in an attempt to do that the integral way that buildings of these types are built where floors connect the walls when you start trying to disconnect elements on a structure of this age you just lose almost all of the structural integrity of the building whereas the other two single family residences those are small enough that they would be capable of being moved as a single element so this issue would not come up plus the other two structures didn't show anywhere near the signs of deterioration as um 608 has and thank you very much i'm curious to know if so it sounds like based on construction for 608 it just would was never going to be possible for the other two structures if what would the cost separated out for those be and is it possible to still move them it would be possible to move them as to the cost i wasn't involved in the cost analysis uh uh i believe one of our other consultants would have to answer that one Vice Mayor Flaming the cost is estimated at $750,000 and i also wanted to add for the total of two that is correct that's the estimated price i did want to add one other piece of information to the calculus which is that when Catholic Charities purchased these sites they had to do several air quality studies and i think there's a general concern in the community these structures sat vacant or why don't people live in them and because of the proximity to the freeway people have a very limited duration in which and they can live in these structures without in without suffering harm or potential harm from the air quality issues from the cars on the freeway that's why one of the mitigation measures for the new project requires a special MIRV 13 filtration system to address this issue but the structures didn't just sit vacant out of you know demolition by neglect for want of a better term they sat vacant because the Catholic Charities had to pay those people to move out of them and pay to relocate them because of their quality issues okay thank you i appreciate you take your patience with my questions Mr. Mayor if i may uh just to add to some of the discussion that we've just been having the kind of the core of the city's analysis as it relates to these topics the preservation or the demolition of the historic resources lies in the EIR so if the council pleases our EIR consultant might be able to be able to add a little bit to that discussion sure so i think there's three main issues i just wanted to provide a little bit more clarity on one is related to the connection of the historic district preservation and corporation of assign related to kind of the round about i think which is the council member had brought up mitigation measure cultural one three and four all make reference to the ability to identify potential features associated with the buildings which could be adaptively reused associated in close proximity to the project or not and that could take form like in a sign associated with the district and say the center of the round about like a public art or interpretive sign type project that is very much achievable within the mitigation structure that we've identified within the environmental impact report the second piece is related to the relocation and disclosure of potential impacts in the structures so as attachment eight to your packet there was a engineering report that was discussed above but i just want to make sure that you're aware of the firm have prepared it so that you can try to find it mkm and associates made the structural evaluation to make the determination as to whether which buildings were feasible or not and that was publicly disclosed and as a result of it that's also what drastically drove the determination of significant unmovable impacts related to the built environment and i guess the the last item that i'll just point out is for feasibility the definition was provided it plays into it apart but also there's the consideration related to feasibility of how we come up with alternatives and that robust discussion was provided in section 5.2 point 3 which further documented not only the technological effect feasibility the legal feasibility and the economic feasibility of the project alternatives consideration great thank you for that additional information i just had one question is regarding the roundabouts and i heard staff and i read in the report said some trap trucks would not be able to make a left hand turn i think somewhere i think on the one at the roundabout at second on seventh street my question is about if trucks couldn't make it but could ladder you said fire emergency equipment could make it ladder one could make it but there's some other trucks that wouldn't be able to make it around the roundabout could you just clarify correct large like 16 wheel vehicles wouldn't be able to make the turning radiuses that are identified with the traffic circle design emergency medical vehicles such as a fire truck or like an ambulance would be able to accommodate the turning the turning radius that's currently in the design and you know which trucks i'm talking about latter i know those guys are good behind the wheel but you can make okay till the trucks have the screen in the rear great thank you all right we're gonna move to public comment so i'll call out two names you'll have three minutes to comment on this we have two podiums up there you can come on straight down here with some members have already spoken as i mentioned you will have three minutes um you don't have to take all three minutes you can share your views we're interested in your perspective but it's up to you so i will open the public hearing first up is victoriani followed by phyllis center mr mayor uh councilman council people uh thank you for your time i'm the co-chair of the capital campaign for keratos graig steel is also uh sharing that with me as um men mentioned we've reached 20 22 million and funding so far and we're 82 percent of our goal and well within reach and we'll be starting our grassroots campaign shortly right after the fires in 19 in 2017 tipping point in san francisco raised a considerable amount of money through concerts in san francisco they came up to keratos and saw the merits of this project and committed five million dollars as a league gift and since then we've got 10 organizations and individuals that have committed in excess of seven figures for this the support memorial hospital keiser and we're working on the third hospital as we speak to be major supporters of this project i want to keep the keep people out of the emergency room is as you know at the emergency room if they're admitted to a hospital is 3,500 dollars a day we don't we think that's a waste uh santa rosa community health clinic will manage the clinic portion of the project and also that what i think needs to be said is that there'll be a number of counseling uh people personnel there so it'll be a one-stop shop uh catholic charities last year placed 650 homeless people uh and then the last three years have been averaged about 650 people now after over the last couple of years i've taken many tours of keratos and we've always started out in the family support center and then we looked at the pretty pictures and the drawings and so forth but the most compelling part and the sales part of this i think was illustrated last last week in the press democrat where you saw a young mother with a two-year-old and a four-year-old what the article didn't mention was that there they shared at one bathroom with nine other families and also the homeless uh center on morgan street is woefully woefully and inadequate we can do better than this and i firmly believe that that we can move the needle of homelessness and sanford and santa rosa with the with this project it's the right time it's the right project and thank you for your consideration thank you phyllis center followed by lisa landers is phyllis here i don't think my name is is down anywhere but uh is there somebody that's supposed to talk before me are you phyllis no then okay i got a whole stack here so i'm sure you're in this so it's phyllis center here not seeing her lisa landers followed by kathleen kane hello everybody i like the i like the whole building i watched the big roll out with the planning commission that looked like a nice deal the part that i do not like is the current managerial supervision that takes place at 600 morgan street and if we can't improve on this model i just see that the neighborhood's going to be more further impacted by it i've seen i've driven by as many as seven times in a day at various times of the day and i've driven by a total of 50 something days now and i've never not seen multiple infractions at the site my very first time i went there i did a headcount of 20 something people in the front yard hooting and hollering with five off leash dogs um there were six people sitting in chairs on the sidewalk blocking the entire thing passing stuff back and forth cars were stopping and handing things off to them i thought my gosh this is like a flea market this is in a navigation center this is not a place for wellness or for organization i have yet to see ever a supervisory person come out and patrol or do anything of that nature i've never seen a face come out i've never i mean and i i drive very slowly so we're doing a real disservice to not only the clients but the community at large it has to get better than this you cannot expect a neighborhood to put up with this kind of impact so in case you don't know what it looks like when you go by there three days in a row i've seen the same gentleman wrenching and dropping the oil pan and changing all four tires right in front of 600 morgan street um nobody says anything about it now in my neighborhood that would be cause for alarm but i guess this neighborhood everyone just deserves our or thinks it's the push point and it's expendable but i don't feel that way and many people have contacted me and i'm compiling a list now of people there are a lot of people who are fearful of coming to speak out there's there are people who are afraid to even write an email so i feel like we have to stick up for the people who maybe don't stick up for themselves and in the quest to go and help one demographic you don't get to go ruin and traumatize another demographic i don't care how deserving the one demographic is you don't sacrifice the other one so there has to be accountability there has to be an equalization everybody wants people housed everybody wants homeless to have things and get off the street and be them best their best selves everybody wants it but we want it done in a fruitful way that doesn't impact the neighborhood nobody should have to have this all the time you're traumatizing a neighborhood and i understand that there's the uh good neighbor policy oh well you can write anything on a piece of paper that's like saying i gave my word but not keeping it because that's what's happened so in your quest to do all your fundraising and everything just know that there's people who are waiting and who will be doing litigation if we cannot reach a happy medium on this conditional use permit it needs to be ramped up and they need to be held accountable like any other business thank you thank you kathleen kane followed by eddie good evening thank you for the opportunity to comment as the former executive director of the sonoma county community development commission i've spoken on several occasions in support of various housing developments and programs to provide healthy safe housing for all residents of sonoma county tonight however i speak to you on behalf of the church of the incarnation which is an episcopal church that has been located in downtown santa rosa since 1873 and where i've been a member for 25 years incarnation has a long history of service for homeless people as you may know in 1993 we actually started the living room which was a day center for homeless women and children so that they had a safe place to go during the daytime when most homeless shelters are closed the living room has been very successful and the need grew greatly so that agency has since moved out of the incarnation property into its own sites across town once the living room moved we began a food program called sunday open table we provide breakfasts and bag lunches for over a hundred people every sunday morning this june will host our sixth annual bike ride to raise home funds for homeless services but even as we carry out our mission to help people who are living on the streets we also face the same negative impacts as other downtown property owners because people living on the streets without roofs over their heads without sanitary facilities and without places to store their belongings harm the community in general as well as harming themselves so i speak from varied perspectives both as someone who is very passionate about delivering services and affordable housing to homeless people and also as a downtown property owner who has experienced the negative impacts of the homelessness crisis as i see it from both of these perspectives the fundamental problem is that far too many people still are forced to lay down their heads in places not meant for human habitation santa rosa and sonoma county as we know have come a long way in the past 25 years to provide additional housing homeless beds and services but there's a long way to go and the church of the incarnation strongly supports the caritas village project as a very significant contribution to helping reduce the problem and take care of our sonoma county residents we urge your support we look forward to your approval of the project tonight thank you thank you eddie d followed by nathan gilfin bomb hey everybody can you hear me good evening everybody my name is eddie i'm here to speak on the behalf of catholic charities as one of the regular volunteers and former participant in their programs before i began i respectfully request that i not be videotaped audio recording is fine i can't tell you how much catholic charities has done for me you see i was a victim of a very brutal attempted murder that changed my life forever i found myself at the lowest point of my life i became a resident at sam jones hall where i worked alongside the staff to rebuild my life at a time when i had burned most of my bridges and had no one who cared about me they respected me in a way that made me feel special again in addition to the basic necessities like a roof over my head and food on the table they gave me myself confidence back they helped me rebuild my credit and apply for jobs i had bad teeth and i was so embarrassed that i never smiled catholic charities arranged for a dentist to fix my teeth i got the best smile in snowman county now i volunteer every week at 600 morgue street where we fight to help our homeless neighbors restore their dignity and the way housing brings it's hard work and and the men and women seeking care at 600 morgue street are looking to do more than survive they are coming to catholic charities just as i did they want a new and better life but the current facility is failing it is so hard to do the work we need to do and to do it well that's why there is overflow onto the street i believe caritas village will finally make it possible for us to achieve our goals i will it will be a safe place for our clients to receive care and to get on the path to housing it will be a facility and staff it'd be a facility the staff and the clients can be proud of at catholic charities i fill a part of a family i want the best for my family and the people we serve please consider caritas village so these angels can make an even greater difference in santa rosa i just got to say something that it takes a village just for me to get through the day and can you imagine the impact that this village can have on people's lives restoring hope saving souls and bringing families back together i just encourage everyone in the community to come volunteer be a part of not against a part of come join us for angels amen thank you nathan gilson bomb followed by heather anerson good evening um i live at uh on eighth street between a street and b street right around the corner from the proposed project i've lived there for the last three and a half years for the purposes of full disclosure i'm also a senior program manager at catholic charities responsible for the administration of a disaster preparedness grant in sonoma napa counties in that role i've had the opportunity to work with a number of neighborhood groups in both counties over the last several months who are trying to prepare together for the next round of whatever is coming one of those groups is part of the west end neighborhood association i've been meeting with them fairly regularly and i was invited to attend a meeting at the round bar in this winter at which preparedness was going to be a topic of discussion but in fact the majority of the meeting was spent on dealing with the the crisis in the west end and during the meeting there were several residents who spoke passionately about what current conditions meant for them um and their families um i got the sense in listening to them that they weren't angry at the people that were on the streets but were frustrated by the fact that there weren't some concrete solutions being proposed to try to remediate this problem and i think the caritas village is that type of solution um that holds the promise of providing safe affordable housing for 128 families um on a permanent basis and and some homeless services for those people in need um it's been very interesting here tonight to listen to the care in which these decisions need to be deliberated and it's very encouraging to see that our public officials take that care and thoughtfulness i would like to leave you though with the the reminder that we're talking about our fellow citizens our brothers and sisters um and all of them are looking for the same kinds of things we want in our own lives a safe place to live where they can where they can have some sanctuary and um and get on with their lives so i hope um that you give thoughtful consideration and approve the project so that it can move forward thank you thank you Heather Anderson followed by Lena Hoffman is Heather here not seeing Heather Lena Hoffman followed by Maggie O'Brien hello my name is Lena Hoffman i was born and raised in Santa Rosa and i'm now a homeowner in the Ridgeway neighborhood on Korea Street i'm also the daughter of a person who experienced homelessness and housing insecurity here in Santa Rosa for more than a decade i'm asking you to vote in support of Caritas Village because it is essential that housing and supports be located where they are most accessible and where people receiving services will have opportunities for meaningful engagement in our community when my father was experiencing homelessness having housing and support services located downtown made it possible for him to access the case management housing assistance and public transportation that were essential for him to manage his health issues and this included the drop-in center at 600 Morgan Street the downtown location also allowed my father to make and maintain social connections that were just as critical to his survival he was a loyal patron of Wolf's coffee shop that used to be in courthouse square and there he'd enjoy a cup of coffee while he worked on his crosswords and it was there that he struck up conversations with fellow patrons who appreciated his humor and his colorful stories and through these small interactions he formed several close and lasting friendships that sustained his spirit gave him hope and a sense of purpose during his very difficult time on the streets my father was also a voracious reader and spent quite a bit of time at the downtown branch of the library the computers and internet access there allowed him to maintain contact with me and reconnect with friends and family members that he lost us with having access to public spaces and shared commons is more than a convenience it is a necessity and even more so for the most vulnerable in our community public health experts speak often about the important role that social connections play in maintaining health especially for those who are aging or in recovery from substance use disorders and other mental health challenges and sociologists have found that access to public spaces and shared commons like libraries and town squares is absolutely critical to facilitating these important social connections your vote to approve caritas village will demonstrate that as a community we can make informed pragmatic and compassionate decisions about where we locate the housing and support services that are necessary to heal