meaningful step we can take right now to help mitigate this crisis in our community for three reasons one is it's been pointed out earlier this evening we have two very competent organizations working together catholic charities and burbank housing to solve this problem they've been in the community a long time and they both have very substantial track records it's my belief that this partnership and combination is very powerful to get this project done we have an ideal piece of property or land for this project it isn't often that you can redevelop an entire eight or tire city block of land for this kind of purpose it's very impressive and we have that asset and we're able to use that last we have a compelling community and financial support it's been already discussed tonight that we've raised close to 22 million dollars already what may not have been discussed is the fact that it includes all the local hospitals it includes the local banks it includes many many well-respected community members who are participating in this project and want to see it get completed our current homeless shelter is over a hundred years old and it wasn't designed for its intended purpose as jenny lin said if we are able to to build this car test village and car test center we can double the number of people that we put out into permanent housing i just asked this tonight that you move forward expeditiously and approve this project for us so we can get on and get it built thank you very much thank you anyone else wishing to speak okay great to state your name please good evening my name is joe plager i didn't have formal remarks but wanted to speak and i am a field representative for congressman thompson and i would take like to take the opportunity to re-emphasize what was mentioned earlier about the additional tax credits we were able to allocate at the end of last year it is one billion dollars with a b and for context that's 50 percent of the size of tax credits that california as a whole receives in a year just specifically for the disaster counties this is a huge once-in-a-lifetime win and it's important they are allocated quickly and be used in projects immediately and as in taking off my professional hat as a resident of 442 8th street and one of my earliest memories in santa rosa was accompanying my mom to work at just down the block on 7th and a street i believe in the vibrancy and historic nature of the santa rosa neighborhood but recognize that the current facilities while they're old that may not mean that they're historic and they're falling down they're not usable they're not able to be brought up to current code standards and frankly not safe for their current uses or any future use so i'm in full support of this project thank you great thank you anyone else wishing to speak okay i'm not seeing anyone else rise so i'm going to go ahead and close our public hearing thank you all for your comments and thank you all for being orderly and respectful um i think if you wouldn't mind i'd like the commission to have just a really short break so we are fresh for uh the response to the uh concerns of the public so we're just going to take about a five minute break okay um if you want to take your seats i'm going to go ahead and call our meeting back to order i think i have two uh two major concerns that i heard uh one of which definitely are the number of which need to be handled by the applicant so if the applicant would be willing to respond to the concerns expressed about um how the security systems are being handled the current conditional use permit and how the navigation center will be handled in the future so that that's answered not that loud okay oh okay great um well thank you thank you for the opportunity to talk a little bit about the operational component of our project i'll kind of talk from the programs and operational standpoint and then we'll invite our architect my pie talk to talk about some of the design elements uh so just to kind of uh talk about the concerns around the current operations and how this project would help it uh help the uh or enhance the operations you know we've pretty much been doing adaptive reuse for the last 30 years and we feel that this facility has run its course in that way uh in particular with the drop-in center you know we serve a significant number of individuals experiencing crisis and homelessness out of a two-bedroom home and that is why you see some of the issues um because the buildings were never necessarily meant for that and we've been adaptively reusing them over the last several years in terms of the new project in the way it's designed uh we'll be looking at a building that will actually allow for those same individuals to be served in a much more enhanced way including interior courtyards and interior space much larger space to accompany their needs uh we'll also be looking at um enhancing our existing good neighbor practice and policy which is to ensure that individuals that come into our programs they sign a program agreement and part of it is that they will be a good neighbor while they are participating in our program if there is something that violates our good neighbor policy we actually can do some suspensions of services uh we also have a 24 hour hotline that people can call if they have concerns in the community or in the surrounding neighborhood and we have 24 hour staffing currently on the site uh to mitigate any issues with this new program we'd actually be enhancing the number of staff in terms of the on-site resident managers as part of the Burbank housing project and we also will have um our intensive case management services that are currently kind of spread across the community will be there to kind of more proactively deal with any problematic issues that might be going on additionally um we'll be looking at how our transitional residency program that is being proved that is currently on the property and would continue would also allow for more intensive security on-site uh during the after hours to again continue to help mitigate issues in the surrounding neighborhood uh so with that I'm going to ask if our architect might talk about some of the design elements that we've specifically incorporated to deal with some of our current limitations around our operations what I could do is just um help you visualize a walk around the block with the new facility there when it comes to the housing at the north end of the site the entire ground floor will be lined with housing on the ground floor people will have their own porches and patios so there'll be plenty of eyes on the street where presently they're really aren't any so that whole end of the block is taking care of that way on the southern end where the catholic charity services are there'll be lots of staff there'll be dozens of social workers staffing that facility and at night there'll be cameras we'll have the latest electronic technology monitoring all the sides of the building all the streets with with cameras the entry to the former alley which will now become amuse will be gated and locked with access only by staff residents will be coming into their own lobbies in each of their separate buildings so all edges of the site will be carefully controlled and monitored at all times 24 hours great thank you and then for staff maybe you can give us um an in depth answer to um the questions about the multiple structures being demolished how that how that's being handled in terms of the the general plan guidelines and policies regarding historic structures and the concern that in in moving this project forward in this way are we setting a precedent that might harm other historic neighborhoods all right i'll take a stab at answering that so i'm going to hit the first question about whether your actions tonight are precedent settings so if you allow demolition of historic structures contributing or otherwise tonight does that bear that we would continue to do that on each and every project um instead of entitlements that you're asked to act on of course not um this is a case by case um request that comes to you so tonight you're looking at changing of flange's designation and you're also looking at a project now you get to back tonight based on the information you have based on all the information that you have in the public testimony and and balance some competing interests and now in terms of policy the competing interest is it's our downtown our our housing needs the needs to address homelessness um urban design as well as historic preservation and a number of speakers spoke to um policies that discourage demolition so those are all true and those are all adopted policies and our general plan includes the collection of those and just like any other project you're balancing those so you need to decide what are the most relevant most appropriate for the application that's before you tonight and then in terms of environmental impacts um this is a disclosure process the environmental impact report does not shy away from the impacts it bears it all and in fact we are um through this analysis finding that it's significant this impact and cultural resources so that's why you are looking at um considering and and making a recommendation for a statement of overriding considerations so these are not taken lightly but these this is what you have before you in terms of balancing things balancing policies looking at environmental impacts and balancing whether it's appropriate to do a statement of overriding considerations through the chair if i might i just wanted to provide some clarity in the event you wanted to look at probably your packets in front of you about the the level of environmental analysis that's presented in the eir on uh table 3.6-1 on page 3.6-6 in the land use chapter there's a general plan policy consistency analysis which evaluates the city's general plan policies relative to the proposed application in front of you so that'll give you a context want me to see the numbers again okay it's a table 3.6-1 and it's located on page 3.6-6 and that's the general plan policy consistency analysis um there was another point raised uh not only in your question but through some of the public comment speakers um about the idea of the impacts of the historic district and the challenges that that brings to the district as staff has alluded to that we did not shy away at finding that to be a significant effect and that analysis is contained on page 3.4-14 and i won't read it for you but in in summary while the demolition of these two contributors would not result in the loss of the district as i hold the alteration to the district would result in a substantial adverse change to the historic preservation district in summary okay great thank you so i believe that addresses the the main concerns brought up by the public and so i'd like to give the commission their opportunity to ask questions um so yeah we could start with staff um and let's try to pay attention to who's answering the question like if we need to talk to police or fire that if we all have particular so we don't have people jumping up and down so we'll just try to kind of do that and make a coordinated effort of who we're asking and how long they need to up there so yeah commissioner dug in go ahead okay i've got a few questions for staff um one was one of the speakers um made the statement that she believed two structures two historic structures were going to be moved and that is not in the plan is that correct i wanted to make sure that that was understood that's that's correct the project includes demolition of all the structures on the site okay all right and i do have a couple of specific questions um so that i see one of the things we've been given to approve or not approve is a minor use permit because we don't need a major conditional use permit for the homeless shelter um and the minor permit the the use language is different than what's in the existing um 2010 conditional use permit and specifically um including the regular meetings with the neighbors and part all the parking um needs to be on site so is any of that language