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?  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