and recover thank you thank you Maggie O'Brien followed by Robin Cleese um I guess I can just squat down a little bit here so um thing oh that's perfect thank you so I came here tonight to actually address the issue about the cultural heritage board and the fact that I'm a homeowner in the west end and I have to jump through hoops and hoops and hoops just to get my windows replaced yet now this whole feasibility discussion of caritas village where the air quality is making it okay for them not to have to replace the houses um brought up a few things that I was thinking of if the air quality was so bad for the people lived in these homes that are being on slated for being demolished why are we putting in apartments for homeless people with patios and balconies and that kind of thing so that just came up tonight and another thing I wanted to address is it looks a little bit like this is a done deal since it happened so quickly it's been fast tracked from the planning commission to the city council so I would like to address the management and the good neighborhood of not only catholic charities but of the other three service providers in what we sort of in my neighborhood have been referring to as the service provider triangle and it's really a huge issue everyone keeps talking about walkability and how the general plan for the city is walkability I urge every single person it's in this room to try and walk your dog or your small child down morgan street let them maybe touch the ground don't bring your pepper spray or anything because the pit bulls that attack your dog are going to be just fine I'm sure so I want people to walk down morgan street and walk down wilson street right past say Vincent to paul and right through the gospel mission when I ride my bicycle twice a day just like chris to the state building back and forth on my way home I go right past the catholic charities family center and I will say that just last night I counted 16 pieces of garbage just from the museum to the turnoff right by the mall so I don't know who's picking up all this garbage but somebody apparently is I don't know where it's going but the other issue that I have is the security the security I've spoken with security guards or people who are walking security around morgan street and by the museum and they're only allowed to go a certain distance the issue is that the west end everyone's noticing that the saint rose is on a certain I mean the correctness is being proposed at a certain spot in the saint rose neighborhood well what borders it is the west end and the security guards don't come in the west end but everybody who is a client with catholic charities knows how far the security guards can go and so they go just to that spot to park their cars and shoot up and do whatever else they want to do they defecate in our yards they go through our garbage cans they deal our things so I just would like to bring up those points because security is great but it has its limitations and the people who frequent these facilities know those limitations thank you thank you robin cleaves follow my engine robin cleaves I live at 730 morgan street it is on the um saint rose preservation district walk it is a 1906 queen and cottage that was built it's called the john schroeder house I moved into this house from washington state site unseen because of its charm and granted it lives in a neighborhood that has a lot of challenges but I love living there I have lived on morgan street for the last five years I am in there daily I see what goes on I'm also a registered nurse at Santa Rosa Kaiser Permanente I work in the emergency room and I see many homeless people as my patients these are people with their own stories and their own burdens they're somebody's mother sister brother father brother they are all dealt with compassion I believe in compassion as a nurse they have stories and they need to be related to as human beings they are deserving of respect it is easy to label them as the homeless problem but this takes away from their humanity of people who are struggling to make it through life compassion is a strength that allows us to understand others and see that we are more alike than we are different and as an rn I want to help these people in their need and that is what catholic charities and cretis village will do catholic charities helps people due to catholic charities current facilities at 700 morgan street their resources are severely limited as you have heard and seen the new facility will allow catholic charities to house and help many many more people and contrary to some opinions I do not believe that cretis village will increase the amount of people in the area that need to congregate in the neighborhood with a larger facility people will not need to hang out on the streets as they will be accommodated within the building itself catholic charities is the embodiment of compassion they see others suffering and are motivated to release that suffering they need cretis village in order to do so I fully support this project as a human being in the neighborhood and as a nurse thank you jen kuzmar followed by susan haze do it down here hi my name is jen kuzmar my husband david and i have been living at the little house in the corner of seventh and a street for nearly six years we love living in close proximity to downtown santa rosa and enjoy being able to walk to dinner happy hour or a movie without having to get in our car living across the intersection from catholic charities we've seen from a short distance the number of people that they serve with many more sleeping in their cars are on the street nearby we're grateful for their leadership that catholic charities has taken and helping families and individuals in need but there's clearly much more work to do we've witnessed firsthand the limitations of their current facilities which are outdated and no longer work well to provide the services to those in need we take a lot of walks in the morning and we've seen children getting ready for school outside on frigid mornings after sleeping in a vehicle because there wasn't room for them or their parents in their current location we support the caritas village project because it'll allow catholic charities to help twice as many people find a place to call home the proposed plans will provide a space for urgent and necessary project which will include many of the things you've heard about today a housing focus service center emergency family center and units for permanent affordable housing for those in need it'll also provide increased privacy for those seeking services and improve safety and security for staff neighbors in the community the end result will be more that more people are permanently housed and more are provided desperately needed services as neighbors and again as i mentioned we're avid pedestrians who love to walk around we look forward to additional benefits that will benefit us in the neighborhood like improved street lighting and sidewalks i urge you to support this vital project our county city and neighbors are facing real crisis of homelessness and how housing and caritas village is a worthwhile step towards improving quality of life for all thank you susan haze followed by dale flowers my name is susan haze and i'm a 25-year resident of the west end neighborhood near the chain center and i'm also a board member of the west end west end neighborhood association i'm a volunteer with catholic charities through the sam jones center and outreach at morgan street and other small projects i'm a working rn for 50 years and i work part time now in and uh home health it's been brought to my attention that there is some negative feeling about the pro pro center the close experience i've had with homeless indicates the need for more coordinated services caritas will accomplish the homeless folks in our area are here because downtown areas offer more for their health and welfare no matter what city you're in we are fortunate to have groups that care the redwood gospel mission feeds and overnights saint benza de paul serves lunch daily morgan street homeless service center provides food and much needed case management to help and house family support center feeds houses and provides case management for management for those with children many churches provide occasional overnight stays and dinners santa rosa offers the best support it is able to do caritas village will consolidate services and continue to work for appropriate care and placement jesus said the poor will always be with us and if we are not part of the solution we are part of the problem neighbors should not hesitate to report the to the police and our catholic charities any issues or problems immediately we are all aware some behaviors are not acceptable lastly there is always an invite through catholic charities to tour any site and discuss issues functioning in residence with the staff member if you have any questions or concerns let them know and an information time can be arranged many thanks and police support this cause with an open heart thank you dale flowers followed by alan thomas hello members my name is dale flowers i serve as pastor at first presbyterian church in the mcdonald historic district we are we consider catholic charities to be a partner a service partner community service partner of serving the needs of the homeless and and many other services they provide the reason we partner with them is because we share a similar value and conviction that people matter and that it's important that we address their personal worth with a sense of dignity we also value the approach that they have to address the challenge of homelessness done in a strategic way they work for long-term solutions while not overlooking the immediate need of each individual and finally i think they offer a comprehensive approach rather than a band-aid fix to help people thrive and live better i don't envy the the challenges that you face of trying to meet competing priorities of valuing a historic neighborhood at the same time we consider this to be a gift to our community it's not going to contribute to the problem it's going to contribute to the solution of a problem and it's going to help our whole community come together and help serve the needs that are indeed a matter of crisis and priority for our city and our citizens thank you thank you alan thomas followed by dan Sherman good evening mayor schwedhelm and vice mayor fleming and council um a couple of things they just want to get started um three things i'm going to talk about is the process the use permit and if i have time i'll touch on the historic aspect up but from a housekeeping standpoint i just want to get this on the record um there are two members that aren't participating in this vote normally um and i apologize if for whatever reason it was stated at the beginning of the meaning why they're not participating i think that's uh part of the law also believe that council member tidbits should not be participating in this vote do his to do his employment i'm not going to you know prolong that but i just want to get that in the record um my timer isn't going you can give me there you go um thanks so uh with that the biggest issue i think really that we have um as a neighborhood and maggie touched on it um susan down there touched on it i'm also a board member of the of the west end association i've been in the neighborhood a little bit longer than susan not that it really matters but the issue is what do you do when there's a problem with people sleeping on the street there's no solution the catholic charity is the the bad actor i'm sorry they just are so bourbon housing no problem family service center no problem 600 morgan disaster ongoing disaster and i don't want to hear from anybody that word on compassionate i most certainly don't see your purple shirts out you know on morgan street picking up garbage or dealing with people that are underneath the freeways because we don't see them and so you know the good neighbor policy thing is just a farce as far as i'm concerned so i put in my email i suggested that the city put in a no camping within a half mile that might be too much make it a quarter mile no camping zone so if there's anybody camping the city gets on it right away public works goes through there cleans up right away we don't have to call this response and code and first and stuff is ridiculous and then for whatever reason someone's kicked out of any of the services and you can start with catholic charities and carat house village that the police are notified and the other service providers are notified and it has to be done and funded by the police because the service providers are always going to say we don't have enough money to move the house we don't have this and that i live in a moved house i own two other houses that were moved in 48 when the freeway came through so there's just there's always an ends to the mean and the people that pay for it are the neighbors and the businesses and the community as a whole so you have to understand why people don't want these type of facilities in their areas is because of 600 morgan and the way it's operated so do your job keep us safe or we'll just take it to the courts thank you thank you dianne sherman followed by rosalie soget shea mr mayor vice mayor and council members my name is dianne sherman i'm the community health investment manager for st. joseph health santa rosa memorial hospital and i'm here on behalf of provident st. joseph health and santa rosa memorial hospital to express our strong support for the carat house village project which will provide permanent supportive housing with on site supportive services and affordable housing for our most vulnerable residents in the tradition of our founders the sisters of st. joseph we devote resources and services that care for the underserved and disadvantaged and minister to the needs of homeless whether through financial support of our partners in the community such as catholic charities or burbank housing and others or through direct provision of medical services on the street in our mobile health clinic and we know through this experience as well as the direct experience in our emergency room at memorial hospital of the impact that stable housing makes on health and the disastrous health outcomes for persons without proper housing it's no surprise that the number one health need in our community according to our community health needs assessment is housing and homelessness as it is in almost every community in the which provident st. joseph health serves in the western states that's why we are committed to partnering with others in each of our communities to support and invest in permanent supportive housing for those who would otherwise be living on the streets and we commend our partners catholic charities and burbank housing for their commitment to helping address homelessness and housing instability in our community and improving the quality of life for our most vulnerable residents memorial hospital believes finding solutions to homelessness is a moral imperative and we strongly urge the city council to follow the recommendations of the planning commission and approve this project thank you for your consideration thank you rosalie soli at shea followed by ananda sweet so i can see you there you are yes i'm rosalie soli at shea i come to you as a homeowner in the saint rose historic district for over 40 years we were an ordinary family buying a $60,000 craftsman bungalow on 10th street our family took advantage of public transportation access to the downtown businesses jobs my oldest son delivered the newspaper by bicycle delivering the newspaper every day to pepper for those of you who remember her we fully took advantage of living in this wonderful neighborhood i come to you this evening urging you to support the caritas village project i feel it offers that wonderful accessibility to so many people and it gives it gives our neighborhood a balance that it's so well needs recent sales of two bedroom one bath approximately 1200 square feet homes were in the $600,000 bracket i approve and urge you to approve of the caritas village project because it gives that accessibility to so many people and provides a solution not a band aid to what is needed in our neighborhood i feel sadness at the loss of the historic structures but my sense of humanity and the needs of this community far outweigh the losses i urge your support thank you thank you ananda suite followed by elima silverman good evening mayors but hill members of the council and on to suite with the santa rosa metro chamber of commerce here in support of the caritas village project homelessness and the housing crisis are having significant negative impacts on our local economy businesses and the entire community the santa rosa metro chamber recognizes the need for housing with wraparound services for those experiencing homelessness as the evidence-based approach and a crucial piece of the solution to this community challenge as a project that will double the number of people who find permanent housing each year caritas village will significantly alleviate the homelessness and housing crisis in our community making sure that our neighbors across the economic spectrum have permanent affordable homes is good for business and good for our entire community in addition to the human toll on those experiencing homelessness and the emotional toll on all of our citizens and that finding solutions like caritas village is just the right thing to do from strictly an economic point of view homelessness is a significant drain our local economy it impacts tourism and employer recruitment it harms our local retailers it needlessly strains vital law enforcement services and it places an extreme burden on our healthcare network caritas village's inclusion of on-site medical care will reduce that burden and cost to existing emergency room clinic and ambulance transports in terms of neighborhood impact the project offers significant improvement to the existing site and research demonstrates that permanent supportive housing not only restores the lives of homeless individuals and is highly cost effective but it can also lead to steadier growth and property values for nearby residences our county and city are facing real economic challenges as a community we are not in a position to turn away or delay real opportunities for action this is one of those opportunities and Catholic Charities and Burbank housing are two organizations with expertise and a proven tack record of successfully implementing solutions to homelessness and the housing crisis there is a significant cost to doing nothing and a significant cost to letting an opportunity like caritas village pass us by i urge you to support caritas village and the lasting improvements it will make to our community thank you Alima Silverman followed by Jeffrey Smith hi Alima Silverman I'm an architect I live here in Santa Rosa and I just want to say that I support this project I'm here tonight on a different matter but seeing this project is inspiring I do think we have a homeless problem here and this will help with that so I just want to say that I support the project thank you thank you Jeffrey Smith followed by tensi Smith Jeffrey Smith seeing no tensi Smith yes good evening my name is tensi and I am a former participant in Catholic Charity Services at the Family Support Center and early 2019 my family and I encountered struggles that we cannot overcome we lost our housing and we were forced to seek shelter at the Family Support Center we settled in and immediately got right to work on getting back into housing I never gave up on the process no matter how hard it got my children stepped up and the help of the children's resource manager Tony we got through it together about seven months later after a lot of sweat and hard work I got the call from Amarosa village a Burbank property that there was an open apartment for me and my children it had everything my children need needed a room to play room to thrive a room to heal thanks to both of these organizations we had home once again life at the Family Support Center is hard this the the staff stops at nothing to make sure that we're happy and safe but it's cramped and it's crowded the staff struggles for the space that they need to help clients heal after tough after tough trials forget about storage the intake room for people needing emergency shelter is always full that room would make me nervous and it represents the huge problem facing our homelessness population in this whole area all this creates tension between clients that could be easily avoided with a proper facility