carrying over is it going to be part of the minor use permit or is that language been changed now the current resolution that's drafted would supersede the previous use permit and if you would like to recommend adding additional conditions um that is in your uh purview okay if we wanted to add add the conditions that were in the the previous conditional use permit okay and also um i wanted to ask if you've got any um data on the number of code enforcement calls that have been called in for the existing the the the use permit that's currently enforced and the nature of those calls i don't have the statistics of the number of calls but there are no active code enforcement cases on the project site okay okay and then i've got some questions for the traffic engineer and for fire okay um any other questions along these lines for for christening two years yeah commissioner carter uh this is a real broad process question but the applicant uh asks that if we don't approve the project we deny it can you discuss what the process would be if a denial was to occur and i don't know if they might want to add some clarity to that but i mean basically what's before you tonight is um a proposed project and staff is recommending that you recommend approval of all the requested entitlements in eir it is within your purview purview in the alternative to recommend denial of any or all of the resolutions that are before you in that instance however we would be asking you to provide some direction to staff as to why you're making that recommendation and that would require a discussion of some findings to support your recommendation for denial i mean it's always the choice is always before you can recommend approval you can recommend denial you can recommend some modifications there too um perhaps it's a question best answered by the applicant i it seemed to me that there was some understanding of how it would proceed if there was a denial and that's what i'm trying to get at if if there was an intention from the applicant for it a next step i'd like to understand it better um thank you commissioner carter tina wallis again i think what we're asking for is a decision tonight either that the commission would recommend um that the council approve the project as we proposed it or if you're unable to make that recommendation that you then recommend that the council deny these applications um our understanding and i would of course defer to staff and the city attorney's office is that um because it's a recommendation this would move forward to council and ultimately council would make the ultimate decision as to approval or denial based on this commission's recommendation of approval or recommendation of denial so i think i understand what you're asking for now but would a recommendation of denial go to the council or would it have to it would it would go to the council that answers my question thank you just to add a chair cisco members one other thing i think the idea here is that the applicant is indicating a preference to move forward to the council given some of the funding deadlines um and that a continuance is not in their interest at this point which is another option that is of course available to the commission okay um yeah vice chair weeks and then commissioner peterson um so i have a couple of questions for staff uh is there was some questions around parking and street parking is morgan street in part of the parking is there a parking district the part of morgan street that is um between seventh and sixth we don't have that information okay okay no call outs please we're just trying to get this done thanks so that's one question uh for staff uh if if cultural heritage board and design review board don't approve the project when it comes to them what happens i mean i know that they are not binding that but so what what would happen the applicant has a opportunity to appeal their decision to the city council and the city council would make the ultimate decision on the project okay and then the remainder parcel uh that this might be a question for housing but um when does that plan on going to city council good evening i'm megan bassinger housing and community services manager as christine mentioned in her staff presentation the housing authority just approved conveyance of the parcels to city council on monday february 24th we are planning on having a closed session with the council on tuesday march 3rd and then we'll proceed with an open session item for the completion of the transaction at a later date so it will be scheduled in the near future commissioner peterson um so on on the land use front i'm trying to formulate a coherent question here so the historic district designation that h overlay sort of how does that interact with the other land use designations you know the medium density residential um that sort of stuff i i guess is the purpose to kind of keep historic districts as a a fixed more museum type piece is it a more dynamic overlay how does the interaction between the historic district and the other land uses how do they interact i can speak to that um so it's a little bit of mixing and matching uh we have the general plan designations which is medium density residential transit village mixed um and those are about general land use types and general levels of intensity so it doesn't and then we have general plan policies that are not specific to any land use designation but throughout in terms of urban infill and historic preservation uh the zoning that you referenced that supports more specific sort of land use opportunities and the way the zoning code works for land use in a historic district is and this is actually even written in the h combining district part of the code it says for land use is you default to the base zoning district that that dictates the land uses through our land use table so for example you know you can do a single family detach or you can do a multifamily or you can do a neighborhood office so it's the base district that dictates the land uses so for example if it's neighborhood commercial that's that that's what you look for for land use for um design guidance it's uh it's um there are some development standards in the zoning code so that talks about height how setbacks are going to be treated in historic districts there's flexibility there in terms of discretionary processes and just outright flexibility especially on setbacks um and then also design we have design guidelines and so those are guidelines so those aren't as they're not legislative like our zoning code and our general plan but they help us inform sort of the how part which just follows this discussion this is the land use and the intensity discussion at commission and council and then as we move forward to design then we start looking at our design guidelines and so that's what dictates sort of how these things fit so I would say in short it's not they're not meant to be static they're supposed to evolve over time but again balancing new construction and there's a lot of policies that speak to new construction in historic districts and so would it be fair to say that the the preservation district isn't driving or controlling the the land use you know the the zoning isn't fixed as a result of being in a preservation district it's not dictated by the preservation district it's more about design and development standards thank you come sure quicky yeah um during the non-agenda manners dwayne dewitt uh mentioned referenced our issue last week where we had an open appeal window and then he implied that the same thing was happening with this can you speak to that yes this is not the same situation in this instance as we just had a small discussion with commissioner carter these would be recommendations of the planning commission to the city council so you would not find yourself in that same situation of an appealable action it will go straight on to the council on the second with you i mean third i'm sorry with your recommendations okay and then um can our consultants uh speak to i don't know if you were given the letter um from the very thorough letter from jeff elliott rebutting your findings on the um uh senator as a general hospital and its historical significance good evening my name is dan harrick i'm an architectural historian and preservation planner with stantec um i can speak to that letter um a big part of it and uh you're right jeff is very thorough in his uh research and his um dedication to the hospital um part of it is what he expressed in the letter i believe that what jeff was looking at was the narrative body within the consultant's uh historical resource report which was prepared prepared by bronzel historical consulting um that narrative within the body was just a brief summary of the broader historical contexts that were developed and included in the appendix um on the california depart department of parks and recreation 523 forms which is basically the industry standard for documenting historic properties and um sort of so the state can uh take those and have them within their formatting within that there's um some of jeff's concerns involved a citation of primary resources um differences of opinions in the historical narrative things of that nature that's all accounted for in that dpr form um the citations are there the primary sources that he wanted to see maybe not the exact specific ones certainly aligned in the broader source materials by looking at that and what jeff presented and what our consultants found there's definitely some difference of opinions in historical pieces of information but in a broader sense with the general hospital the things that jeff put forward in terms of uh evidence of historical significance didn't i mean historical significance is based upon uh four criteria for establishing that significance uh the first one is association with events or patterns of development number two is with uh associations for individuals that have made significant contributions to the patterns of history three is for architecture design um methods of construction things of that nature and then four um the potential to yield information and that's more tied to like the archaeology component and then of course a property has to uh exhibit integrity meaning it has to have seven meet seven uh categories of sort of uh tangible and intangible uh elements to sort of convey its historical significance and um uh what jeff prepared and outlined his point supporting the uh his argument that the general hospital was in fact eligible as a historic property wasn't necessarily context it was more important information well not important information more interesting information um the context that we would look at would be something about um and forgive me i'm trying to think of a specific example that he used but i believe one of the thing one of the common themes was that the hospital was uh very very their their model their mission was very caring um they they took care of their residents um or their uh patients and um the level of care was high so that it was um it was celebrated in the community however just because the care at a level of a hospital is basically because they were good at their jobs does that actually qualify as historical significance for patterns in history um there isn't necessarily any association with the development of medical practice um there isn't um i mean he references the uh they advertise the use of ambulances i mean that was becoming a common thing in the early late 19th really a 20th century there's it comes down to difference of opinion but um we stand by what our consultants put together and um we are preparing a response to his concerns and um although we disagree um certainly um his level of research and um his care is commendable so there is that again trevor was stante consulting the one thing that i would also add in addition to that is that the the secret guidelines in the the state statute allows for disagreement amongst experts okay and so the idea here is that uh both are utilizing a different opinion on the same matter and we're presenting it for disclosure the