For those just joining the meeting, live translation in Spanish is available and members of the public or staff wishing to listen in Spanish can join the Spanish Channel by clicking on the interpretation icon in the Zoom toolbar. It looks like a globe. Once you join the Spanish Channel, we recommend you shut off the main audio so you can only hear the Spanish translation. Interpreter, will you please restate this in Spanish? Good afternoon. Welcome to today's session. We have a live translation of Spanish. So please listen to the translation and you can hear the Spanish translation. For those just joining, click on the interpretation icon in the Zoom toolbar. It looks like a globe. Once you join the Spanish Channel, we recommend you shut off the main audio so you can only hear the Spanish translation. Good afternoon. Welcome to today's City Council meeting. Madam City Clerk please call the roll. Thank you Mayor. Council Member Schwedhelm. Here. Council Member Sawyer. Here. Council Member Rogers. Present. Council Member McDonald. Here. Council Member Fleming. Here. I'm Vice Mayor Alvarez. Mayor Rogers. Here. Let the record show that all council members are present with the exception of Vice Mayor Alvarez. All right. We start our day in closed sessions with items 2.1 and 2.2. Let's go ahead before we gavel out and go to public comment on those items. Mr. DeWitt. Hello. My name is DeWitt. I'm from Roseland. I was definitely interested in 2.1 and saying that it's refreshing to hear about this before the negotiating parties are determined. It was nice to see that the negotiating parties are still to be determined. And I'm hoping that because these assets are so valuable, foresight and downtown premium spots in a way, that you folks will look for the highest dollar and the biggest return on investment for the long term and not just necessarily go with someone local or someone you might know kind of situation. This is the type of lucrative real estate that could perhaps be advertised far and wide, not just nationally, but even internationally to get a real estate investment organization involved to where we in Santa Rosa could get a very good return on what we've been saying. We want, for a number of decades, housing right downtown as close to here that everyone could walk instead of drive a car. So with that in mind, I do hope that will go on the record and that it will be something you'll refer back to because those sites are quite valuable and then that could be a template for future sites because the city of Santa Rosa owns a lot of property. And this could be the model for you to become a very, I guess you might say, efficient and profitable governmental organization, helping the return on investment to the taxpayers in the long run. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Duit. Do we have any hands on zoom or pre recorded voicemails. I'm seeing no hands raised on zoom and we have no pre recorded messages. All right, we'll go into closed session. Well, good afternoon, folks. Welcome to today's city council meeting. Madam city clerk. Can you please call the roll. Thank you, Mayor. Councilmember Schwedhelm here councilmember Sawyer here councilmember Rogers president councilmember McDonald here councilmember Fleming here vice mayor Alvarez. President Mayor Rogers here let the record show that all councilmembers are present right. Welcome everybody. We have no study sessions today. Madam city attorney, do you want to report out on our closed sessions earlier. Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. The council met in closed session on two items. The first was 2.1 conference with real property negotiator. This has to do with the surplus sale of three. Lots in downtown garage five lot 11 and lot seven. Council gave direction to staff and no final action was taken second item was 2.2, which is a conference with legal council on existing litigation that concerned the matter of the appeal of the city's appeal of a Cal OSHA order. Again, council discussed the item and gave direction to staff and no final action was taken. Thank you. All right. Thank you so much. We have no proclamations or staff briefings tonight. So let's go to our city manager and city attorney reports. Madam city manager, do you want to kick us off. Yeah, thank you. Good evening, Mayor councilmembers. Tonight I just want to report that from we opened up yesterday up until Friday morning, the warming center. The location is at the Kerry Toss Center, which is located at 301 6th Street. It's at sweet 108. So it goes open until, excuse me, Friday morning. It is from 7pm to 7am. It is a dropping spot to warm up and charge mobile devices. But considering the cold weather, cold weather that we're having right now, we will remain open until Friday morning. If that needs to be extended, I will send out a message at a later date. Thanks. Thank you so much. Madam city attorney. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I do have two things that I wanted to announce. The one is that Jeff Burke, who is our chief city assistant city attorney, he is retiring at the end of the year. So I just want to take this opportunity to thank him publicly for all of his great work and dedication to the city. It's been a pleasure working with him. He is an excellent attorney, works closely with HR and all of the city departments on labor and employment issues. He has provided very skilled advice to the housing authority and housing trust, also to economic development. And he has taken on a whole series of very complex and sensitive special projects for us as well. I appreciate, and the others in our office do as well, his collegiality, his partnership and his openness. As I said, it has been a real pleasure working with him and he will be sorely missed. So congratulations to Jeff on his retirement and wish him all the best. This second item is simply our litigation update. And with Jeff, I know a number of you had the opportunity to work with him directly, so I'm pleased about that as well. On the litigation update, we actually have a few less cases than we've had in the last couple of months. We have about 25 current cases pending. I will note that on the litigation log there were about three cases that were repeats. So it ends up being about 25. And the others, we've been a number of cases that we've resolved at either no cost to the city or very little cost to the city. So we are very pleased with that. The 25 pending cases include one receivership. We had four before, so three of those have been fully resolved and the properties have been cleared and sold. Nine matters of general litigation, 10 personal injury cases, three police action cases and two rits of mandate. The 25 do include several large and complex cases and that includes litigation concerning the death of Jordan Paws in police custody. The base city's case, which concerns contract dispute, a very complex and extensive contract dispute regarding the expansion of Stony Point Road. And