it's clear that the former hospital on a street just doesn't cut it no matter how hard the staff tries it's just not a proper home even for a short time I believe Carrots house village fixes the problems the staff will finally have the room that they need to run to run the shelter the best way and if Carrots house homes is anything like Amarosa village I know will make a beautiful home for more families like myself thank you city council for considering this project thank you for considering it for the staff who become such an important part of my life and for the people they that they serve thank you to everyone in this room who has supported me on my journey and I just want to give a big thank you to Catholic Charities thank you thank you desin and royal followed by Carol Harris good evening council members we are currently employed current employees of Catholic Charities but before that we were both homeless after our lives fell apart due to a family tragedy we both struggled with addictions we couldn't control we hit rock bottom we knew we had to get our lives right we both entered shelter at Sam Jones and began drug programs Dustin got a job at Guy's garden and was quickly promoted soon I was able to work there too thanks to Dustin's referral it was difficult but we worked through it and are now drug-free and living at the Palms we joined church at the rock we where we love to worship we love our home and our jobs at Catholic Charities this is my third year at Catholic Charities I'm on the host team where I do outreach to folks living on the street we work to get them into services one of my jobs is to walk the neighborhood with my team I've helped keep it clear of trash and I've connected folks living on the streets to our services on 600 Morgan street you know the house next to the school I've been able to keep that area vacant I work as a participant advocate at 600 Morgan street this is my second year I love helping our clients anyway I can but it's hard to in that space I work as hard as I can every day to make sure our clients needs are met and that they understand we're part of a larger community including the neighborhood it's hard to even imagine how wonderful it would be to do the work I do at Caritas Village we've gotten used to the house that our clients need a space that does more than get by it will be easier to get clients to enter service services in a safer happier space people know the 600 Morgan building can be difficult so I know this will make my job easier thank you for considering this project you know it's a long night this is important to us and we hope we can be a part of it to make our city the best it can be thank you Carol Harris followed by Jeff Collin is Carol Harris here right Jeff Collin followed by Erica Torgensen Torgerson Mayor Schwedholm vice mayor Fleming council members city manager McGlynn and staff my name is Jeff Collin I'm here also on behalf of Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital Providence st. Joseph health I'm also here as a citizen and resident of Santa Rosa and a former city manager of this community I take great pride in the fact that during my tenure as city manager we were able to bring Samuel Jones Hall online as a homeless shelter and I think that's one of the great successes that I look back at the time here I spent in managing the city I also wanted to pass on my thanks to the city council for your thorough and insightful questions about the project and to the staff for your analysis of the project and the detail and the care that you've taken in guiding our community I'm also a strong supporter of Caritas Village I think it's a project that you will be very proud of if you choose to approve it and I encourage you to do so thank you for your time this evening thank you Erica Torgerson followed by Joe Lillan fall good evening mayor and council members I've worked in downtown Santa Rosa for the last 16 years from seventh and e to first b I've watched the homeless population not only grow but also become more vulnerable according to Catholic Charity 70 80 percent of folks living on the street here were neighbors before coming home becoming homeless we need to do a better job for our community this project does with the council states is their policy of housing first Catholic Charities and Burbank housing both have strong reputations of the community and of getting people into safe supportive housing let's let them do their job I understand the opposition to tearing down homes in a historic district but requiring the applicant to move the homes and spending nearly a million dollars that will delay this project and potentially cause them to lose funding we can't prioritize old houses over people dying in the streets it's not going to take just one step to solve the homeless emergency in Sonoma County but approving this project is the first step I urge you to approve this project so the shallows can start hitting the ground in 2020 thank you thank you Chair Lillin fall followed by rick abbott Mayor Schwedholm vice mayor Fleming and council glad to be here tonight I want to thank council members or actually council member rogers and vice mayor Fleming who at different times have met and walked the neighborhood unfortunately because of the short turnaround between the planning meeting last week and this meeting there's not enough time to meet with all of you and that's unfortunate I'm not against Catholic Charities having an updated facility or having additional housing in the district I think both are possible and I think it can be done following the guidelines for historic districts it may be just me a smaller project not quite so large it's in 1990 when the st. rose preservation district was formed there have been numerous projects both residential and non-residential that have been successfully completed by adaptive use and infill and most importantly following the historic district guidelines at the first concept review project went for the chb and drb all seven members of the chb were unanimous that the proposed project was not appropriate for the location the two main reasons being number one the demolition of known contributors to the district and by the way all but two of the buildings if you look at the contributor map all the two are known contributors to the district the second one besides the demolition was the scale and the massing of the buildings themselves there are a couple of three story buildings project notes the the old school and the in the post office but there are no four-story apartment buildings in the st. rose historic district it's just not that kind of a district so they said that it didn't blend in with the surrounding neighborhood and more in-depth reasons were given even one member of the designer who board said that even though it's not with her review she was troubled by the amount of demolition one of the reasons stated in the ir for not considering the project was it would prevent them from reaching their objective what about the city of santa rosa's objectives there are numerous documents to talk about historic preservation and i'll read one of them some santa rosa's general plan 2035 adopted by the city council and it reads general plan policies strive to ensure long-term historic preservation in santa rosa by encouraging preservation of historic structures as well as their surrounding settings in areas of new development and redevelopment and by discouraging demolition of historic resources uh guess i'm out of time so that's said thank you uh rick abbott followed by connie kinnison good evening my name is rick abbott it is my honor and privilege to serve as the president of the board of catholic charities i would like to thank the members of the city council for this opportunity to speak in support of caritas village we at caritas village have a vision it is a vision that sustains us in the work that we do it is a vision that has guided us during the past five years as we have worked to make caritas village a reality we envision a tired old downtown city block being transformed into a vibrant safe and secure community a community where the most vulnerable among us can find hope for a better future a community where homeless families can find shelter and where their children can receive a head start a community where the sick and injured can find treatment for their illnesses and injuries a community that works closely with its saint rose neighbors by listening to their concerns and responding to their needs as we work together to enhance the safety and security of the entire neighborhood we believe this revitalized block will directly address both our citywide homeless emergency and our citywide dearth of affordable housing it is the right project at the right time and at the right place caritas village has the support of a broad cross-section of the citizens of santa rosa it has the support of many of our neighbors in the saint rose historic district caritas village has the support of the local business community it has the support of the planning commission now we are asking the santa rosa city council to add your support to caritas village on behalf of catholic charities and the multitude of caritas village supporters we beseech you to make caritas village a reality for all of santa rosa by approving the resolutions before you we would all be extremely grateful for that approval thank you thank you is connie kinesen still here bruce kinesen doreen van luvin followed by colleen fernald good evening mayor schwittheim and vice mayor phleming and council members my name is doreen van luvin i'm a marriage and family therapist i've lived here in the community for about four years and i'm here to support this project on behalf of the people that need the services that are being provided there i'm a past president of redwood empire chapter of marriage and family therapist here we have about 380 members and so one of our missions is to educate our members and provide them with information about how to help people in these kinds of situations and what we know of course is that the neurological impact on people is profound and that what we need to do is provide them with wrap around services where they can experience a sense of safety i speak to you today also as a domestic violence survivor i lived in seven month housing at a time with three little children and so i know the value of having that kind of wrap around service to get my own life back together i wouldn't be here standing here today without that service that was provided to me so i want to thank you for your hard work your diligence i'm going to sit down and i'm going to ask that you would please vote in favor of this thank you Colleen Fernald followed by kathryn dale i've been lacking traditional housing since the summer of 2016 prior to that i was homeless by choice to make truth and justice exposed it's absolutely humiliating to not have housing every time i step out of the door of my car my reason for not having housing has nothing to do with substance abuse and i don't know how many other people are in my shoes of unmitigated rape and the murder of my child creating conditions that can't be changed until you change that there's no pill or talking to someone in a room that's going to fix this so i really appreciate the services that are available at the living room down the street from this project and it's unfortunate the doors close at the end of the day so i know these projects are important and they're not for everyone urban density but i do support there being more available and that there'd be a really fair basis and not all the attention and help going to people only with substance abuse problems i don't or only with families with children there are single people that need help in addition to that to try to find some balance i'm not hearing green building at all in the details of this and maybe i missed something but i'd like to see those standards be implied to the highest possible position and how can the city support that aren't they're supposed to be solar roofs or new housing so i don't necessarily think roofs are the best place for all solar how about the parking lots so they're solar shade uh with regard to the historic houses there that are on the property their houses now depending on the condition of the houses with their historic if they haven't been maintained they can be a liability but if there's any structural integrity to it how could the city partner with them how do you have a location where they could be moved to how can the bigger community be brought into this equation if if there's an option there somewhere you know let's look at that and it's kind of ironic that you cut your rental inspection program for mold in housing when you found out 75 percent of your stock was contaminated so this is a really important issue durability of materials making them green making them mold proof from the get-go what can the city do to encourage all landscaping on new developments as much as possible be food gardens we can nourish ourselves as well as provide oxygen not just shade but an apple tree can provide shade and some fruit so how can you encourage some kinds of change thank you Catherine Dale followed by Jeff Kelly hello my name is Catherine Dale um i'm here to speak uh regarding uh the Morgan Street uh homeowners uh a few of them had to leave one just returned so hopefully Heather will get another turn to speak but um as you can see my head I wasn't going to come because I wanted to hide in the shadows because I was assaulted three weeks ago on Morgan Street I would I dared to walk out my front door to go in my car at 8 30 at night to get the laundry and it's the drop-in shelters that we have a problem with this is where there's no accountability there's um the people sorry people when they're released from prison they can go to these drop-in shelters receive their mail I know who my neighbors are I know them they're here and I know I know how to track them done down the people at the drop-in shelters there's no accountability that's the part that we want removed we as a neighborhood have done enough we have three shelters we're willing to say yes let's build for families let's build for people who can be held accountable but not any more drop-in centers we don't need it we need some semblance of civility so this doesn't happen when my daughter comes home from cool college sorry excuse me we need to be better protected and the drop-in centers do not offer us any type of protection thank you thank you jeff kelly followed by don hauser jeff kelly don hauser followed by jim netell and tell okay i think i can do it my my own my name is don hanson um in july of last year there was a women's recovery services they're a non-profit and they wanted to build some more housing on their their property on 98 henley so i thought okay fine you know they're doing something good and it's going to be great well they ended up lying and never got a survey and the planning department passed it they also lied on the site plan his name is uh he's with bkf so what the what they achieved this way was to cut down all my trees the 65 foot black oak two bay trees all those heritage and and also protected trees so i think my point is is that we have we want you know people to get help but then all of a sudden we're taken advantage of they have called the police on me saying that i trespassed on the property which they they're the ones who've done it i mean i'm still waiting to hear from the the planning department why they were allowed to take my trees that were on my property cut my trees down on my property a 65 foot tree with a hawk that nested in it i still haven't heard back from the planning department where i mean i have all the names of the people that lied on the site plans that lied to the planning and nothing has been done so i think that you know it's hard to it's hard to go after these charities because they're so big i'm i'm already ten thousand in a lawyer and probably looking at more because they don't care they busted up my cement they made it dangerous for my my tenants that live there i mean how do i fight somebody that has millions of dollars behind them i mean they they took advantage of stuff and and that's why i mean i see these people and i know that they're probably their hearts are are good but they don't have to live there and they don't have to put up with the people and so i'm gonna anyway i made my point so thanks thank you jim nantel is that on it is i guess mr. mayor jim nantel and i'm a volunteer with catholic charities and i just wanted to point out and ask the the council to harken back to the comments that your planner made at the start of the meeting she talked about five goals priority goals that this council has and she indicated that this project these combined projects between catholic charities and burbank housing addresses four of those five priority goals so i want you to keep your eye on that on that ball okay she also pointed out that you have a downtown or a neighborhood's plan that was developed five years ago and called for 3000 homes to be added housing units to be added in the neighborhood and indicated that five years into that 10-year plan i think we've been able to accomplish 128 of those and so that's another important part of your goals as as you know catholic charities has spent the the last five years working hard to respond these goals that you have in terms of more housing and dealing with the homelessness you know as your colleagues at the board of supervisors know that you've been struggling mightily with finding ways to address these concerns and so this is an organization that's worked very hard to respond to the goals that you have established and the priority you've given those and i realize is it's council members you have to make difficult trade-offs and i think the trade-off of foregoing some homes that are not in the state that they should be to be able to be moved and retained is the trade-off that i think is one you need to make to be able to move forward on these four important goals two of which this project four of which this project is going to respond to i also want to comment on the on those here tonight who are who are concerned about the impacts of the the day center in terms of how it impacts them as neighbors i would urge them to join me and mr. mayor you may remember that i was at your meeting on the leadership council a year ago where i said to all of you catholic charities uses the money they get now which does not provide them money to deal with these neighborhood problems but they use what they can and i think they do an excellent job in trying to respond to it but i said to the funders when you fund these things as you are responding the neighborhood demands for you to do these things you need to accept the cost of mitigating the impact on the neighbors you need to give them the necessary funds to be able to provide the full uh breath of services to mitigate the impact on these neighbors thank you thank you uh jeff kelly are you here ruse kennison conneeson kennison carol harris jeffrey smith heather anderson can you guys hear me okay hi i'm heather anderson i'm a dentist in san rosa and also a business owner i own a home on a street near the proposed courita's village i'm also a mother of a one and three year old girl two girls um i feel like catholic charities thus far has not stood by their neighborhood agreement um well as stated in their good neighbor policy and these are um quotes from that policy number one security to ensure that participants are not loitering in the neighborhood number two participants are expected to be respectful to neighbors number three participants are expected to remain out of the vicinity of the neighborhood during non-operational hours number four staff and volunteers are to address littering and loitering issues and number five participants are to follow these rules and violation of these congeprudize participants continued eligibility i can't tell you how much litter my family's picking up constantly as well as discarded carts shoes clothes and sleeping bags feces are frequently found in our alley between a and morgan streets we find trash and needles often at my office as well how can we expect catholic charities to manage an even larger facility when they have been doing a poor job thus far i think a navigation center so close to downtown is a bad idea and will harm the quality of life for so many residents and business owners i do think that family housing does need to be increased in capacity but the navigation center could be located somewhere where there's more room such as the sinoma county developmental center the governor has