the idea here is that we are presenting all the available information to this this body so that you feel you can make an informed decision um as i alluded to earlier the findings of significance related to this particular impact have uh are at the highest level of significant and unavoidable we're not we're not trying to hide the fact that this is of an important topic and that it will result in a a significant unavoidable impact so in the context of sequa we've done all that we can do to provide you with information for your decision this evening. Any other you know Commissioner Peterson. All right well i've got you guys on a similar topic can you tell me so i'm looking at table 3.4-1 on page 3.4-4 and sort of along those same lines wondering if you could spend some time um just discussing how the historic eligibility is evaluated between the you know state federal local rules. Absolutely um the federal level is outlined by the national park service and that touches on those four criteria that i mentioned uh events patterns of development individuals design potentially information and at the end uh integrity once once you establish what the historical significance of a property is and under what historical context then you assess whether the building retains its integrity meaning does it have the characteristics evoke the feeling of that of that significance. The state level basically is a reiteration of that it's definitely a little more california tailored but it's essentially the four criteria again for the state or for the local um um criteria for significance they they basically base it off that it's the four essential criteria and then its integrity um as the fifth so it's it's pretty consistent across the board it's just whether it's tailored to the national state local level. And so still on that same table i'm wondering if you can um explain a little bit if if possible um why uh the bloomfield survey results are uh at odds for many of the the structures with the 2015-2018 survey results um you know in 1989 their district contributors and in 2015 they're ineligible. I mean it's something that we've touched upon before is that um historic districts they're very much uh living and breathing neighborhoods they are not static these aren't museums they are subject to change and that original bloomfield survey was conducted 30 years ago um it's at the point now where uh technically by national park standards like that original survey will be of like a historic age in its own right so it's um it's it's something that a lot of uh localities have to deal with and it's it's hard because you go and you conduct a survey of a district or of historic properties but all your capturing is that exact moment you could go back two weeks later and the situation could change um it's the the metaphor that constantly gets used is like painting the golden gate bridge like you finish and then you have to go back and do it all over again it's the same with um looking at historic neighborhoods um certainly in this table and which is further outlined by our consultants technical report they do talk about discrepancies between the bloomfield survey um and sort of what's presented now is the historic district they could there's a graphic included in that uh that sort of shows the juxtaposition of the boundaries and it's basically how it's evolved over time there's there's some gaps just in our understanding of it and that's something that they basically address at this point it's it's a very preliminary resurvey effort of the district to look at it as it is right now keeping in mind the work that's been done before on it thank you so on that note um and looking at the table 3.4-1 um when it says um you know something that was by the bloomfield a survey result of district contributor and now it's ineligible because it lacks integrity um and her in the your consultants notes she mentions a lot of times the integrity was referred to as the windows had been replaced or boarded up or the doors had been changed or maybe a porch had been you know covered in siding and windows can you can that kind of integrity be restored and would that make this building a contributor it depends um which i know is never the answer people want to hear but sadly that's the catch all answer in historic preservation um basically what it comes down to with restoration work is that is uh it's strictly controlled by or strictly outlined by a set of national parks level standards called the secretary of the interior standards for the treatment of historic properties um specifically for restoration and one of the key elements of that is um documentation you don't want to um basically go and just assume what a historic property might have looked like and try to bring it to something you usually like to base it off some kind of evidence whether it's um physical photographic just some kind of record to inform that restoration so it's not um it doesn't become sort of inauthentic in in its own way but um it it kind of depends on the nature of the alteration like something like applying stucco to uh what used to be redwood shake is um it's pretty damaging playing with window openings things of that nature um it it just comes down to um basically baseline um baseline research understanding of the property and um the funds if i could just add the um dan is absolutely correct in that um in your question as well intention to will can you fix some of the things that we've identified or wrong and i think that it's a valid uh conceptual um conversation but what i would advise you on is that um for baseline underneath sequels it's established at the point in which the application is deemed complete and so although there might be all all these forces which can come into the project whether it's like a listing or change of a new regulation the baseline in which we evaluate the project's impacts on the environment in this case in the built environment are establishing the time in which application is deemed complete so you're not incorrect you could probably fix some of those things but currently that's a speculative action underneath the considerations of the environmental document okay thank you yeah commissioner carter um so i'm looking at the uh mitigation measures for the identified impact and the first one is this salvage report can can you tell me what happens with that report it says one is to be prepared the city will be consulted what happens to it um typically what would happen is um basically you would have somebody that would be qualified whether it's a contractor of some kind with experience doing the sort of work or a historic architect that meets the secretary of the interior professional qualifications would conduct an investigation of the building that would be subject to demolition and look at various character defining elements or historic materials that could either be salvage and reused potentially for other buildings in the district or of historic districts of a similar nature and then they could basically use those elements to um to uh basically is just like a like a salvage yard of sorts to kind of bring up their next um uh to fix their historic houses and um because certainly um again to go back to like redwood shake or something like that it becomes harder and harder to find of that era but if you have a handy supply then that could be made available to homeowners to replacing kind on their own historic homes things of that nature. So what I'm wondering is the third mitigation is interpretive materials and it seems to me there might be some link between those two mitigation measures but it's not spelled out in the first one that the report shall be used to determine which materials are used for interpretive and in the first mitigation it says it can be used in the district or wherever a qualified professional says they should be used. Would it be appropriate to have to add language to say look first at the project and incorporating them in the project? I guess that's kind of a mixed question for consultants and staff here. Yeah. So your concept is not one that is unfamiliar to you know a lot of municipal planning processes you know the initial salvage report identifies resources not only that are eligible to be reused but are unique enough to be worth reusing right and then the interpretive materials that are identified in mitigation measures CUL-3 is often an adaptation of those particular materials and either say like a uh a site feature whether it's related to art or incorporation and interior design in the new building that is a very common approach or method. We often shy away from tying those two together because sometimes we don't know if there's going to be anything that you can actually use but I think as far as the process here we can absolutely take that of note and ensure that if there is something that you first see if you can adaptively use it on site and second if not can it be utilized in a interpretive material? Yeah yeah a little more. Just to tag on to that question so if you do the salvage report and you do find some unique details that you're going to salvage I don't know a door trim or whatever who retains the possession and control of those items before they're used on another building? So that's a that's a good question depending upon who does the evaluation and how the contractor oftentimes works I can that is not explicitly spelled out in the environmental review process but I'll give you an example in the event uh it gives you context to provide a condition for the recommendation. Usually the way that it works is that the applicant will retain those materials on site until such time or they'll be evaluated on site and then retained on site until such time that a qualified person can determine how they need to be handled so for example say there's a plaster fixture that's on a that's on a wall that is uniquely ornate and actually by taking it off the wall you could actually damage it so you have to remove it in a particular fashion and you might have to actually find an expert to do just that right so depending upon what the resource is will determine the the standard of care and which is applied to that resource but in most instances it's the applicant's contractor that identifies and usually holds those on site. Yeah, Commissioner Peterson. I have some questions while we're we're still with the consultants um so when we're changing yours a little bit um when you're talking about the alternatives that were considered for the significant impact um one of the the criteria is figuring out whether the alternatives are feasible or unfeasible and can you tell me a little bit about um what goes into determining the feasibility sort of what can go in is it money is it time is it that that sort of thing. So there's basically three factors of feasibility that are utilized to determine a project's eligibility for consideration related to an alternative if you first start with and I think of my opening remarks I made this point of alternative formulation comes out of project impact identification so step one is to come up with a feasible alternative is it functionally reducing what the project is impacting so for example if you had historic impacts by me saying well everybody has to drive electrical vehicles to this facility is not going to offset that impact right so there has to be a nexus between the impact from the project and the alternative formulation which will try to address that impact secondly you have to evaluate the alternative's consistency with the project objectives the project objectives are basically the uh kind of the rules of evaluation and now you don't have to be entirely consistent with all the project objectives case law within our state has proven that you have to be mostly consistent and I won't try to define mostly here tonight but what I'll tell you is the process by which we go through is to review an alternative and see if it will will line out with all the project objectives which are identified in the project description so for example if an alternative is to say oh we're going to get rid of the the