turned it over to the county participants would have a much better chance of recovery in this type of environment with the right resources i think san rosa has taken the brunt of the homeless crisis and we need to work together as a county um i was going to talk about my neighbor um but she already spoke and i think that um speaks volumes thank you for your time thank you uh fill a center yeah okay this is a public hearing so you don't have to fill out a card if anyone would like to address the council feel free to do so please identify yourself and you have three minutes hi denise hill i've lived in the saint rose neighborhood for 30 years and uh we've never had an issue with the expansion of the homeless family the family center or additional housing on the block that we're talking about however we do have a real issue with the demolition of all the historic structures on a block in a preservation district especially when the justification for that is that they don't have any integrity but the people that were taking care of them are the group that should have been making containing that integrity on those buildings our preference was for actually alternative two which would have been a win-win and we would have been able to have a lot of the historic structures on morgan street stay and we would just lose unfortunately the general hospital uh it doesn't look like we're going down that road uh our second choice would be alternative three which saves the two at least two of the homes two of the homes out of an entire block in a historic preservation district right but it also appears that the applicant is not interested in that so given that they don't seem to be interested in in giving a nod or preserving anything that has to do with the preservation district on that block we feel that they have to offer some kind of mitigation to the neighborhood not only medication for destroying an entire block of contributing structures but also mitigation for the impacts that this project will bring to the neighborhood through increased traffic reduced street parking and what is going on at 600 morgan street which as as many good neighbor policies as you can put out there unfortunately what it really takes and they have it already is eyes on the street for watching what's going on outside 600 morgan street as many times as we walk by there which is on a regular basis and certainly every sunday it's pretty much the same situation which is not a positive situation and there's never anybody that we see from catholic charities no security guard nobody else out there monitoring what's going on at 600 morgan street and that is a detriment to the neighborhood and as one speaker said residents should not be impacted no population should be impacted negatively by what's going on there i think at this point the proposals that chris rogers mayor council member rogers came up with seem like the one mitigation that would be a nod to saying we realize we're destroying an entire historic block in a historic preservation district so we would like to see some strong consideration towards that we would also like to see down the road that the city stopped putting us at odds with developers and we continually have to go to bat for our historic district when it is an asset to the city and one of these days we look forward to the city embracing it as such thank you thank you when anyone else like to address council on the sign please sir hello my name is matthew reid i'm an 11-year resident of 700 morgan street i live directly across from the proposed caritas village which i am in support of i had a whole thing written here but i think i'm just going to kind of speak from the heart the photos in the back the gentleman on the far right you over here can't see him he has borrowed many tools from me to from you know needing to fix his car and that sort of thing he always returns them the gentleman in the black cap there on a handful of times i've held his recycling material in my in my garage and he would come back and get at the next morning at his concerns of course that would be stolen overnight the woman to his to the to the left of him is currently living in her car across the street from my house and has been doing so for about two weeks and i could go on and on and on they are my neighbors in that sense they are members of the community as are jenny lin and uh tony and uh john and rebecca and the good people of catholic charities who um you know we're doing what they what they can um and then of course my neighbors here um that are the homeowners in the area all good people um nobody's arguing about you know people needing to be on the street they all need a roof over their head and that sort of a thing um i'm in a conundrum often uh in my neighborhood in dealing with a kind of my uh christian uh you know upbringing and values and uh and and my pocketbook uh but uh so i'm just exhausted i mean i'm just i'm right in the middle of it and i'm just completely exhausted um i don't know what else to say about it other than if this thing gets built and i mean apparently you know it's gonna the building's gonna have flowers coming out of it and everything and that's great you know um it looks fantastic uh build it uh so i'm just kind of thinking beyond that and sort of uh what happens you know after the fact because right now i mean to build that and to have what remains going on in the street across the street from our houses um and people are you know getting attacked and that kind of thing too not that this is you know anyway you know that's going on as well shocking stuff uh you know they just simply cannot stand it just cannot stand you know nobody wants you know we all love our neighbors but we can't have them you know live in you know in our in front of our house you know crapping on our sidewalks sorry you know um so it's a frustration that i have but i certainly want desperately to be able to work with catholic charities work with council you know i'm i'm i'm in it i'm willing to do my part uh but just what's going on now with the with what's going on in the street it's just simply untenable for everyone so thank you for your time you know i'd like to address the council go ahead sir uh have a house oh thank you okay what you want to say let's get your live mic mic you're not on quite yet hold on a sec there you go okay name's great parker i own property in the northeast section of the faint rosie story district and uh miss Fleming's questions about moving houses my victorian is two-story six thousand square feet and it was moved in 1950 from over on mendicino on to be street so it can't be done if you want to do it uh as far as chris rogers and victoria both i think mentioning the problems on morgan street especially on the west side of between six and seventh there's no permitted parking there now and i wish the city would do something to permit it it i mean it's not going to be a residential thing where you're going to get 60 percent of the household's agreeing to it because there aren't any there and but that's coming right into our neighborhood from the south and you don't want to you don't want to walk there for certain driving is a just real disturbing experience because you know you live a few blocks from there and it's totally different but it's just it's not pleasant um what else have i got when we live in the same rosie story district many people have mentioned this we sacrifice a few things about what we can do with our buildings and everything and it's disturbing when the city allows our people to come in and just kind of ignore the guidelines that we have to abide by every day it's uh it's just like slow infringement on the neighborhood and it's just kind of eating away at the historic nature of it and it's it's not fun thank you thank you anyone else like to address council seeing no one else we'll close the public hearing bring it back to council based on any of those comments do you have any additional questions for staff or any of the other presentations seeing none um mr tivitz i believe you have this item i do so for the sake of discussion i will move item 16.1 i would 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 16.6 and 16.7 and wait for the reading of the text so we have a motion on all seven of those recommendations is there a second i will second that motion okay additional comments mr rogers thank you mr mayor sue i'm probably going to need your help with this a little bit as i indicated i am interested in offering a friendly amendment to the motion that has some additional conditions on the approval and i don't know quite where those conditions fall so i figure you can can help with us with that construction uh first uh to the vice mayor's comments i want to make sure that the fire marshal has the ability to sign off on an evacuation plan prior to construction of the center as i indicated before i'd like to see elements 10 and 11 of the northern pedestrian linkage study implemented that's the gateway monument as well as the urban sidewalks and streets and benches the consistency within the district as i believe is in the motion but i want to verify uh from the mitigation measures cultural element one three and four which i believe has the salvage report the public report documentation the interpretive materials and the compatible design which i'm seeing some head nods that that is already offered within that motion um i would like to make the conditional use permit require a monthly meeting between the offered monthly meeting between the leadership team for the operator the mayor of the city the council member who represents that district and neighbors to discuss issues i'm specifically phrasing it that way because obviously the mayor will change the council member who represents the district will change and there may be some months as time goes on where the frequency of those meetings doesn't need to be monthly hopefully as things are working well but i want to make sure that there's that opportunity for city leadership to meet with the senior leadership team for for catholic charities on this as well i'd like to make sure that the trash pickup is weekly walking through the neighborhood is weekly as a condition of the conditional use permit um and i would like to see a permitted parking program on the interior of the project so that folks who have placement there and are able to park there have the spots that they need so that those aren't being taken up during the daytime and then folks who are supposed to who who want to who have a home there are not taking up additional street parking as well in the meantime and that can be all done internally on the site there i just want to make sure that there's a spot preserved for the people who are accessing the services to go there for the the long-term supportive housing the last one that i'll throw out for discussion with the council is a uh some way of making the good neighbor policy part of the conditional use permit so that that way it is not just as somebody said a piece of paper with good guidelines but actually has some enforceability for the city to make sure that that good neighbor policy is being followed so with that uh ma'am city attorney because i believe what council member tibis did was just basically take the seven recommendations what i just heard from councilman mirages is in form of friendly amendment what would you suggest us to do to tie up what this what was just suggested with the original motions because they may fit different right we're gonna uh i would recommend that you you take each of these one by one not do them as a group um but in addition i think i also want to invite staff some of these measures are already part of the project or part of the mitigations and others i think can be incorporated either as mitigations or potentially as conditions and i'll let staff address that yeah i think a lot of the conditions that you just went through they'd be most appropriately placed in the conditional use permit and or the mitigation program of the eir and our eir consultant can speak to those the use permit also has the first two findings require adherence to the mitigation monitoring plan so if you make your modifications in the mitigation plan of the eir they will then get captured by the use permit so what i'm hearing you say is most of that is related to item number six it's uh for mr roger's correct okay are there any other before we go into that so because i i think i'd like to take the suggestion we'll start with the first item are there any other council friendly amendments that you would like to offer to mr tidbits before he goes through these one by one and i was going to mention that some of the mitigations may be incorporated into number one as well so we're looking at one and six that that may require uh some revisions yeah and i i don't care where they go i think they'll come the same force uh whether it's one or seven i just want to make sure that they that those are all encapsulated in there go ahead mr tidbits thank you mr mayor you know unless there's any objections from my colleagues where i would lean towards putting these is solely in number six because i think what we've got here is one project that really is too we have permanent supportive housing that operates with independent living and then we have an emergency shelter and emergency shelters offer or operate very differently from uh permanent supportive housing units and whenever you put something on a conditional use permit there's necessarily enforcement mechanisms and so i would hate for enforcement mechanisms that could be levied upon the shelter also be levied upon somehow sort of the housing if that makes sense uh because those i think those operate differently and needed to be treated differently i understand that i think that the reason that there are some form of distinction is some of these hard design elements particularly the things from the northern pedestrian linkage study that those wouldn't be in the ongoing conditional use permit they would actually be in the approval process for the construction so that might be why they're in the eir for number one yeah okay any additions to it so why don't we just go through start at the top and then mr roger make sure we don't miss it if you wanted a friendly amendment as he goes through one through seven okay i move a resolution of the council of the city of santa rosa certifying the final environmental impact report for the caritas village project file number prj 18-052 and waive for the reading of the text actually excuse me no amend um gateway monument and urban sidewalks what would be the exact nomenclature mr rogers do you have it elements 10 and 11 of the northern pedestrian linkage study as well as the suggested salvage report public report documentation interpretive materials and compatible design and just to point out clarification there was an item in there related to the emergency evacuate evacuation plan which should be tied to transportation mitigation measure number one it currently the title references construction but in the subsequent text we can make that modification it mentions operational conditions for evacuation as well so we'll clarify that in the mitigation i believe that was the vice mayor's intent is that clear yeah so for purpose would you accept that friendly amendment yes yes i accept it so and mr dad were you seconding that motion i will okay madam city are you clear on what this motion in the friendly amendments are before we move on and frankly no i'm not quite clear sorry for the audio i move a resolution of the council of the city of santa rosa certifying the final environmental impact report for the caritas village project file number prj 18-052 incorporating amendments design elements 10 and 11 of the linkage study and uh certify i guess certifying that the uh city fire marshal will approve fire evacuation routes routes are playing per per transmittigation member number one for transmittigation number number one thank you sir hey that was good any and its evacuation plan not the route correct plan and do you agree to that friendly amendment i do as a second are we on board with that we're on board thank you any before we vote any additional comments on this motion in second seen none uh your votes please and that passes unanimously with five eyes one down six to go i move a resolution of the council of the city of santa rosa adopting the findings of fact mitigation monitoring and reporting program and statement of overriding considerations for the caritas village project file number prj 18-052 wait for the reading second are there any friendly amendments to that item any additional comments to that item mr mayor we will want to we will want um that resolution as well to reflect um the um mitigation monitoring or reporting program as amended for the per the first resolution so moved second and you're accepting that okay any other choice words to add that you do it okay uh we have a motion in a second your votes please and that passes with five eyes i move a resolution of the council of the city of santa rosa amending the general plan for the caritas village project from medium density residential and retail and business services to transit village mix use for the properties at 431 437 439 465 a street and 506 512 516 520 600 608 and 612 morgan street assessors partial number 010-041-001 004-005-008-009-010-011-013-014-015-016-017-018-019-020 file number prj 18-052 and waive for the reading of the text sorry about that do we have a second on that one second any further amendments additions all right we have motion a second your votes please and that also passes with five eyes okay i move a resolution of the council of the city of santa rosa approving amendments to the downtown station area specific plan for the caritas village project to include all project parcels within the courthouse square sub area and specify a roundabout diameter widths of 80 feet at 6 and a street and 7th and a street intersections for the properties at 431 437 439 465 a street and 506 512 516 520 600 608 and 612 morgan street assessors partial number 010-041-001 004 589 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 file number prj 18-052 wait for the reading second motion and a second any amendments any additional comments your votes then mr. doubt could we get your vote oh i'm sorry and that passes with five eyes i move a resolution of the council of the city of santa rosa approving a minor use permit for an emergency shelter for the caritas village project located at 431 437 439 465 a street and 506 512 516 520 600 608 and 612 morgan street assessors partial numbers 010-041-020 010-041-004 010-041-005 010-041-019 010-041-008 010-041-009 010-041-010 010-041-011 010-041-017 010-041-018 010-041-013 010-041-014 010-041-015 010-041-016 and 010-041-001 wait for the reading of the text second motion the second any amendments mr. rogers yeah and i believe this is the one where su suggested adding in a requirement for a monthly meeting to be offered between catholic charities the mayor the council member who represents the district and neighbors to discuss issues requires trash pickup to be weekly would take the the good neighbor policy and added into the conditional use permit so that it has some force of teeth to it and require a permitted parking on the interior to make sure that those who have thankfully found placement in housing have a place to park that is not on the street might i add a little tiny tweak to that in the event that the mayor who the person who represents that district is the mayor that the mayor would then invite the vice mayor additionally so we could have two members on the council in those meetings where i think that's a great idea here's my only concern with this is my understanding uh if spoke from the planning department could correct me if i'm wrong is that by tagging this onto the c up you could have a situation where 10 15 years from now catholic charities staff and city elected officials are not meeting because that habit has at one point in time been determined to not be required so many times we set things up these types of agreements and they go on and people realize that there are no issues or limited issues that don't require further follow-up and that that trail drops off so now what happens well somebody wishing to do harm to the project or the organization steps in and says that council member and that mayor have not been meeting with staff what's the recourse for the organization do they have to that that's my concern here and all of a sudden they're just being levied fines and they're having meetings for the sake of meeting sakes well and that's why specifically offered that it or suggested that it has to be offered by the service provider so it's incumbent then on the mayor the council member city staff to take them up on that opportunity but they can't refuse to meet with them and with the neighbors at that point they have to actually make an opportunity available and then outside of that the neighbors who are impacted by this then can choose whether or not the representation that they are feeling is adequate and they have that remedy on the election side if i could just comment too just because i've gone to a lot of the meetings down in this neighborhood where i think councils should have buy-in there and should have regular meetings and i kind of like the way you frame that it's on the honest is on the operator and the electeds should step up and continue to participate i get what you're saying if it goes forever but to me that's community engagement and let's continue to put it down there and if no one chooses to show up that's something but i i would i would like to see something in that that says whoever would be the appropriate parties uh city council and catholic charities and the neighborhood however you want to express it but that time of a monthly meeting can be adjusted if there's mutual agreement to it that's something like okay so we have and i want to be clear i don't mean a specific time set into it once a month just that once a month that opportunity will be available for for them to take advantage of so i've already read the resolution the amendment will be that everything that was stated i believe it was weekly trash pickup that catholic charity staff will need to meet with city elected officials however under mutual agreement between the city officials at the time and catholic charities they can choose to reduce the frequency of those meetings as well as the permitted parking within the site as well as permanent parking within the site mister now do you accept that friendly amendment i will second that oh and as there was also the good neighbor policy uh being built at the conditional use permit as well can this is a question i'd actually like to ask to the applicant because we're talking about adopting a policy that's liable to change under a conditional use legal process what ramifications does that have for you the good neighbor policy is part of our project description and multiple cases in california have held that the applicants are bound by their project description so we are bound by under sequa and i don't remember the exact page but we did enumerate the i believe the quarter the the quarterly meetings so the only thing that i think would need to be changed from what council member rogers is proposing is adding a condition of approval for the weekly trash pickup and a condition of approval for monthly meetings the remaining good neighbor practices were already bound by under sequa okay thanks tina and i would as i understand it i'd prefer to have it in the conditional use permit because the c up is enforced by our code enforcement where i believe under sequa it would require an actual lawsuit from the neighbors or from the city the courts have very clearly held that if you deviate from your project description it's a different project and the city could require additional sequa analysis but if it would make the council more comfortable you could simply add a condition of approval saying that we have to adhere to our project description as a set forth in chapter two of the eir yes like i said i my comfort level would be to have that in the c up so that code enforcement can do this rather than having to go through a legal analysis it sounds like you're saying either way it's going to happen which i think is some of the surety that the neighbors would like i'd prefer to have it in the c up so that's that's my motion are you accepting yeah i'll accept the the c up mr. gatt are you okay with that any additions do you have what the motion in the second is with those additions yes we do okay and i'll and i'll just confirm that staff is comfortable with the language with putting together the precise language that was actually do you have there was a suggestion that the good neighbor policy that we have that a little better elaborated but i believe that there that is set forth in the in the materials correct it it was in the materials yes okay so just clarifying with this list this is number five correct not number six yet that'll be your next item no no i'm sorry it is number six is the conditional use permit that's what we're addressing now so everything that was just said it needs to be applied to the use permit which is resolution six yep yeah so mr. tibitz could you go ahead read that again just to make sure we're reading the right all right so we're on resolution number six resolution of the council of the city of santa rosa approving a tentative parcel map for the caritas village project located at 431 430 i'm there i don't think that's i'm saying there's some confusion here we were just five i'm pretty sure okay that was you need to vote on the list so that list that's up on the screen then as pretend possibly reversed so but what we're addressing is the resolution approving the minor use permit for an emergency shelter for caritas village project and that's point five in my packet and what you want to put this all on is on six and it's so let's disband those amendments let's disband those the numbers i think the that you intended those amendments to be on the resolution approving the minor use permit correct correct i thought you wanted the c up right yeah my understanding we're on number five but all these amendments were intended to be on number six and again that's where i'm not sure what you have in your paperwork so what i'm saying to the council is my understanding is is we need to approve 16.1.5 as is and then we'll move on to 16 that's fine i apologize i thought i think that maybe your your paper might be off from the list up there the minor conditional use permit which is six up there is number five here so we're actually saying the same thing it's just so sue i'm gonna just say and hopefully this is adequate that 16.1.5 do you want me to read all the numbers again no i i think that you have you have already read the correct title to the resolution that you all want to have the amendments applied to to which you want the amendments apply and so if you'll just read the first phrase and with amendments as specified sure well there are no amendments again on what i have in front of me it's not the same as that no i'm i'm suggesting let's go ahead and finish up on the minor use permit resolution since we've been there we've talked about it we have the language let's get that one wrapped up and then we'll go back to the to the rezoning and to the tentative map i think we can ignore the the numbers that are placed on the resolution that's what's causing the problems and the the numbers are not actually physically on the resolution itself okay resolution of the council of the city of santa rosa approving a minor use permit for an emergency shelter for the caritas village project located at 431 437 439 465 a street in 506 512 516 20600 608 and 612 morgan street wave for the reading of the text very good with those with the amendments as specified second with the amendments as specified got a motion in a second any other comments or amendments your votes then mr. dabbins and that passes with five eyes and here it's relevant these are all okay i move a resolution of the council of the city of santa rosa approving a tentative parcel map for the caritas village project located at 431 437 439 465 a street in 506 512 516 520 600 608 and 612 morgan street i'm going to wave the assessors parcel wave for the reading of the text second motion and a second anything to add or clarify i'm sorry nothing to clarify this is that proving the tentative parcel map and you are fine with reading just the addresses and waving the parcel map numbers um so you may go go forward with that and then we were discussing the rezoning ordinance so let's do this one at a time yes any additional comments or amendment suggested okay we have a motion and a second your votes please do it this time on time all right 50 and do we have one more now we have one more i move an ordinance of the council of the city of santa rosa amending title 20 of the santa rosa city code by reclassifying the properties for the caritas village project located at 431 437 439 465 a street in 506 512 516 520 600 608 and 612 morgan street to the tv dash m dash h dash s a transit village mix use zoning district file number prj 18-052 and wave for the reading of the text second motion second mr rogers thank you mr mayor if if it's appropriate i know it's sort of anticlimactic but we've gone through these i'd like to make a couple of comments overall on the project or would you like to do that at the end let's do this one last vote and then we'll go on and make comments after all votes do you have any amendments to this item we have a motion and a second your votes please in that passes 50 so i would like to bring it back to council would anyone like to make any additional comments about this discussion in the votes that we took tonight mr doubt anything to add no yeah thank you mr mayor i think uh thank you first of all to everybody who stuck through this now four and a half hour discussion for me when i first started my process of figuring out how to vote on this ultimately there was a quote that kept popping into my head and it was from john stewart years and years ago where what he said was uh if you don't stick to your values when they're tested they're not values they're hobbies and i think for the city we have a number of values that came into conflict here that i was really intent and really proud of the council for trying to work our way through one of those is the preservation of our historic assets and i did a ton of outreach talking to folks in the neighborhood who overwhelmingly were supportive of the project but did have concerns over what this meant for preservation districts what it meant for other preservation districts ridgeway west end railroad square all of park and i thought that there was i think we are working to do it a way to do this compatibly while also still being honest about the challenges that we faced in our community around homelessness and i do see a key function of this council's goal and the main reason that i voted the way that i did is to make sure that we are focused on also easing the suffering of those who need it within our community we are going to have more of these conflicts as they come up we are putting a ton of housing into our downtown area and that's where all of our historic districts are and i wanted to make sure that we are very thoughtful about how we go through that because i don't think it's incompatible to have a historic district that you care for and promote while also putting additional housing or additional businesses into that district i also wanted to acknowledge that there's the neighbors that are there that feel that same tension as it pertains to wanting to be compassionate and help those who are on the street while also understanding that there's a very real impact to their lives as they sit there there is more trash there is theft and that folks come and steal from them we heard from one woman very passionately about her experience and that's typically not on the folks who are in the services at catholic charities it's mainly the folks who come to that neighborhood or have been banned from those services and so i wanted to acknowledge that as well i appreciate the the outreach i have not had a chance to email everybody back but i guarantee and i promise you i did read every single email that came in there was about 200 in my inbox that were stories from neighbors who have had terrible experiences from folks who want to preserve the the district as well as folks who have been experiencing homelessness and wanted to say how important that this project was to them as well i hope that we did a good job of striking a balance but all of those weight on my mind and i am at least content with where we ended up so thank you to my colleagues mr debits anything yet yeah thank you mayor i'll try to be brief you know one one thing that's become truth to me is that everybody in this community wants to help people living in homelessness but when it comes time to locate a place where these folks can go the majority of people say no this isn't the appropriate site and i hope that as a community and as a city we get beyond that what i saw tonight um i fear may have added a lot of time and cost to this project especially for a project that is already huge and has yet to raise more funds that concerns me but if if doing the exercise that we we did here tonight to bring balance to neighborhoods which is also one of our priorities here at the city then then i'm also satisfied with the result the one thing that i want to say though is to staff is that please bring this back to the council if issues arise that become consequential to the project from my perspective this project has to get done this is probably the biggest and most important homelessness project happening in this county and i'm proud that it is in santa rosa so i i hope and again and i guess one more thing i'd like to say to folks in this community on on both sides of this issue in homelessness nowadays because it's become so divided we have people that want them out and we have people that seem to want to be compassionate to me the balance is projects or the balance the balance is projects like caritas village it is it is things that are going to give these folks housing because if if you are feeling like you're being negatively impacted by the presence of a person experiencing homelessness in your neighborhood the best thing we can do is get them into permanent supportive housing and so i just hope that that message resonates with this community and i thank you for the time mayor the especially anything you'd like to add sure i want to thank our planning staff and the applicants for going through what i'm sure was a difficult and long process christine bill clare you guys did a great job um and i uh wish that we had had time for um a longer process um i know that that's probably not helpful in planning and i know that it's that time is money and i'm not insensitive to the applicants in in that regard and i'm not you know i'm a clinical social worker my first job out of school or housing people who need who needed housing and in types of situations like this and it's not lost on me but i i really want to be careful that we balance multiple concern multiple goals when they come forward and i think that while we might have added some time and expense to this project that we're going to get a better project and we're going to have a better product in the end and i'm was proud to vote yes for this again i would also like to add my thanks for everyone who's been involved in this um it's been now what we say two months and having most recently just been there uh last friday at the family support center um in seeing the needs of that facility are so significantly lacking and i really see this as an opportunity to have a a jewel over project in the city of san rosa um i'm also glad that the leadership both on the staff side and the um volunteer side of catholic charity has heard some of the neighborhood complaints and concerns um it's going to be part of our job here to make sure we're going to continue to walk the talk and our chief of police is here too to hear what those are because we are in this together we're not just dumping this all in one area town this is going to be a huge community asset where i think people across the country are going to be looking at what did san rosa do to try to address this and this has taken some affirmative steps so i'm very excited to see uh this come to fruition and be a really uh real contributor to our community so thank you for that so with that um we are going to be council has been at this since 230 we're going to take a dinner break here we'll reconvene at approximately 9 20 thank you okay we'll reconvene the city council meeting we'll be moving on to item 16.2 mr going item 16.2 is a public hearing appeal carpenter urban cottages david carpenter appeal of the culture heritage board decision to deny the landmark alteration permit for two pairs of single family attached units proposed at 25 ray street and 715 tupper street san rosa california 95404 assessors parcels numbers 009-201-004 and 009-201-009 file member lma 15-013 and presenting is claire hartman deputy director planning so only before we get into that we'll first do uh expartee disclosures and also just for the record vice mayor phleming will not be joining us for the rest of the meeting so mr alvarez do you have any expartee disclosures to make no mr soyer i did visit the site i believe a couple of years ago and had a meeting with the with the applicant um the actually the appellant um quite some time ago as well this project has been going a long time okay mr redoubt any expartee communications on this item mr rogers thank you mr mayor i walked the site uh and uh i proceeded a couple of emails about it talked to a couple of neighbors about it but no information was gleaned that is not in the public record hey mr divas i did have a brief meeting with somebody representing the project again no information that's not already public and i also met with the project architecture and i believe it met with the um applicant mr sure you think it's several years ago quite a while ago and i've also driven by the site so with that mr artman actually we're going to go quicker than that we're going to introduce christin a two manantumians our senior planner thank you mayor schwedhelm and members of the council this is carpenter urban cottages appeal hearing and it's a project located at 25 array in 715 tupper streets the reason for the appeal is cultural heritage board um effectively denied the request uh with a two to two um a vote that effectively um denied the project and um the reason for that is they were unable to reach a consensus amongst the four of them about guiding the applicant to an agreeable design solution the applicant the appellant presented um some grounds for appeal one of them is the benefits of the project that way the risks um the decision is not consistent with prior approvals and other chp resolutions and he cited various uh two-story structures within the vicinity um to bolster his argument the major landmark alteration permit that he did request was to demolish a detached 325 square foot rear accessory structure and construct two pairs of duplex or single family attached units connected by covered car ports and this would be behind an existing 821 square foot dwelling here is an aerial of the project site as you can see it's a fairly long parcel with dual frontage on ray street and tupper street um a portion of the the property towards the ray street um northern section is directly adjacent to a parking facility that benefits Bethlehem Towers and the front portion facing Tupper is directly adjacent to um existing single family residences and he is proposing to maintain that residence and build behind the existing residence so here is a oblique aerial shot showing the single family residence and fairly wooded rear lot here is the general plan designation which is medium medium density residential and um the medium density residential general plan designation has a density range from 18 to 18 dwelling units per acre and the property is zoned in PD 0225-H which is a designation for the historic district boundary and when you look at the PD policy document this area is designated as R3 PD as are mostly adjacent properties and R3 PD is very similar to what R3 zoning is today which is promotes more dense housing multifamily housing and the property is located in the northern portion of the Burbank Gardens preservation district and this diagram depicts contributors and non contributors within the district red indicates contributors and blue indicates non contributors the existing residence is considered a contributor the detached accessory structure is not and that is uh what the appellant proposed to demolish this is the existing site plan with the house towards um Tupper Street and the detached accessory structure um this was the plan that was presented to the cultural heritage board with the two pairs of duplexes directly behind um one pair would um take access off of Tupper and the other pair would take access off of Ray um there would be these are one um one bedroom units and they would be