homeless care center component of the project well that is a fundamental objective of the the project itself so any alternative which would propose something different would be deemed inconsistent lastly there's policy considerations policy considerations relative to complexity of the city's general plan policy have to be evaluated for consistency to determinations similarly like we did with the proposed project so if there is something that's inherently inconsistent with city policy for example like let's put a 20 story high rise on the site you know it would be fundamentally inconsistent with city policy to do such in this particular location and then you hadn't you had mentioned something about financial consideration I'll just bring that up to answer your question but financial consideration is it's very hard to prove economic distress as part of an alternative's consideration because although the cost of a alternative is not quantifiably identified in an environmental review process it is a practical reality and that practical reality is where that feasibility determination comes in related to economics so for example if you were to have a project which required say a shoulder widening but you know the financial another financial solution was to build a five mile long bridge you know at a certain point there becomes a financial economic infeasibility related to how practical that alternative is and I'll defer to the city attorney if she'd like to add any other clarity on that no I think that answered my question thank you any other questions of this group okay great this is just something that popped in my mind after a commissioner peterson's question so in in this year we have there are two alternative that one I think meets all project objectives except one I'm doing this from memory cleared not looking at the page and the other one meets all of the project objectives and when do you recommend that you take an alternative rather than than what your first examining I mean if they tell the project objectives yes let me recite your question to make sure that I understand it correctly I believe your question is asking at what point do you consider an alternative rather than the proposed project if it fulfills all the project objectives is that correct yes oftentimes you come up with this alternative formation and you can approve an alternative that is not the proposed project and that is at your discretion you know the alternatives that we've evaluated that are here in front of you tonight are covered within the I'll just use the term bookends of the environmental analysis because the proposed action in and of itself will have the greatest level of environmental impact so anything that is of alternative consideration could be approved or by by you for consideration this evening so you can make that determination and in the alternatives chapter of the EIR there's a specific section which is called the environmentally superior alternative and in that section it talks about the differences between how this alternative actually addressed the potential impacts that were raised by the proposed project and that is what deems it to be the environmentally superior alternative now that's not to say and the recommendation of staff here this evening is not necessarily that environmentally superior alternative and nor does it need to be but if you do not approve that there are specific findings that we talked about earlier that accompany the overriding considerations that are needed to do so so that's a lot and I apologize so please ask me more questions if I can be clear well so now I guess my question is for staff it's like if we chose to take one of the alternatives is there a way to do that like say the alternative that says it's environmentally superior because it moves one of the houses I'd like to just back up for a second and just add something to what trevor saying in this in this discussion of feasibility in this sequel context it comes in to play at two different times first is as trevor was explaining in the selection of the alternatives they have to be potentially feasible in order to to be studied in the er so some of those that he mentioned at first that were rejected out of hand you know we're not potentially feasible so that's more looking at the objectives and you know whether this is consistent with the city policies once you get to the point of you've reviewed you've done the analysis now we're at the point one of your actions tonight there's certifying the er is is the first recommended action and the second recommended action is adoption of findings of fact mitigation monitoring and statement of overriding considerations and it's in this second step that there's a another look at feasibility and there and it's not just looking at the project objectives and the city policies it's also looking at economic infeasibility legal infeasibility and the definition of feasible which gets to another question that was up there is capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time taking into account economic environmental social technological and legal factors so that is the type of balancing that comes into play for making the findings of fact and and the balancing that trevor spoke of in adopting the statement of overriding considerations so it really goes beyond just project objectives it's looking at is this a real feasible alternative and if you look in the findings of fact i know that was a long document but um it's attached to the second resolution there are sections addressing specifically feasibility on each of the alternatives and there is evidence provided to support staff's recommendation that those find that those two alternatives are infeasible and in making the findings of fact that are presented here to you this evening you'd be recommending that the city council find those alternatives to be infeasible and primarily um there's a lot of evidence in there as to the economic infeasibility timing cost of moving these structures so that would be for the second resolution and if you were hello and inclined to be pursuing i think so now to get your question how would we do that um i think it would be most prudent in the context of the findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations whereby you could certify the eir you could recommend certification i'm sorry and recommend approval of all of the entitlements if you so desired and if you wanted to focus in on simply the feasibility of one of the alternatives in the second resolution you could consider recommending one of the alternatives instead on feasibility grounds one option and also though i mean that the applicant has seemingly their preference is obviously for the project and they've asked for a vote up on that but just as a reminder of their request but specific to your question does that answer it i think the best context would be in the second resolution for the findings so that you may be saying i agree with the land use i agree with everything about the project i think that you could do more to mitigate because really these alternatives are about additional mitigation measures it's not about another footprint another 50 story structure it really comes down to what's the level of mitigation that we think is appropriate in this instance so if the question is how to do that alternative i think it really speaks only to the feasibility of the various alternatives the feasibility of the mitigation measures which include moving one of the one or more of the structures okay thank you did i get it i think so okay yeah i'm sure i'll copy as a follow-up to that if we do opt for one of the sorry as a follow-up to that if we do opt for one of the alternatives is that the only one council would consider as a recommendation or they will they see the entirety of it i would ask that you make recommendations on each of the resolutions and proposed actions before you and the first one is certification of the adequacy of the eir more oh oh can the count sorry can the council consider then all of the alternatives yes your recommendation would be forwarded to them for their consideration they will be considering all the same issues hearing from the public and can make their own final judgment and decision last two weeks so in in the um in resolution two page 24 of 88 it talks about the um the feasibility of the of uh alternative three and it gives a cost to move the houses but it doesn't give a cost to um rehab the houses to current code and i wondered if that plays a part at all in your evaluation unless it's there and i just missed it in 88 pages there's a lot of paper there so but what i want to restate the question again to make sure that i can give you an answer that you're looking for so i believe that the question is um the feasibility of preserving the structure and rehabbing them correct and whether that was whether that was evaluated from an economic perspective so it was alternative and i'll point you to the resolution it's page 24 of 88 okay so in the middle of page 24 of 88 um the preservation alternative estimated that um and i'm just going to summarize if assuming you guys are going to be able to get to that same page here shortly uh estimated the financial impact of uh not only the delay but also the rehab would total $2.25 million but the moving the moving cost would be $750,000 i'm trying to see if there was another hard cost number in there i believe those are the anticipated economic costs that were evaluated right i read that and saw that but i was just wondering of that amount how much was the do you evaluate and typically what it would cost to rehab the buildings to code you know i wish i i wish i could answer that question unfortunately that's not my particular expertise but um i guess i would default to the city attorney that's okay well i mean and i might add we could seek some guidance from the applicants on this in terms of if they've got additional information on the cost to do the rehab because it's true the numbers that we have here were provided to us and set forth in the findings if you would like to ask for clarification or if you've got enough that's fine i think it's safe to say it would cost more to do the rehab okay any other questions i know you have questions of police and fire yeah okay so let's go to that let's see so i've got a couple for the traffic engineer and then um and then one for fire okay so um the sixth and seventh street linkage project document um that for i think first described the roundabout student now part of the downtown stationery specific plan um noted that the roundabouts plan for those intersections of sixth and a and seventh and a could comfortably accommodate the trucks and buses expected to use them and the applicant is asking for a reduction in the diameter size of those roundabouts and saying that now um but that trucks over a certain size will not be able to use these they won't be able to negotiate left turns of these roundabouts so um is that going to be a problem i mean that's the first question and then does it mean that the planned roundabouts will never be able to be installed in these locations so the analysis that uh that i reviewed actually showed fire apparatus and trucks making um making the turn the large trucks not making the turns but fire apparatus making the turns and smaller trucks making the turns correct um and then the larger trucks being able to go through to the mall to get to their uh location as far as uh deliveries and such they just make a right turn on six and then just go straight through the mall correct and they would be able to exit as well if they needed to on from that roundabout and what's the height clearance of the mall there isn't there uh over i believe the height clearance there is adequate for delivery trucks the it's fifth street which is like a seven something for height okay and so if if it's if it proves to be infeasible to construct the smaller diameter roundabouts other other traffic measures that can improve the traffic flow especially at sixth and a street um at sixth and a street uh likely a traffic signal would