required to have at least one covered parking space and one guest parking per pair and the project does offer that for each of the pair of units this is the landscape plan that was presented to the cultural heritage board indicating the type of fencing that they would install um the applicant has since um since the cultural heritage board's action has proposed an alternative site plan in response to some of the constructive criticism that um he was given by some of the cultural heritage board members one of which was that the dwelling unit that um fronts onto Ray Street should actually turn and face directly onto Ray Street to provide eyes on the on the street and eyes on the park directly north um the applicant also proposed um a covered parking space for the existing dwelling which didn't have any covered parking before but did have that detached accessory structure these were the elevations that were presented to the cultural heritage board um he has not proposed any changes the total height of the structures will be 25 feet to the peak and this project has gone through um several iterations over the years the cultural heritage board reviewed this project on concept back in 2007 when it it was a very different proposal and the app appellant revised the project to reflect their comments um planning staff worked with the applicant to make sure that the dwelling units are attached in some way to accommodate the r3 zoning um and on september 4th 2019 after considering public input from approximately eight speakers and listening to staff's presentation project plans in the middles the cultural heritage board was unable to move the item forward with two members voting for the project and two voting against and um there was one abstention and on september 16th the appellant filed an appeal the opponents of the project cited issues with the overall scale and density of the project height compatibility with structures in the neighborhood overall parking impacts to the neighborhood um the potential to convert the attic storage space into additional units or habitable space ultimately the cultural heritage board denied the major landmark alteration because board members could not arrive to a consensus regarding the compatibility of the height of the proposed structures with the neighborhood as well as the compatibility of the increased density um some members thought it could be brought down slightly in height others wanted it brought down uh substantially in height and there wasn't a consensus on what would be the appropriate height in this neighborhood it is recommended by the cultural heritage board that the council by resolution denied the appeal and uphold the board's decision to deny the landmark alteration permit for carpenter urban cottages we have the um uh chair of the cultural heritage board here to present or answer questions about what went on at that cultural heritage board meeting the applicant also are the appellant sorry has a presentation also and the council options tonight are to either uphold the chb's denial deny the appeal deny the project or grant the appeal landmark alteration permit and approve the landmark alteration permit staff is available for any uh questions okay did mr. admiss want to make a presentation yes so we have the chair of the cultural heritage board and just one clarification the uh you heard him mention a couple times it was an effective denial uh because of the two to vote that results in the effective denial it's not an outright denial good evening mayor schwet helman members of the council kasey adminson chair of the cultural heritage board i think the staff report does an excellent job of summarizing the discussion that that was quite lengthy but ultimately two members of the board were unable to support the permit two were able to and the necessary four votes were not there the board members who did not support the permit were similar in their critiques they did focus as the staff report indicated on what they considered to be excessive height and density and the effects of density and the feeling that those lacked consistency with the surrounding neighborhood there were fewer comments regarding any broad design issues or architectural criticisms there was some discussion about the design guideline which favored orientation of the street-fronting structures to face the street this revised plan um is no longer subject to that criticism i think it's fair to say but the project that's for you shares the attributes that seem to guide the decision of the two board members who were unable to support the project the two board members who voted in favor felt like the height was uh not any issue that would cause inconsistency with the surrounding neighborhood that the design was sensitive to the surrounding structures and that the site plan minimized any kind of potential deleterious effects on the significant architectural features of the contributing structure the existing single-family home and also noted that in terms of density that it's within zoning code guidelines which are not within the purview of the landmark alteration permit per se but it was reported to the board and correctly that it's within the allowable density guidelines under the zoning code units per acre in the general plan and also in terms of parking requirements that the project was adequately parked as as per the zoning code so to the extent those would be valid considerations for compatibility of a project i don't i am not sure that they were the crux of any uh the votes against the project but certainly the zoning code wouldn't prohibit wouldn't have prohibited those things as far as we could tell in a categorical way all right thank you let me first see if there's any questions for you mr. Edmondson in case you don't want to spend the rest of your evening with us but any questions from culture heritage board mr. Doubt in my meeting with the architect uh miss uh silverman she was showing me the layout did the cultural heritage board see that or understand that in the units that the upper level uh first of all uh it's a ladder to access to it so it pretty well limits anybody thinking that they're going to put an additional resident living in that kind of situation it's merely a storage area as i could see by looking at the plan and then when you look at some of the houses within that existing houses within that area most of them have steps up to the first floor so and then the first floor and then additional space above that so i don't see that these as plan are they're about the same height i don't see them as significantly bigger than the existing houses in the neighborhood so i'd just like to have some of your opinions back on those issues certainly uh both of those things were discussed uh most of the public comments had to do uh with among other things a criticism of those two aspects of the project which are uh the height and uh the belief that it was incompatible with the uh because it was too high it was therefore incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood and also a lot of people articulated fears that there'd be greater density in actual fact than was measured when on the submission formally because there would be a misuse for lack of a better word of the attic space you know through the actions of the residents or some other means uh i do think that the two members of the board who uh didn't support the project mentioned i would say a little bit of similar feeling as to some of those members of the public as to being confused as to the manner in which the second floor was designed if it weren't going to be habitable in some way uh the two members of the board who voted in favor of the permit i think it's fair to say didn't see the relevance of the speculation about the use of the second floor to the the substantially architectural determination that we're making and uh you know to the extent it's related to density that speculation also uh i don't think fell the the board members who supported the project didn't feel like it felt within their purview to base their decision on that speculation thank you i think any other questions thank you uh now we have a presentation from the appellant applicant it's on now okay okay well yeah i um i had expected to give this presentation sitting down at the table and i actually can't read it um from here so uh so i'm at a loss uh but okay i have hit here in front of me now uh this is uh burbank garden uh the house that luther burbank lived in uh at the garden uh there the the idea of the urban cottage it represents a vision of having a small footprint uh now with the new code everything has to be net zero uh and uh it's transit oriented and in a walkable neighborhood adjacent to employment opportunities affordable by design and universally accessible to all that's the um intention of these units so next slide please there were multiple submittals to the cultural heritage board uh starting in 2007 so you can see one two three four five six different versions uh eventually they all they got smaller and smaller and smaller and uh so that now they're one bedroom units uh very small footprint uh the unit is 24 by 24 so i'm not going to read all of that there okay so let's look at uh process hmm this is out of order um okay next slide okay so your general plan 2035 downtown housing is city council's tier one top priority for 2020 one of them as part of the uh comprehensive housing strategy uh this project meets all the housing goals the stated goals of the state the county the city and specifically uh general plan uh lula is uh to foster uh a compact rather than scattered development pattern in order to reduce travel energy land and materials consumption while promoting greenhouse gas emissions reduction citywide so uh that's one of the goals and this project meets that uh general plan lule is promoting a livable neighborhood by requiring compliance with green building programs which the code pretty much does now so this will meet code and uh there's new construction that meets high standards of energy efficiency and sustainable material use also and this addresses one of the neighborhood concerns uh lul f2 is the development requirement uh for development at the midpoint or higher in a medium density residential property because this is new construction in that neighborhood uh it's this density is required the midpoint and above is 13 units per acre and that's what this is so next slide please okay so this is the tupper street context it is not primarily occupied by single-story bungalow houses like the rest of the neighborhood is as stated in the staff report but it's primarily occupied by multiple units almost half of which are two-story this is just on uh tupper street i'm not talking about the neighborhood as a whole because the neighborhood as a whole does have a lot of bungalows uh in in the block of tupper where this development would occur there are four triplexes on the block and five multiple units including all the houses around the house across the street both houses next door they have additional units on the property so this isn't all that different from what's in the neighborhood so nine out of 15 parcels in the block are developed as multifamily okay next slide please okay so the decision by the cultural heritage board um the planning department supported the project at cultural heritage board because it had met all the regulations and the planning staff still supports the project but they're required to follow uh to bring to you the recommendation of the cultural heritage board because it's a board so that night the opposition had to do with height and density but i will show you in a later slide that uh this house is lower than the house across the street and the two neighboring houses so um and that the cultural heritage board does not have the authority to alter the guidelines of the general plan which do determine height and density okay next slide okay so the basis of the appeal um first of all uh i just want to reiterate uh the planning department recommended approval of the landmark alteration permit uh because the project proposed new residential units downtown we all know we need downtown housing it's not as big as the caritas project which is really necessary but these units remain sympathetic to the neighborhood and the detached cottages that are in the neighborhood the benefits to the neighborhood and community outweigh the impacts the cultural heritage board decision was not consistent with previous decisions made for projects on the same street and in the same neighborhood and the project meets all the housing and land use development standards in the city so what are the benefits to the community from this project well additional housing downtown where people can walk they have access to transit it's transit oriented housing within a quarter mile of the city's main transit center and we turn the house that faces to face ray park so that there are eyes on monitoring the park and for the safety of the whole neighborhood so there's some other ones here there's resiliency in this housing uh it's a community example of net zero carbon neutral housing on a small footprint housing's adaptable for disabled people and that painting of ray street along the park connects hindley to brown street adding connectivity to the neighborhood so other cultural heritage board decisions uh there were several several uh decisions which i won't get into the detail of them but there was approval of a two-story unit around the corner on brown street there was approval next door of a wraparound porch which included raising the house up the whole floor of the house up to well it's above first floor level there was a second-story addition approved just down the street at 700 Tupper and there's other examples in the neighborhood where people have added to a second story so that's what some of these next slides show so this is a on brown street this shows a second story unit behind a one-story bungalow go ahead the next slide you can just go through these quickly this was a second story that's at 700 Tupper street down the street this is in a different neighborhood but the historic district approved of in 2012 a new construction of a two-story unit in the rear of a house okay so the next slide is what you need to see to show the height comparisons we did not show this at the cultural heritage board it would have been it would have made the point clearer that this house which won't face the street but it's it's there right now in between the two neighboring houses just to show the height comparisons so you can see it's not tall or it's not looking down on neighboring properties so that is and the height is at 25 feet is less than the neighboring houses it's less than the 35 feet allowed by the cultural heritage board guidelines and it's less than 45 feet allowed by zoning okay so now this shows ray street facing the park it's been well documented in city planning principles that in urban areas when there are eyes on the street from adjacent housing the streets are safer for people walking on the street and that will be true of people being in the park as well the back unit of this project was turned to face ray park with the understanding that eyes on the park will make the park safer for the neighborhood so bird's eye view this is kind of the end of the presentation here i ask you to imagine that you're up in the sky over this lot empty lot vacant lot in next to ray park and then over the neighborhood and then over all of santa rosa what do you see well you will see housing on this property there won't the neighbors can't keep housing off of this lot forever it there will be housing on this lot because it doesn't make any sense to have vacant land in the downtown so uh you will see housing here now what else do you see you will see these small footprint houses all over town because it's what the market wants it's uh what people who are downsizing want and it's a good design it's what makes sense for seniors for disabled people as our population ages and downsizes these type of units will be very important so will this project be the one that's built there who knows it's up to you tonight so whatever you think is best for this site vote your conscience and whether it's this project or whether it's some other project we'll see thank you for your time okay thank you any additional information from the staff perspective no just that um i agree with the appellant that there is a midpoint um encouragement in the general plan for a midpoint or higher in the medium and medium high density residential categories in the general plan and in this case it would be 13 dwelling units per acre and the appellant proposed 17 dwelling units per acre great good bring it back to council any questions mr. Sawyer thank you mayor um i've kind of lost track i'm trying to see it from behind me but how many different um meetings with the cultural heritage board has this has this project seen how many different board how many how many times first of all six six seven times maybe six there were uh there have been concept meetings then there were neighborhood meetings and then there were a couple of uh cultural heritage board meetings so a couple of carriage cultural heritage yes and um were they the same people at each of the same members of the cultural heritage board different board members a couple of members might have been the same okay uh but no uh not the same as what this last meeting was in august yeah and this project started in 2007 in 2007 yes thank you you're welcome mr. Rogers thank you mr. mayor walk through with me slide 18 on like i won't pull you all the way back to the to the staff presentation but the opponents cited a number of things and if you i'll ask staff to respond to this um so one concern was the overall density of the project we just heard that that's within the allowable yes let me ask staff this thank you one was the height compatibility the presentation just showed that it is smaller than some of its surrounding neighborhoods i'm hoping staff can confirm that one concern was the parking impacts does the project meet the parking requirements for that site it does meet the parking requirements based on the bedroom counts for the units yes okay and and the height it is well within the height limits okay and then the final one was the potential to convert the attic storage space into additional units or habitable space in order to do that would the developer have to come back for a major landmark alteration permit because it does fall within the historic district not necessarily if there are no exterior alterations but they would be required to apply for a building permit and planning staff would review that building permit this and it would be especially routed because it's an historic district and we would examine the site plan and determine there's not enough parking or that the proposal no longer meets the parking requirement on the site and would there be an opportunity at that point if that was to happen for neighbors and folks who are concerned to express their opposition to that at that time a building permit is a ministerial action so unless there's some sort of exterior alteration to the buildings that require some sort of visit to the cultural heritage board or to the zoning administrator the neighbors wouldn't know about that what's the what's the square footage for the attic restored space a square feet okay i believe it's slightly smaller than the ground floor okay great thank you any other questions seen none this is a public hearing so i'll open the public hearing we have a couple cards here first up kathryn storrell followed by steve storrell uh good evening council members and city liaisons my name is kathryn storrell i live at 713 tupper street the property immediately adjacent to the west side of this project i urge you to uphold the decision of the cultural heritage board i am troubled by some small changes the applicant is making in his appeal from that submitted to the chb in his appeal letter from september the applicant refers to the duplexes as being two stories in his summary he refers to them as one and a half story duplexes but while presenting to the cultural heritage board he maintained that they were in fact single story structures with attics at 25 feet high the site plan included in the appeal shows that unit closest to ray street orienting toward ray while in the site plan submitted to cultural heritage board it showed the structure not shown facing ray street instead orienting toward the driveway driveways facing streets is in fact a character defining element of our neighborhood i am confused that at an appeal changes to the proposal are being made the neighborhood concept map has at least two errors the density on the south side of tupper is 12132 not 23233 and the house at the corner of ray and brown is a single family structure not four units tonight's presentation by the architect has other errors that will eclipse my three minutes please note that two of the newer construction two-story structures referred to in the appeal do not have windows that face the neighbors that's out of respect and sensitivity with the product itself the single story units with finished attics have that look and feel of full two-story structures they were previously proposed as 23 feet tall in 2013 25 feet tall in 2015 so these have in fact gotten taller in my opinion it's far too tall for a single story unit that is behind a historically contributing structure in an historic district i feel that ensuring any new construction is subordinate in scale to a historic contributor is an appropriate protection which would reduce the roof heights of these proposed structures to 15 to 16 feet as that's the height of the original historically contributing home on the property it would not overwhelm that home and please remember that they are not proposing one but four units on this space all of which are 25 feet high they could be the same footprint with much lower roof lines changes that i believe could have made this more compatible than numerous times it came before the cultural heritage board include the reducing of the height and massing of those roofs um yes there are taller historic homes ours being one of them but these are actually fairly few in number i'm concerned at the five foot setback while these look like two-story homes which should require a 10 foot setback um two of the units are very visible from the street proposed parking unless it has changed in the appeal originally showed one and a half visitor spaces well i believe that there should have been one and a half pardon me should have had one and a half but showed one um street park the street parking is not thank you steve storrell followed by claudia clearer good evening members of the council i'm steve storrell and live on tupper street next to the proposed project uh the cultural heritage board's most significant significant directive is to preserve the basic visual and historic characteristics of a preservation district as noted on cultural heritage board's webpage there are many benefits of being a preservation district one of which includes neighborhood protection stating that historic designation generally controls the size quality and scale of new construction in the district to protect the character and quality of the area for the life of this project which is 12 years for a reason the cultural heritage board has repeatedly raised concerns regarding the height of the proposed dwellings which is considerably taller and inconsistent with the existing structure and therefore diminishing the basic visual and historical characteristics of the neighborhood due to the applicant's unwillingness to mitigate this concern the cultural heritage board voted to deny the project the applicant is not a victim of inconsistent cultural heritage board decisions as claimed instead uh really to to mr dowd's point um i'm sorry to uh mr soyer's point and asking if the makeup of the cultural heritage board has changed uh over the course of this project it has but the one thing that's been consistent across all boards is the height of this project and it's always been a point of contention we're not here to stop the building of the of of what he wants to do ultimately we just want the height reduced to not exceed that of the existing structure um to mr dowd's question in regards to um the attic space the the the attic space or the storage can be accommodated by a structure height that does not exceed the height of the original structure second it's it's not common to put windows in attics you you put vents i also have his plans from 2015 which show a spiral staircase up to the second floor addition and i can provide that to you as well so the footprint of this structures haven't changed over time at all he's just now calling these single story instead of two-story and now it's just attic space um addressing his letter of appeal benefits to the neighborhood and community outweigh the impacts first the applicant's assessment of the project of the benefits versus impacts are completely subjective and not measurable second the applicant states that concerns have been mitigated over the course of 12 years through neighborhood meetings in my opinion a neighborhood meeting is informal it's something that uh the the applicant puts together near this near the home or near the site and engages uh the public in conversation this has never happened the only meetings have been through uh formal public public hearings i'm about out of time so i urge you to to uphold the chp's decision thank you claudia claer followed by marlene russell hi um my name is claudia cleaver uh i'm an architect with morris and cleaver architects i've been practicing for 38 years i've been on two um design review boards uh over years i've been in front of many historic um design review boards as well and um so i was asked to look at these drawings and make comments to the the architect and i was um reticent because i imagined i was going to look at some big apartment complex and try to make it look better um but what i saw was absolutely charming and um i've seen a lot of projects in historic districts that i've really not liked one of the things that most people do in historic districts is they flatten the roof to make it lower and if you look at historic houses you see that the roofs are steep soon as you see a roof that that has like a a four and twelve pitch to make it lower it looks like a modern kind of schlocky addition to a historic district these buildings are tiny they're 575 square feet they're almost as small as a junior accessory dwelling unit that's how small they are um they're cute uh the steep roof is what makes them look so nice and so charming and the four little units lined up along the parking lot is absolutely charming and such a benefit uh and then finishing ray street which is a dirt street now and looks kind of funky will really make that um the neighborhood better i think it will actually improve um property values there um it um it adds a little density yes but that is what we want downtown and i realized when i saw this property that i could do nothing to make it better it's it's absolutely sweet as it is and if you see historic uh buildings you see that they are kind of small and tall that's um that is the historic proportion and this very carefully keeps that historic proportion and that is what makes it charming and that's what makes it fit into this um this sweet neighborhood and um the density uh doesn't look dense because these units are so small i mean they're allowed much larger units these are just tiny sweet little cabins um and the fact that they're also um net zero energy is like you know it just it's so perfect um anyway i just i think it would be a big mistake not to let these go and i could see that what we're doing thank you thank you man marlene russell hi um my name is marlene russell and my husband and i have been homeowners on the 600 block of topper street since 1991 and then in 2014 we bought a house uh on brown and we're of course we were present and living there during the conversion to the burbank gardens as a historical neighborhood and we were very supportive of it personally um i think um density is a real problem i know we do have a house in shortage but it's incredible how much the population has changed since we bought this house in 91 it would be interesting to look at the federal census report to see what the population was over the various 10-year periods we are it's like sardines squeezed in so i think in this little strip of property it would be more appropriate to put two units or if you want to stay historical fix up the house that's there and put an ad you in the back that's what most people are doing i think um four four units and also i question having um a driveway going from ray street because i think there is a duplex at the end i don't know how long it's been there but i think it's been there for a really long time i think if you really get heavy traffic flow around there it's going to be horrible that that block of brown street that is between ray and tupper has a board and care um we all know the women they're they're fairly well medicated and they there's no sidewalk on one side of the street i go i walk through their i walk i'm retired several times a day and i just think it would be dangerous that that intersection is dangerous two-way stop sign and no one knows who's supposed to stop um so i think two units would be fine and i think you should come and see them on a cars in the neighborhood it was not designed for four vehicles per house if they have four units i guarantee you there's going to be two cars per unit which is eight so we have a driveway thank heavens so we have to worry but some people have to park on the street and that's it great thank you those all the cards we have you don't have to fill out do we have more cards go ahead just introduce yourself and feel free to address the council my name is rich and my wife and i own 710 tupper street and we have since 1982 and this has been a really long night i got to get up really early in the morning as you guys probably do how far do you got a park from your house tonight before you walk home i'm just curious mr. mayor it's one-way conversation share what you want for this project well right now after i work 10 hours i come home and i get a park and somebody else's spot in front of their house a block and a half away because of the density of the vehicles the house directly across from us has a driveway like they're going to have where they drive in and they got a turn in a little tight little spot well guaranteed they're going to be rentals yeah they got plenty of parking for them in the rentals but when their guests come and when they get home early you know they can if there's a spot on the street and when they realize how terrible it is to back out of those little driveways and say you know what boop take the spot on the street and i can just walk up to my house my friends can park in my convenient little parking well we don't have a driveway so i get to park more often than not at least a half a block to a block away from my house and that is a concern for me and steve and catherine have they're treating their historic house like a piece of furniture they're restoring it meticulously they got a really nice backyard now they're going to have this big old building with windows looking right down into their backyard that they've never had before um and like marlene says i think you know maybe two places and maybe not quite as big oh and so the rentals so you know rent's expensive so when when you're a landlord and if you don't really pay attention to your tenants you're just glad you're getting your money what's going to keep the tenants from saying hey you know what i got this great attic yeah it's got this cool ladder hey we're young climb up that ladder man i'll rent it out to you for a hundred bucks a month to subsidize my rent because rent is crazy and i guarantee you he'll get top dollar for his rentals and i'll park two blocks away because now those two cars for the two people there'll be three or four people possibly in some of these places and and i know it doesn't affect you because you're going to park in your driveway tonight but i'm not i'm going to park in front of marlene's house down the street if i can and this is just going to bring a whole lot more cars to our neighborhood guaranteed thank you thank you go ahead sir hi i'm john sabatino um Tupper Street on that block is only one one side of the street's parking it's it's not both sides it's very limited the applicants existing bungalow has four cars it's one kid who lives in there maybe mid 20s four cars i don't see how our neighborhood can sustain uh more uh at all and i don't know if the applicant has the ability or or means or team behind them to manage this thing he hasn't sunk a dime a dime into this property it's one of the dumpiest looking houses on the block not a dime this is a cash grab that attic with the windows will be somebody living up there this is a packing cram so it's been a passion of mine and um you know i'm i'm getting too old to keep fighting this i'll just leave it up to you guys do you want this in the city or not thank you anyone else like to make comments to council on this item seeing no one rise we'll close the public hearing bring it back to council any additional questions for staff seeing none mr soyer i believe you have this item oh mr dowd when i look at page 20 of our package uh it's it is recommended by the cultural heritage board and the council by resolution to deny the appeal um but that is coming to us even though planning staff had recommended to the cultural heritage board that they approve this project as designed is that not correct and it meets all the requirements of the zoning and so forth in that area that's correct i can't i mean it it's a little confusing because planning is not recommending the cultural heritage board uh that the council by resolution deny uh while it is by the cultural heritage board but it's not by our own planning staff and i'm i'm sorry if they're meeting all the requirements for the neighborhood um i i believe that we should uphold the appeal so let's bring it back to mr soyer you have this item i do mayor and would i would it be appropriate to make some comments before as i have two resolutions in front of me and i'm going to pick one and i'm not sure whether i should make my comments before or after i select one of these two resolutions well you've got all the information from the public hearing in our comments and i do start our discussion and feedback we need to so i'm going to do that i'm i'm going to speak to the to the process or the project first and then i'm going to then i'm going to read the resolution that i'm that i'm choosing to read from the two um that i was well stated by kasey with with the cultural heritage board that this was a two people voted for it two people voted against it and one the one was a was not there so there was hardly a mandate stated by the cultural heritage board against this project it it died from lack of a four member the the cultural heritage board requires four members to vote yes for a project to move forward i don't quite understand but it does um i think the going from 2007 until 2020 is a great deal of time going from three stories down to one um and turning a building 90 degrees to try to get it to to to respond to the neighbors requirements um the height especially with the 575 square feet um you need to put stuff somewhere and it's going to probably go in that attic above up that ladder up into the attic and you might and my guess is you you can probably stand in this attic which is pretty rare for many homes i lived in one myself and i found using the attic very problematic but i had a garage these these have carports so i think it necessitates a tall attic myself i think in the in the cultural heritage board i think it was suggested by um one of the members who's a very thoughtful board member that the that to minimize the potential of anyone looking out of the um of the attic that the windows be glazed with a particular material that would actually make them opaque so you wouldn't be able to look down into the neighbor's yard i'm not sure if that was one of the recommendations it could still be if that's something that the um that the appellant would be willing to do i think that would take care of the issue of people feeling that someone is spying on them from the attic that would be a simple fix but i think that this this applicant has gone through so many iterations and tried very very hard to build um what he was looking at i remember a couple of years ago when i looked at this and he really does have a a um a desire for a specific type of of housing with elements of universal design and clearly affordability by design which we desperately need in santa rosa um i find uh i would agree with miss cleaver that the the design is charming and does is in keeping with the neighborhood aesthetically um and so i'm supportive of this project and i'm going to move a resolution of the council of the city of santa rosa granting an appeal and approving a landmark alteration permit for carpenter urban cottages located at 725 tupper and ray streets and the burbank garden's preservation district assessors partial number 009-001-004-009 file number lma15-013 and wait for the reading second all right we have a motion by mr soyer a second by mr alla there's any comments from anyone on council seeing none we have a motion and a second to grant the appeal and the landmark alteration mr mayor just one quick clarification of course the resolution resolution that council member soyer read references the plans that were presented to the cultural heritage board the plans that were presented tonight by the applicant are updated so if the council is interested in moving forward with those plans we would need to have that referenced in the resolution the turning of the of the one unit to ray street correct yes so you could simply just say the resolution um and moving with forward with the plans presented at tonight's council meeting we can capture that in the resolution so the resolution would include the plans presented at this evening's meeting second okay may i'm sorry mr mayor may i ask for further clarification uh you mentioned at the um earlier uh the idea of glazing the windows um did you want to make that a condition of the approval or is that just simply a recommendation uh to the developer well but perhaps it'd be a good idea to talk to either to mr carpenter or the or the representative um i know that um it was it was a i believe it was agreed to that the evening of the cultural heritage board meeting is that something that that that you would willing to be willing to do could you please give the microphone up there just so uh everyone can hear what you're saying because i don't remember what the if even well i didn't go that far perhaps that evening well yes it was one of the suggestions that were made and personally i feel like there's no presumption of privacy in an urban environment and especially when you live next to the largest building in town all these properties have berb Bethlehem town was looking out on them you know so uh my next door neighbor that doesn't have shades but yeah i can see in their windows is um so so i don't know why it would be required why we should require for new development and i think that the but where it came into mind was um a suggestion by one of the um uh supportive members of the cultural heritage board it was one of his recommendations but i did not remember what the response was by you or your representative that evening oh it failed as a motion it never got seconded okay so you so that that's not something that i mean that that you'd be willing to do in this case well i normally do that for restrooms where you need the privacy okay because i'm not expecting anyone to live there and and that's something i want to mention too this neighborhood is very very watchful of people making changes to their homes that have that have not been approved in one way or another and i would guarantee one i could almost guarantee that if if someone walked up with a construction truck in front of one of these units that there would that the neighbors would be very very well aware of someone trying to add a bathroom and a kitchen um to one of those into that to that attic um so i won't make that i won't make the glazing a requirement um uh and in this case and if it wasn't if it didn't move forward with the with the cultural heritage board that i don't want to um i don't want to muddy those waters so i'll remove that element and um withdraw that that detail so are we clear from staff with the alterations yes we have a motion in a second again any additional comments all right your votes please and that passes with six eyes thank you very much all right item 16.3 was uh our third public hearing scheduled that has been uh continued to the march 17th regular meeting just going back on the agenda mr. mcglenn item 15.2 report accessory dwelling unit urgency ordinance amy nickelson senior planner presenting any for confirmation mr. mcglenn that was the item formerly known as 15.2 it's technically our third report