be adequate at that location um it is much more effective to use a roundabout and we be thrilled to implement something like that for traffic calming and pedestrian activity there what safety because i think sixth and a has an unusually high um collision rate because of people exiting them all and um coming straight out and uh right so with cyclists or pedestrians by design a traffic circle is much more uh effective safety wise than than a traffic signal or an intersection that's uncontrolled or only controlled by stop controls um if it was controlled by a traffic signal then that would be giving different approaches the right away obviously for for their movements um and traffic circle you're only looking one direction for someone to go around the corner before and for pedestrians obviously but um that's what makes the traffic circle much more uh safe in that manner and so is the traffic the traffic circles that are on those documents are they being budgeted for is there some sort of timeframe when they might be expected to be constructed so that's a great question um so along with the uh downtown stationary plant update they're also be looking at the traffic this this traffic model is done actually with the old version of the scta traffic model the new model has not been completed yet or if it i think it's just being completed so we'll have to analyze the use of the roundabouts with that new model as well um it may show that they are needed it may show that they are not needed but we wanted to preserve the right to be able to put these traffic circles in if they are in fact needed in the future okay and then one more question about morgan and sixth and the on ramp to 101 yes so if this project goes forward and um does add a lot of residents and pedestrians to that um intersection is there any kind of plan to put in a dedicated left turn signal for traffic on six street that's coming um west from um the west end district coming eastbound to turn left onto the on ramp yes right now that's kind of a um it can be a harry intersection depending on what time of day you're trying to cross there on foot or on bike yeah we have the initial design is that does take consideration the ability to actually add the left turn phasing at that intersection okay good thank you all right i think that's all i've got for you can i either do other commissioners have anything for the traffic engineer right now while he's up here yeah vice chair weeks so in the staff report rob it talks about temporary closure of seventh street during construction uh and my assumption is that's seventh between a and morgan or is it further is it more than that i'm going to refer to the applicant okay well then when the applicant comes down i'll re-ask the question okay anything else from traffic right now okay and you want fire okay so my question for the fire department so i don't know if you wrote the letter read the letter but it that's included in appendix k of the um eir about public safety it says that the project has the um potential to increase number of department calls by nearly 200 a year over the existing the calls to the existing facilities and that's going to put extra burden on engine one and or engine 11 which are already at capacity yes i mean similar to any project that would bring this type of density in this type of facility or apartment complex more people more calls it's all specifically done on density of population being served we looked at the family center we run about two calls a month to that facility we run about a dozen calls to the navigation center a month so yes there's going to be an increase in our in our services to this facility in particular but it's going to be offset from other locations that those services are being brought here so there's a bit of a trade-off the other thing is is we've been working with catholic charities on their other facilities and we will and already working on this facility about enhanced medical staff on site um and in hopes to work them up to a full med f facility where this will enter people patients into the ems system without necessarily calling a fire fire engine out they'll have trained staff that can handle a multitude of calls without calling 911 they will basically be starting the bms procedures there and then transporting them to an ambulance and onto the facilities that they need to go to so yes overall we do see an impact to our call volume to this particular site but it's not significant enough that's going to over impact our current services there you know we we're already working on how to alleviate some of the call volume to station one and station 11 and in our overall coverage plan okay thank you and i think the same appendix also said that two of the measures that are potentially you're going to look at taking to alleviate some of the stress on those two engine companies would be adding extra personnel for the trucks when they come out so the the time spent at the incident is lessened and or doing a separate rescue squad correct those are some of the measures that i talked about that that we're looking at not specific to this project but to the downtown core services and so are those things in the works are they being budgeted for or what's the time frame for putting those into action i don't have the the information to answer that question i know we recently had a staffing study that was brought to the council and that those are items that we're working on because it's not not just the department it also be a labor management type uh mo u contract contractual okay thank you any other questions of fire okay and did you have questions of police or engineering general nothing anybody else have any other question yeah vice chair weeks so i have a question for captain cregan or lieutenant becker becker sorry um regarding uh the calls for service while the department's coming down it i just wanted to give you some information that might answer your question on page 3.12-4 of the eir there is an analysis related to both fire and police emergency response and quantifies the number of existing calls relative to the project site area thank you good evening um so you've indicated that you would anticipate an increase in calls for service um would you be working with the uh with catheterities and burbank as fires indicating that they are going to be working with them to help alleviate some of those calls for services and would you anticipate maybe less calls for services somewhere else is that kind of a silly question no it's not a silly question but i think you do have to consider that the likelihood of handling less calls somewhere else is likely versus the because of the volume of the people that are going to be there and then working with our partners um is been a huge success so i think internally they haven't figured out for us yes we are going to probably be there more or handle more calls in that area um statistically i have some statistics for you but um i think it'll counterbalance itself yeah i think the only thing that i can add to that is we just have a strong uh history with catholic charities here in santa rosa and working very collaboratively with the police department our downtown enforcement team literally speaks to with their team every single day and works to address the issues and uh chief navarro and myself meet with uh their chief program officer jeniel in holmes on a weekly basis discussing these issues and uh we're optimistic that this strong relationship is going to be able to address those issues and mitigate any of the calls for service in that area and you still have the downtown office is that correct correct so we have the downtown substation and we just increased our staffing on the downtown enforcement team from four officers to six officers and that's something that will continue to make a priority thank you any other questions of police okay great thank you any other questions of staff how about questions for the applicant yeah vice chair weeks has some so some of these questions are going to cross uh probably burbank and catholic charities lines so i don't know who if you both want to come down so my question uh that i asked uh the traffic engineer about the seventh street closure uh the tina wallis again the closure is only between morgan street and a street and then uh when you had your neighborhood meetings what was the attendance like i'm going to ask for help from jeniel in holmes answering that question please we've had a variety of neighborhood meetings over the years um they range in the amount of people that are there based on any current issues happening but we have at times had maybe two and it's also ranged up to 50 at times over the years thank you uh don't go far so yeah actually i think the other questions i have might be for uh burbank i've got a quick one for yeah sure was she's up there probably for catholic charities go ahead so this specific issue is beyond the purview of the planning commission but um have these outreach meetings discussed design of the project specifically yes we've actually had a couple turned a couple of our quarterly meetings that we have in the neighborhood as part of the compliance with our conditional use permit where we have presented some initial concepts uh our architects uh came down and actually presented some of those things and got some initial uh feedback in that arena we've also been before uh the design review board and culture herds board twice already prior to this thank you okay do you want to move on to burbank vice chair weeks oh yeah commissioner carter can you speak to how you'll deliver services during construction of the new facility or what will happen to the delivery of services on the site yeah we are not um we will not be discontinuing services during the construction that's why the project is in uh especially particularly the housing is in phase one and phase two so that we can that was our plan to be able to continue services while construction happens i'm just going to add on to that one um from my perspective in continuing those services with the conditional use permit in place and all the things that you try to do to protect the neighborhood what what strategy do you have for that because that could be very different than what how you're trying to navigate protecting the neighborhood and meet the conditions of your conditional use permit for non-newsense so do you have a plan for that during construction yeah so i can talk a little bit about operations and then maybe burbank our project manager can talk about any of the specifics around construction so in terms of the interim operations and how will we uh continuing that will uh continue all of the things that are in our good neighbor policy um and just to kind of note the good neighbor policy something we implemented voluntarily it's actually not in our conditional use permit but it's something we believe in and so we put in all of our program agreements as an extra um ability to manage and deal and coordinate with the surrounding neighborhood so we will continue all those things we also have security on site uh for the facility and we would continue that security during the um during the actual uh construction phase additionally i don't believe we're proposing to do anything outside of our existing footprint during construction we'll keep everything there on site um and continue to manage this the neighborhood impact from an operational standpoint um as we do so right now um and if there's any particular construction things we have our project manager who might be able to answer that okay yeah next year weeks i have one more question back last century uh when the homeless service center first started there was a neighborhood council have you thought about reinstituting something like that uh with the increase of operation um yeah it could definitely be something we would be happy to consider i think uh you know we like i mentioned have pretty consistent individuals that come to our neighborhood meetings which we're very grateful for um we'd be happy to even look at another more formal way to do the outreach