technically it's 15.23 something in there there we go all right good evening mayor swedhelm and members of the council my name is amy liall just to introduce myself i'm the new advanced planning supervisor and tonight's item is an urgency item related to accessory dwelling units and so i'll be introducing amy nickelson our senior planner who will be doing the presentation um but just to briefly discuss the item as you may remember in 2019 there was a host of legislation related to housing and there were a series of bills that related to accessory dwelling units and as part of that that um they really went forward to help streamline accessory dwelling units throughout the state and what was eventually made into law avoided our local ordinance and so it's um being brought forward to today to urgently put in an ordinance back into place to keep the local flavor and and and to keep the the streamlining that the state put forward but to really give deference to our historic neighborhoods to the hillside areas and to also add some clarity because the bills that were adopted were very intricate and in some situations actually conflicted with each other um amy and um i should do a shout out to our city attorney ashley crocker who did both did a great job of really deciphering those bills and trying to make sure that there was clarity on the the areas that needed to be clarified so with that i'll hand it over to amy to do a brief presentation on the ordinance thank you amy um good evening mayor schwad home members of the council the item before you is an accessory dwelling unit urgency ordinance an accessory dwelling unit or adu is defined as a residential dwelling unit that provides independent living facilities so it includes cooking sanitation and living and sleeping areas and they are on lots with either proposed or existing primary residences junior accessory dwelling units or jadus are a type of adu they are limited to 500 square feet in floor area and must be contained entirely within a single family residence as amy mentioned and as the council and members of the public know housing has been a tier one priority for the city of santa rosa in august of 2019 the state legislature adopted a number of accessory dwelling unit bills and these were signed by the governor in october uh january first of this year each of these adu bills became effective and our local adu ordinance was voided so this slide shows the four state bills referenced throughout the staff report and really only the top two ab 881 and ab 68 actually impact the city code and are included in the ordinance before you this evening senate bill 13 relates to the enforcement of unpermitted adus and assembly bill 678 relates to ccnr's by hoas and essentially prohibits those from precluding adus so i'm just going to briefly walk through the required changes for accessory dwelling units pursuant to these new bills one of the largest changes is a maximum setback so the new state bills state that no more than four feet can be required as a setback for side or rear property lines and so this is a pretty big change from what the city's previous ordinance had in addition cities are prohibited from requiring an owner occupancy deed restriction for adus and the review time has been reduced from 120 days down to 60 days another big change is that accessory dwelling units are now allowed on properties that are developed with multifamily units and the number of adus that can be constructed are directly tied to the number of existing units and also a minimum of two detached adus are allowed there is a correction to the ordinance that's before you and so i'd just like to read that language it is an existing line but it's it's been clarified and so i thought i could just read into the record what the proposed changes and then the ordinance can be moved as amended and so this relates to multifamily adus it's under section 2042 130 section e9c and it should read no more than two detached adus subject to a 16 foot height limit and four foot rear and side setbacks are permitted on any multifamily lot developed with an existing or proposed multifamily dwelling and that is consistent with state law there were a few changes related to parking in the new state bills one is that if a garage or carport is demolished to construct an adu that a city cannot require any replacement parking this applies to single and multifamily properties and then there was a clarification related to what one half mile of distance to public transit means and and the state bill states that that's walking distance specifically and why that's important is because units within that location are not required to provide any parking requirements for junior accessory dwelling units have been relaxed as well under state law they are now allowed within walls of an existing single family residence one before they had to be kind of taking over the place of an existing bedroom so there's more flexibility there state bills also allow for an optional interior entrance into the primary dwelling unit so the ordinance before you actually proposes removing that interior entrance or connection entirely to provide additional flexibility and then just for clarification the owner occupancy deed restriction does still apply to junior accessory dwelling units as required by state law so as Amy mentioned we do have a number of local amendments in the ordinance before you these kind of already exist in some capacity in our zoning code and they existed in the previous ordinance but have been drafted in a way that is more objective and more protective or responds to some of the the new state requirements related to setbacks so one of the local amendments limits size and height in our hillside and creekside areas another specifies how architectural compatibility can be demonstrated in both our historic preservation districts and in neighborhoods generally and then we've also carried forward some of the clarity on fire protection measures there are a number of amendments in the ordinance before you that relate to public improvements or public right of way one is that there's there's a requirement and it's actually title 18 of the city code that relates to public improvements and when those must be installed the ordinance before you proposes a an actual exemption for ad use so that they are not having to go through a waiver process with the city engineering division and instead are automatically exempt if they meet the specific requirements and this really reduces cost and increases predictability in addition there is a section added to the setback section of the ad u ordinance which just specifies that front setbacks or side setbacks that might impact roads are actually measured from planned roads as shown in our general plan in our specific plan so that those improvements can actually be implemented and then also the clarification that a requirement for necessary right of way dedication that that's really clear as a part of an accessory dwelling unit project that that would need to be provided when needed for circulation as again specified in our general or specific plans so this table here compares state law and then what the ordinance before you proposes and as you can see in almost all of the categories the city proposal is more permissive than what the state law requires and that's for floor size floor excuse me floor area also location and parking there are also some more relaxed provisions related to junior accessory dwelling units and the one category where the proposal is consistent with state law is related to fees and that is actually because the fee structure established by the ordinance adopted by the council back in 2017 was actually used as a model to eliminate fees for ad use under 750 square feet and then of course the hillside creek and historic area provisions are more restrictive than what's in the state bill because it doesn't address any kind of local resources so as you know this is an urgency ordinance which means if adopted it would become effective immediately and the reason for this is for us to have local protection and clarification because we are in this interim period where only state laws are in effect urgency ordinances are allowed by the california government code and also by the city charter and can be allowed when there is a current or immediate threat to public peace health or safety the ordinance before you is statutorily exempt under the california environmental quality act and with that the planning and economic development department recommend that the council by motion adopt an urgency ordinance amending city code sections 18, 12, 0, 1, 5, 20, 30, 0, 4, 0, 20, 32, 0, 5, 0, 20, 42, 1, 3, 0 and 20, 70, 0, 2, 0 to allow ad use and junior ad use in compliance with state law and in support of the city's housing plan and I should mention adopt an urgency ordinance as amended as explained in the presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions. Okay thanks Amy bring back to council any questions Mr. Dowd. I'm a little confused by this because earlier in one of your charts and you're repeating it again that we have to do this to be in conformance with existing california state law and yet then on that one chart it says our rules are going to be more permissive than the state and the concern that I have is that if people throughout our community start converting their garages to ad use then we can't force them to use transit or the smart train or whatever else they still may have cars and they're going to be just like we've listened to in the last item where people are parking all over the streets and there's no place to park so I mean if we have to do it we have to do it but is there am I pointing out things that could be a problem in the future? So I just to ensure that I'm understanding your question or concern so you're talking about how on this chart it says parking and then it says city proposal is more permissive um so to clarify most of the parking section of the proposed ordinance is in line with state law but there is a section that's carried forward from our previous ordinance which is now void which says that if a unit is less than 750 square feet in area that no parking would be required um so there's nothing proposed before you this evening that is different than what was in our previous ordinance or what uh state law requires okay any other questions all right we have a couple cards on this item uh first up Alima Silverman followed by Colleen Fernald let's see Alima here Colleen followed by Lindsey Wood stayed up late I am literally starving because I'm not at all funded but I'm here to offer you food for thought and that is you have an urgency to advance your planning ordinance much farther than this and what I'm proposing is you got your junior ADUs how about the many ADUs a new type of mobile home to offer up one that's actually mobile so where there is a place to have something such as the size of an RV 300 square feet let them have wheels this is in addition to what you have I'm talking about something even smaller I'm talking about green tiny homes as your ADUs why because for some of us that would like to own a home maybe just having the unit that's not a toxic RV would be a place to go that's mine and no one can take it away renting trying to own this little home and I'm just going to rent where it goes for a little while in someone's yard or on a tiny farm eventually leasing leasing to own eventually owning a little slice of land so these baby steps for affordable home ownership that help out a property owner to make their property taxes or whatever for a while so they've got that income but maybe it gets crowded there's no place to put the cars eventually that home can go somewhere else so I'm asking you to create a third model because not everyone that needs affordable housing wants to rent forever not everyone wants to be in total urban density so it's not choosing between one or the other it's creating all models so this is a good start but you are going to have some consequences and there's environmental consequences to be considered as well here so but not everyone's going to just abandon their cars and if we could have these as a new farm worker type of housing can you create little mini farms can you get some people from growing indoors all the time and what else can we grow these tiny farms you have these tiny little houses come up and do some work even within your city here it could be done so we need a green tiny home building guild create them safely fire safe and all the rest this little tiny footprint and just think of it when there's a disaster you don't have to wait for FEMA to give you a toxic trailer maybe you can leave the disaster if we have a good evacuation plan and plenty of noticed so please consider working this out somehow or another for the rest of us thank you thank you Lindsay would not here all right bring back to council mr. Rogers you have this item all right I will make a motion to adopt an urgency ordinance as amended by staff amending city code sections 18-12.015 20-30.040 20-32.050 20-42.130 and 20-70.020 to allow accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units in compliance with state law and in support of the city housing action plan while preserving the visual character of the city and waive for the reading of the text second we have a motion in a second any additional comments seeing none your votes please and that passes with five eyes one no one no being from mr. Dowd thank you mr. McGlynn item 15.3 item 15.3 as it is on the original agenda report professional service agreement with place works incorporated for preparation of the santa rosa 2050 general plan environmental impact report david guin assistant city manager present actually tonight we have andy gufson senior planner presenting thank you mayor schwedholm and members of the council tonight i'm presenting a request that the planning or the council approve a public professional service agreement for the preparation of the santa rosa 2050 general plan update and environmental impact report as you recall this matter has been before the council on a number of occasions last fall we came forward with the scope of work and and then in september and october we reached out to the consultant community and commenced a committed competitive bidding process in december we met with or interviewed two consultant teams and selected selected the most qualified team in place works who demonstrated that they have the capacity to help us go through this three-year general plan update process we worked with them during january and completed and refine the scope of services that is presented today in your packet the need for the general plan just to review that quickly we do have a a statutory obligation to keep the plan up to date in particular we mayor can you take a break brief recess the yeah okay mayor we're ready to go all right where are you in before the rise of the monitor so um the general plan update project um there's a number of reasons we're we're commencing on this three-year effort and i was listing the significant events here in the community and and uh fire homelessness housing shortage are all topics of great concern that are going to be the subject of the general plan in addition we've had the annexation of the rosalind community and we've also had designation of disadvantaged communities within the city that we need to address for helping to deal with social and environmental equity issues also an important aspect of our general plan update is to refresh our sequel document that will really help to streamline all development within the city in the future including residential development that's so much needed the the general plan update public service agreement before year that's being recommended the total cost of that will be 2.5 million dollars the county or the city's advanced planning budget has already allocated 1.6 million dollars approximately to to that effort that advanced plan fund accrues money and and as of the end of 2019 it was one million six hundred and five thousand dollars that had built up we are requesting tonight that that amount be allocated or appropriated towards the general plan update of that one million three hundred ninety three thousand three hundred ninety four dollars would be for the balance that we would need for that two and a half million dollar consultant contract and then the other two hundred and approximately twelve thousand dollars would be for additional staff costs that will be incurred during the course of this general plan update just to give you an indication of next steps in our project with the consultant team on board we will hold our kickoff meeting we will be continuing our outreach for community partnerships earlier this evening you saw a great example of some of the what what we've been able to produce is a Kaiser grant partnership to get healthy city policies integrated with our general plan as well as our opportunity to be able to collaborate with Latino service providers with the youth community we will we will continue to work to seek additional funding there there's quite likely a great opportunity for us through state funding to get the climate action plan integrated into our general plan update in some form get money for to do so so that's those are things that we are continuing to work on now as I mentioned we will be with the consultant team on board preparing a community involvement program which will be brought to your body for for consideration it'll be we'll be working on that in late march and probably be coming to council late march in and april time frame to do that in the meantime we will also be convening various groups within the city including and the committees including the community advisory committee and the technical advisory committee in the to help us go through the general plan update process so we're at the very exciting beginning part and and with with the council's action on staff's recommendation this evening we're to repeat to request that the council appropriate from our advanced plan fund monies that would allow us by by resolution approve a professional service agreement with place works for public engagement planning and environmental review services for a three year period to prevent the prepare the center rose a 2050 general plan update and environmental impact report for that not to exceed amount of 2.5 million of which 1.351 million 393 thousand 394 dollars would be to fund the balance of that agreement and 211 thousand 920 dollars for related staff costs and i'm available for any questions great thanks any questions of staff seen none when we have no cards for this item mr tippets you have this item i know sorry guys we just had a break and in the moment that i have here i'll just i just want to point out we do have charles nox with place works and also his collaborator on the project dan aamson with mig and in the audience here with us okay i'm ready resolution of the council of the i move a resolution of the council of the city of santa rosa approving a professional services agreement with place works incorporated for preparation of the santa rosa 2050 general plan update an environmental impact report an appropriation of one million six hundred five thousand three hundred and it says three one two four i think that's a typo but about one point six million dollars from the general fund reserves and wait for the reading of the text we have a motion in second madam city attorney there is an extra digit in there we'll correct it we'll do that we'll do the addition correct it i believe it's the extra two should not be in there is one point six ish million is that an exception that's a very technical term spending authority for sure uh do you want me to read that appropriately that would be great that would be just i just need to know the amount it's one million six hundred and five and you said three one four three fourteen three fourteen okay so three one four so continuing uh appropriation of one million six hundred five thousand three hundred and fourteen dollars from the general fund reserves and wait for the reading of the text motion in a second any comment or additions is that good with what you heard very good all right we have motion a second give us please and that gets six eyes is there another motion on this item or is that it on this that's it that's it thank you great thank you for your presentation okay that's we have no public hearings written communications we have none we do have one public comment card mr crone are you here anywhere mr groan would you like to address us at all no speaking all night all right with that meeting is adjourned thank you