including something like that one of the benefits this project has uh come and i wasn't necessarily even anticipating is the closer relationships we've actually created with the neighborhood with some of the door-to-door canvassing and uh more people are now involved in wanting to understand our current operations and how they can be part of future operations so that would definitely be something i think we'd be happy to consider and implement anything else from catholic charities okay and you're moving on to burbank now some questions for uh burbank um when you talked about the oh sorry mark so when you talked about the cdbg dr money um what do you have to have in place to actually make application for that and what can they be used for um you know can that money be used for site work as well as construction so you know yet we don't know the details yet um what i have heard is the prohibition for using cdbg the standard prohibition for using cdbg for construction is waived you may recall that um generally you can't use that for construction you're limited to acquisition and site work but with the dr money i understand you can use it for construction um in terms of what we need to apply it looks like um makin's gonna bail me out here ryan let him suffer through that um so we're still waiting for written direction from the state but the general guidelines that the state of california has provided us thus far in the action plan is that it can be used for new construction and particularly in santa rosa which was allocated 38.5 million new construction of multifamily rental housing there's a minimum project size of eight units there are minimum affordability levels um so if you have a small project it has to be half affordable targeting the lowest income levels and then the state has also layered on per unit subsidies so there is a certain amount that will be capped per unit that we can provide in assistance and we're waiting for more information to come forward from the state on how that will be implemented on a project by project basis do you have any idea when that will occur when you'll actually get the allocation and be able to start allocating the state indicated we would have the information in february we're hopeful maybe march but i think realistically summer of 2020 okay thank you and one more question for more uh on timing issues uh and your timeline if the council approves everything on tuesday when would you be able to start site work do you think start the what the site work start site work um we're looking at about this time next year thank you any other questions of yeah commissioner indian yeah this is a more of an operational question i think in the documents it talks about uh burbank housing has guidelines about how many people can live in each of the different types sizes of units like one person in a studio i believe and i think it averages 2.7 over all your unit sizes um and you the residents sign a contract um that they understand and follow all the rules and this um i thought of this question because of a comment from one of the neighbors wondering about um how you know people have overnight guests or family members come from out of town are they limited to how long they can stay they're thinking more of the impact on the neighborhood as far as parking and um more people in the building and so what are the guidelines around that um bonnie madow who's our deputy director of property management is standing next to me and she'll answer that for you thank you good evening yes um when they sign a lease it it is part of it on occupancy you have two different questions their occupancy we follow the guideline which is one per bedroom minimum up to two per bedroom plus one in the unit maximum so a studio could have it has no bedroom we will allow a couple in a studio that's it you know two or and the one bedroom it's one person minimum to two people three people maximum one to three two bedroom these are only studios one and two so the two bedroom is two to five people maximum that's it so when we have a plan set up that if they exceed that if they're in that one bedroom they have more than three people that you know they have a couple moves in have a baby and then baby number two is coming we put them on a list to transfer them to the next unit that comes available that's appropriately sized they hit that family of six they're going to be given notice to relocate but they get six months to find that other other housing and because it'll be attached to catholic charities we'll have that resource in order to help them find that other location that's a more appropriate size department as far as guests we have a very strict guest policy in the lease we need to know who's in the building we need because it's a safety thing it's also if there's an emergency we need to know who to account for so we ask them to um if they have somebody they know people know after our visitors come they're going to stay more than a couple days this is their home we want their visitors their family their friends to come visit but if they're going to stay more than a couple of days they need to notify management and they can't stay more than two weeks ever in one calendar year then they need to move on that's how we kind of control how many people we don't suddenly have these extra people when the manager becomes aware of an extra person that's around too much we see the car too often we ask the question and there's a policy there's a procedure there's warnings they're given many opportunities to correct the situation so they stay in compliance and that's how we kind of control how many people are on in the building and on the property yeah commissioner kripke uh yeah i was just looking at the housing action plan do you have any concepts or as of right now i know it's still early on in the process of um how many of the units you allocate towards the different levels of affordability and income um i can answer that very specifically for phase one housing and then generally for phase two for phase one housing we have 30 of the 64 units are at 20 percent area median income and those are the homeless dedicated units and then the mix of the balance are 50 percent am i and 60 percent am i and then for phase two we have kind of a handshake agreement with catholic charities that we want to do about 50 percent of the units homeless dedicated and then the others would be like phase one not homeless dedicated but um probably in that same kind of range of 50 and 60 percent is that was that responsive do you yes thank you any other questions for burbank uh yes chairs just go yeah certainly uh while you have the applicant still the commission excuse me may wish to consider one last opportunity for the applicant to provide additional information or clarification regarding the alternative and the feasibility of that you heard from staff how the alternative was analyzed it was selected and you heard from staff in our recommendation and throughout the presentation that our conclusion was that the alternative was infeasible based on information provided by the applicant and that the project on balance is the the preferred project hence our recommendation but while the applicants hear this may be one last opportunity then for them to provide additional information or clarification if the commission pleases i think we probably all appreciate that so but just before we get to that any other questions of anybody no okay great this wealth thank you i'm gonna just take a moment and um reiterate something that the city attorney said and that's the definition of feasibility under siqua an alternative has to be feasible and siqua defines feasible feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time taking into account economic environmental legal social and technological factors and what the applicants have told you tonight is that the alternatives are not feasible because they are not capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time mr. bangsburg our project manager submitted a letter estimating that uh alternative three would cause a delay in the project by at least 15 months if i remember correctly um the the impact of that delay to the project as you heard earlier is very significant to the funding and it jeopardizes the funding sources not only would that delay um it's infeasible because of the delay and not only would the delay jeopardize existing funding that's been secured as you've heard it delays the ability to get other forms of funding as you've heard in addition to that the project would be subjected to um escalating construction costs construction costs are currently escalating at a rate of four percent per year so all the funds to develop the project are put at risk the cost to build the cod project is increasing so it's a double whammy that makes these alternatives infeasible for because of the delay that it would cause i just want to skim my notes and see um also as um miss kendall spoke the loss of the new market tax credits and she can certainly address this in more detail and better detail than i can but the new market tax credits have a two-year look back and the loss the longer the project is delayed the more things that the that fall off the list out of the time window that they're able to consider so the two point two five million dollar cost of alternative three um would be exacerbated exacerbated by the increasing in construction costs and it would jeopardize the funding so we the applicants position is is that these alternatives are not feasible because of the delays that they would cost and i see that miss kendall is here and i'm going to ask her to talk for a moment more about the new market tax credits because it has such a significant impact on the project the caritas center yeah specifically i mean i will i will say i i truly have grave concerns about the impact that alternative three would have um on our existing funding that has been committed that has very specific timeframes about when we need to take certain actions as well as the funding that we are applying for there are a number of them what that would be significantly affected or delayed by alternative three as well as specifically the new market tax credits would um would have major expenses of the project to date that would no longer be eligible for those tax credits would which would frankly it would be um grave it would be very very significant for the project and just as a follow-up note the two point two five million dollar um estimated cost escalation of alternative three only it's incredibly conservative because it only took into consideration the cost escalation for caritas homes or excuse me caritas center it did not take into consideration the cost escalation for caritas homes so that's an incredibly conservative number i'll be happy to answer any other questions about the alternatives but i think it's clear that they're not feasible for the applicants any questions up miss swallis at this point okay thank you any other questions of staff before we start discussing it okay not seeing any right now okay so um what i'm going to ask that we do is that uh as somebody move the uh eir um certification recommendation resolution for the purposes of discussion um i think what we should do is just discuss the project generally in connection with this and then we'll figure out the rest from there but to try to get a sense of where the commission is how they're feeling about the project and so so with that would somebody like to move the resolution this is the short one okay vice chair weeks is going to move it move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of san aroza recommending that the city council certify the final environmental impact report for the caritas village project file number prj 18-052 and waive for the reading of the text i'll second okay so that was moved by commissioner i mean vice chair weeks seconded by commissioner okrepki um vice chair weeks you want to start the discussion and we should be speaking to um the adequacy of the eir as well as discussing the project so if you could do that i think we've had a long discussion about the adequacy of the eir um and i really unless one of my fellow commissioners comes up with something else i really have nothing further to say on it well we're also discussing the project so yeah i'm sorry i wanted to talk about the adequacy so we don't forget that because they always get so involved in okay no no no okay do the adequacy and then start talking about how you feel about the project okay um i am supportive of the project uh i i think the benefits outweigh uh the significant and unavoidable impacts um if the homes that were considered are considered eligible for the local register and contributors had been you know maintained over the years and moving them might have been easier but i um i i'm going to go with staff recommendation on the project okay misha peterson uh so i'm gonna i'm gonna try and start broadly and and follow my way down to the eir so if i i miss the eir call me out um i think you know the public comments we've received um both in writing but especially tonight have really emphasized that you know even though we're a land use body a lot of the decisions we make can have pretty profound um moral implications for people's lives and the city as a whole and i will try and stick to the land use context but i i think that that issue is is sort of flowing throughout this this project um i think santa rosa has a in many ways a history of bad planning and i think the preservation district um as was noted by a member of the public arose from that that kind of history of of slash and burn and run a freeway through it and and um i think i want to be respectful of of the reason that these historic districts exist which is you know to preserve these characters and you know sort of at least the design language of that neighborhood and the historic value of the people that live there and the buildings that are there um at the same time uh as was discussed earlier these historic districts aren't museum pieces these are not static fixed in time areas and um we've heard a lot about adaptive reuse and um the evaluation of that option and i just think that these historic districts you know are influenced by the context in which they exist and right now one of those contexts is uh that the city of santa rosa has declared a housing emergency it's declared um a homeless emergency and i think that that is is influences certainly my my consideration as we evaluate whether to you know which recommendations to make tonight um i think the city has done a in and the applicants have done a a good job from what i can tell from of addressing outreach and really going above and beyond whether it's increasing the the distance to which the notices were sent the weekly meetings the other um outreaches they've had with the neighborhood i i don't feel like anyone is is hiding the ball here as to what this project means for um the neighborhood and the potential changes that will will come with it um as a portion of the the saint rosa historic district i think this is a unique location within that district um it is uh sort of a peninsula sticking out and surrounded by um not the most attractive other land uses uh parking garages and and on rants and i i think that when it comes to the demolition of a city block um i think that's that's it can be a a tough call to make um but this is a again a unique location within the historic district this is a unique time in in the city's history and i think that the city and the applicant have done a lot of um work on the front end to try and make this project makes sense for the context in which it's it's coming um in terms of the eir uh i i think that i would have no problem um making the recommendation to certify it i can make the findings that uh are necessary i think it's very thorough i think we've very thoroughly discussed the alternatives that are available um i find it persuasive that it is not feasible the alternatives are not feasible to um achieve the goals again we're in the context of the project itself not the context of anything um that could happen and um so with that i i would make the recommendation to certify the eir okay commissioner kripke um first i just want to say uh i appreciate all the work that's gone into this by everybody and i i don't mean just staff and the applicant who put in a lot of work but our consultants and the neighborhood as well um i think this is some of the most comprehensive public comments we i've seen since i've been on here which has which obviously is the less of everybody up here but um it was impressive to the level of detail and and um interaction that everyone's had and also how positive it's been i i don't think anybody is um is bashing anybody else or anybody is talking down the merits of the concept that i think we all realize that this is needed it's just certain parts of it that don't that certain people have issues with um but the one thing that that does keep sticking with me is is the the initial comment uh by by miss hartman which was uh we decide if not how and we're land use uh a body um we rely on um the experts we rely on staff to give us information and recommendations and then we rely on our own um ability to ask questions to verify that and make our own make these findings um so i look at this and and from a land use perspective i can i can make all the required findings for the eir for everything else the one issue that comes up that kind of sticks in my mind is is um you know comprehensive housing strategy downtown housing homelessness for general uh were um council priorities but in the downtown housing there is a part of it that says preservation of historical districts well that becomes a prioritization of priorities which is not what we do so um and strictly looking at it as a land use issue um which i don't mean to oversimplify it because it is definitely not a simple process and a simple application by any means i can make the required findings to make the recommendation of council to be in support of this project as far as the eir goes i think it was thorough and comprehensive and did a good job explaining all the alternatives and what the different um potential environmental impacts of the project site are um and this is nothing i think catholic charities and burbank housing are both wonderful organizations to do a lot of fine work and they clearly need better facilities to do that work but i have a really hard time being asked to redraw the boundaries of an existing historic district and unless council comes back with um strong guidelines about that i think we're going to continue to see projects kind of trying to encroach on the edges of all of our existing historic districts and that this is not going to be the last time we're going to have to consider a project like this and that frightens me and i don't know what to do about that and i think the fact was that some of these houses were deemed contributors and maybe they were left to fall down around themselves without any kind of tender living care over the years and now it's too late to fix them um but i think that should not have been allowed to happen and it clearly did and i don't know what the answer to that is either so i'm on the fence here because i really you know i think the project if if this project was just adjacent to but not in the district i'd say let's go for it this is great but because it's part of the district boundaries um i'm having a real hard time to reconcile that okay can chicarta i think everybody's articulated well the seriousness of the housing and the homeless problem here and because this project delivers relief in those two areas so well i'm generally inclined to support the project i think the number of approvals necessary for the project to go forward um hence at the gravity of the land use decision we're making we're changing a lot of city policy in order to allow this project to move forward but in the end based on the thoroughness of the um environmental report staff's work what i've heard from the the applicants i i do believe that the the benefits to the community do override the acknowledged laws of historical resources and we should not take that lightly i i know staff has said we're lucky in that we only have to think about land use and not how it's implemented but i believe the the mitigation measures that address the the mitigation of the of the significant impact need to be taken into consideration as the projects go back to the uh hr what is it a c hb the cultural board and the design board um it needs to look at how the project can have a positive effect on the surrounding neighborhood and implementing some of our downtown plans and implementing the pedestrian improvements that are talked about around it and in acknowledging the historic fabric that exists in that part of town and how it's been changed so i i hope the council can make some conditions that uh really focus in on the how the project is executed in a way that that furthers uh what we need to happen in this part of town and you find the hour to be adequate i don't know if i i do believe the hour okay good properly prepared and is adequate okay i also can find recommend the certification of the eir i don't think any of us take this lightly at all in terms of a historic district being impacted in this way um i think as commissioner peterson said you know we're in the middle of a housing crisis and a homeless emergency those are the top two uh issues in the city at this point and goals of the council to to do something about it this is a project that will certainly isn't going to solve everything but it's a very critical project at a critical time i've had the privilege of being up here a long time and being able to um a c project a project going to the saint rose neighborhood where there really was a win-win that could work um we preserved uh the zoning so uh and i'm talking about the boar center uh that was a different time it was a market rate project one of the things that i was thinking about um was in our downtown station area plan when we were reading what whatever the obstacles been to development well the obstacle has been that the costs of construction and don't match the the the amount of the market rate rents that can be got and that isn't going to change and so here comes a project that will provide downtown affordable housing and the financing mechanisms are so complex and so time sensitive that um it's not the kind of world where we can afford to to not pay attention to that you know in an ideal world that would be somebody else's problem but the the findings are specific that we we you know for the statement of overriding considerations we can look at the social the economic the technical technical impacts and i think that's what we're doing here and um i don't take it lightly that we would be demolishing those structures i don't think that we're setting a precedent because in order to do something like this we have to come up with really strong findings and a really strong statement of overriding considerations because we would be impacting you know the other policies and i think that's been done here so i don't think any other potential developer in a historic district is going to go oh wow you know open country here i just don't think that's going to happen i think the seriousness of what we're doing is captured in terms of the of the historic district and i think because of the zoning overlay we're not taking the project out of the historic district it will still be there it would still be subject to review by the cultural heritage board i think that's why the zoning and keeping the historic overlay is also very very important so for me um it's just an important project at a critical time in an emergency time and i can i can um find the eir adequate and i'll be supporting the project as uh staff has introduced it so do you want to say anything else commissioner dug in i would like to ask council for guidance about um projects that are within historic districts like this because i i don't think that this is going to be the last one way here and i know each one is going to be compelling in its own way and i think that that's how you lose your the historic properties in your town you know that just you know you start nibbling away at the edges and pretty much there's nothing much left except for the you know the kind of the disney disney landification of the historic um things in your in your neighborhood yeah i i think the concerns that i heard you know from individuals that live in other historic districts is they're concerned about is this a precedent setting thing and so you know i definitely think the council can be taking that up but i know i'd feel with the statement of overriding considerations that's going to to make an impression that's what has to be found in order to do something like this i don't think every project that could potentially come forward is going to have these two components of homeless and services and affordable housing that makes it a really critical different unique project at a very unique time so that but that's just my opinion okay all right so we're ready to take a vote on the eir so that was moved by vice chair weeks seconded by commissioner oak crepeki your votes please and then uh that passes with six eyes and next we're going to go on to resolution number two which is the recommendation for the adoption of findings of fact in the mitigation monitoring let's somebody like to move that get in on the short ones while you can if you only get harder for me so i'll move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of san ariza recommending that the city council adopt findings of fact mitigation monitoring and reporting program and statement of overriding considerations for the caritas village project file number prj 18-052 and wave for the reading and do i have a second i'll second great okay so that was moved by commissioner peterson seconded by uh commissioner oak crepeki any other discussion on the statements anybody want to make anything about that commissioner dug in um if i intend to vote no on the project as a protest vote i acknowledge but because of my concerns with the historic districts i i understand i can vote yes on some of the things and i'm just asking uh staff for guidance here like which one is the one that i vote no on for the project the tentative map if you're wanting to recommend alternative an alternative to the project or you're just wanting to vote no on the project i'm wanting to vote no on the project i understand that there's no support for the alternative then i think it would be a recommendation against each of the following resolutions at this point you have moved to you can certify the eir and then the rest would be you would vote against okay thank you okay any other discussion on this okay so that was moved by commissioner peterson seconded by commissioner oak crepeki and your votes please and that passes uh with five eyes commissioner dug in voting no and i neglected to say this on the last motion but uh commissioner call you abstaining resolution number three is for our general plan amendment and here's where we're getting longer so you might want to take turns i'll move the resolution of the planning commission of the city of sanarosa recommending that the city council amend the general plan for the cartas village project from medium density residential and retail and business services to transit village mixed use for the properties at 431 437 439 465 a street and 506 512 516 520 600 608 and 612 morgan street assessor's parcel numbers 010-041-001 004 005 008 009 010 011 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 file number prj18-052 and wait for the reading second that was the general plan amendment was moved by commissioner peterson seconded by uh commissioner oak crepeki and your votes please and that's going to pass with five eyes commissioner dug in voting no and commissioner call you abstaining and now we have the specific plan amendment resolution i'll go ahead and uh move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of sanarosa recommending that city council amend the downtown station area specific plan for the caritas village project to include all project parcels within the courthouse square sub area and specify a roundabout diameter widths of 80 feet at sixth street may street and seventh and a street intersections for the properties at 431 437 439 465 a street and 506 512 516 520 600 608 and 612 morgan street assessor's parcels numbers 010-041-001 004 005 008 009 010 011 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 file number prj18-052 and wait for the reading of the text all second okay so the specific plan amendment was moved by commissioner oak crepeki seconded by commissioner peterson any discussion on that not seeing any your votes please and that passes with five eyes commissioner dug in voting no and commissioner callia being abstaining okay rezoning resolution i moved the resolution the planning commission of the city of sanarosa recommending to the city council rezoning of caritas village project properties located at 431 437 439 465 a street and 506 512 516 520 600 608 and 612 morgan street assessor's parcel numbers 010-041-020 010-041-004 010-041-005 010-041-019 010-041-008 010-041-009 010-041-010 010-041-011 010-041-017 010-041-018 010-041-013 010-041-014 010-041-015 010-041-016 and 010-041-001 to the transit village mixed friends tv-m-ah-sa zoning district file number prj 18-052 and wait for the reading okay thank you yeah it's helpful to me if you say it so thank you i am getting used to this but i like to hear it so okay so the rezoning resolution was moved by commissioner peterson seconded by vice chair weeks any discussion on that okay i just want to say that um when i was very early on on the commission uh we were working with the morse center which did impact the uh saint rose neighborhood and um at that time dav johnson was a planning commissioner he since passed away just about six months ago but he uh he taught me the importance of rezoning that's when i first learned like how important that is how important it is to consider it why it is i always ask for if we're going to rezone out of a policy document into something else that i see all of that so just to call out to how great a guy he was so okay so with that that was moved by commissioner peterson seconded by vice chair weeks and your votes please why is this not working you did okay okay there we go okay we somebody's missing okay start over oh okay that passes with have i been counting them wrong all this time and saying five eyes i'm sorry if i have it was okay said it i'm sorry there's only six of us here so i think i've been calling out the wrong numbers so whatever okay so that was moved by uh commissioner crepe be seconded by vice chair weeks and your votes please so that passes with five eyes okay good i'm doing all right uh commissioner dug in voting no and commissioner call you having abstained okay now we're on to the tentative map okay commissioner carter dive in i move the resolution of the planning commission of the city of san aroza recommending the city council approve a tentative parcel map for the caritas village project located at four three one four three seven four three nine four six five a street and five oh six five one twelve five one two five one six five two oh six oh oh and six oh eight and six twelve morgan street assessors parcel numbers zero one zero four zero two zero zero one zero four zero zero four zero one zero four one zero zero four zero one zero zero four one zero zero five zero one zero zero four one zero one nine zero one zero zero four one zero zero eight zero one zero zero four one zero zero nine zero zero four one zero one five zero one zero zero four one zero one six and zero one zero zero four one zero zero one okay a second from somebody after all that work okay great so that was moved by Commissioner Carter seconded by commissioner oh crepe key any other discussion on that okay your votes please and that passes with five eyes commissioner Duggan voting no and commissioner Kalyia abstaining last but not least the conditional use permit resolution okay vice chair weeks you it's your turn yeah move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa making findings and determinations and recommending that the city council approve a minor use permit for an emergency shelter for the caritas village project located at 431-437-439-4658 Street and 506-512-516-520-600 608 and 612 Morgan Street assessors Parcel Numbers 010041-020 010-041-004 010-041-005. 010-041-019 010-041-008. 010-041-009. 010-0041-0031ров. 0100-041-011, 010-041-017, 010-041-018, 010-041-013, 010-041-014, 010-041-015, 010-041-016, and 010-041-001, file number PRJ18-052, and wait for the reading of the text. I'm glad I got new glasses. Okay, do I have a second? I'll second. Okay, so that was moved by Commissioner Weeks, seconded by Commissioner Okrepke. Any other discussion? Okay, we will be voting soon. And that passes with five ayes. Commissioner Duggan voting no, and Commissioner Kahlia abstaining. And I believe that concludes all of our items. And thanks everybody for all your hard work and all your comments. It's been a long night. So with that, I'll adjourn to whenever our next meeting is, which I think is late in March. And now you can't applaud.


Whilst the first cohort of recipients of government's first-generation scholarship program enter their second year of study, a fresh bunch of St. Lucians will have their families experience a first for recipients of this initiative. They are the first in their households to pursue university-level training. The high cost and difficulties in funding offered courses mean that for many in St. Lucia, access to higher education remains a dream beyond their reach. Speaking at a recent briefing ceremony for the new cohort of first-generation scholarship recipients, Education Minister Hon. Sean Edwin said the initiative in partnership with Monroe College provides one scholarship per household, relieving families of all the financial burden. And it is against that backdrop that we are investing millions of dollars into our higher education program. We believe that students who come from families that do not have the means should not be disadvantaged. In the year 2023, your socioeconomic circumstances should not be an impediment to you realizing your educational potential. The 50 recipients will each receive full tuition for a bachelor's degree in various areas with costs met jointly by the government of St. Lucia and Monroe College. The Education Minister told recipients that they are indeed worthy of such self-advancement and encouraged them to make their families proud by remaining focused in order to complete the mission of attaining degree-level qualifications. Do not take this opportunity for granted. You are not called upon to pay the tuition fees. Don't have to buy your own books because you are on a full scholarship. But being on a full scholarship does not mean that this is free. It is not. The government is paying 50 percent of it and Monroe College, Mr. Mark Jerome and his team, they have to find the order 50 percent to ensure that the package delivered to you is complete. Make the most of the opportunity. According to Monroe College President Mark Jerome, the college's involvement in the effort is crucial in addressing a persistent issue in St. Lucia. Generosity that comes from the government and from Monroe should be accompanied by a sense of responsibility from all of you. People are watching you. Your brothers and sisters are watching you.  You see all around us. There's a little breakdown in traditional values and the family. And I'm asking you, besides excelling in your academics, to follow through on the values that Monroe believes in. Students from the first cohort of first generation scholarships were also on hand to provide encouragement and guidance to the incoming recipients. In order to keep their full scholarships, recipients must thrive in their chosen fields of study and maintain satisfactory academic progress. From the communications unit of the Department of Education, Innovation and Vocational Training, I am Chris Satney, reporting.