then we have three cases that have been ongoing concerning the city's efforts to address homelessness. Of course, in addition to the ones that are on the log, I always like to remind the council that there are a lot of other litigation matters and litigation related matters that our office does. Including weapons holds, pitches motions, code enforcement and an animal control and a number of other matters. So our litigation team, even though the case numbers are down, keeping plenty busy. So thank you. Thank you, Madam City Attorney. Council, do we have any questions for the city manager or city attorney on their reports? Seeing none, let's see if there's any hands for public comment on item number eight. I see no hands on Zoom. Do we have any pre-recorded voicemails? We have no pre-recorded voicemails. Council, do we have any statements of abstention tonight? Seeing none, we'll keep moving. We have mayors and councilmember reports. Who wants to start? Mr. Vice Mayor? Yes, very quickly. I did meet with the representatives from Senator Padilla's office not too long ago in regards to the park, MLK Park in South Park. And I'm very happy to report that we had great conversation about the feature of MLK Park in regards to upgrading the amenities and the lighting, which is a great issue that the community is having. So hopefully we do acquire those resources to renovate and beautify the park. Thank you. Councilmember McDonald? Yes, I'd just like to thank North Bay Leadership Council for their holiday luncheon and being able to attend that this week. And then in addition to that, I was able to go down to San Francisco to attend the Carpenter's Union 751. They're huge, huge luncheon this last Friday in San Francisco, and it was great to be able to be with everybody from our area. So thanks to all of them for the invitations and happy holidays to them. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Rogers? Thank you, Mayor. On Saturday, I was able to attend Mary Market at Church Unstoppable, which was awesome. I was able to serve more than 200 families and had about 130 volunteers. So the families were able to come and get unwrapped gifts for their children that they were able to pick out. The volunteers then wrapped the gifts and then took them to their vehicles. But prior to picking out the gifts, they were able to come over to the cafe and have coffee, hot chocolate, and a ton of treats that were so tempting the whole six hours that I was there. So I am happy that I did not give in to the treats, but I am also very happy that we have such wonderful churches and organizations within our community that are able to give back in this way. So thank you, Church Unstoppable. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Fleming. Thank you, Mayor. And I had the great pleasure of attending the first run of our all-new electric fleet. I'm sure the Mayor will give you a detailed rundown on some of the specs for these new buses. But it's really exciting to see that we are the only jurisdiction that I'm aware of that provides the completely renewable energy for our now all-electric buses. And we are not using any fossil fuels, period, for these new buses. And pretty soon we'll have half of our fleet. That's our commitment to have it be carbon neutral. And so that's beyond words like this is the biggest source of emissions in our region and something that I know that myself and my colleagues are really committed to. Additionally, I want to extend a thank you to Councilmember Rogers for inviting me to her home where she convened a number of faith leaders last week. And we got to meet these folks and build bridges of understanding as well as practical operational concerns in terms of how we as a city can interact with the great value that our faith-based community brings to us here in Santa Rosa. Thank you, Councilmember. Any other updates? I just wanted to say a huge congratulations to our transportation and public works team for the launch of our zero-emission bus fleet. We have four buses that will begin circulating throughout Santa Rosa. We have five more that have been ordered and we have another six that we have secured the funding for, both for the bus and for the infrastructure that we need to fund them. It's a huge step forward for resiliency for our community and it is a huge step forward in taking a bite out of that 60% of emissions in Sonoma County that come from transportation. We are honored to have Ray Tellis, who is the Regional Administrator for the Department of Transportation here for the event. And he has been a fantastic partner for Santa Rosa looking to secure that funding and to show people what we can do when we have a little bit of political will pushing things forward. So I wanted to thank him for that. I also wanted to thank Senator Alex Padilla. I had a chance to talk with the Senator earlier today as he was headed to the White House to sign the Marriage Equality Act into law. He just got his bill, the FIRE Act, which many Santa Rosa staff have been working on across the finish line to the President's desk. And we anticipate that the President will sign it any day now. The FIRE Act is a reform bill that looks at how FEMA has operated relative to hurricanes and floods. And it adds in Santa Rosa's perspective and other jurisdictions in California that have gone through fires and some of the conflicting language or language that needed to be added there. It's really rare for a Senator who's only a couple of years on the job to get a standalone bill to the President. And I just have to say thank you to his team who have been really great for us to work with here in Santa Rosa. So congratulations to him as well. Let's go to public comment for Council Member Report Outs. Does anybody like to comment? Go ahead and approach the podium or hit the raise hand feature on Zoom. All right, seeing none, I'll bring it back. Madam City Manager, could you please read the Consent Calendar? Item 12.1, a resolution, amendment to the city classification and salary plan modifying the salary range of multiple positions and adoption of the city's salary plan and schedule. Item 12.2 is a resolution, administrative cost recovery lien against the real property located at 3712 Douglas Drive. Item 12.3, a resolution, administrative cost recovery lien against the real property located at 211 Teresa Street, Santa Rosa, California, 95407. Item 12.4, a resolution, administrative cost recovery lien against the real property located at 2060 Erickoy Street. Item 12.5, a resolution, Santa Rosa City Bus Public Transit Agency safety plan update 2023. Item 12.6, a resolution, Santa Rosa City Bus short term range transit plan financial scenarios for FY 2023 to FY 2028. Item 12.7, approval of the acquisition of 3012 Dutton Meadow APN 043-122-007 and a fund to fund loan from the Water Operations Fund to the Stormwater Creek Restoration Fund for financing a portion of the purchase. Item 12.8, making required monthly findings and authorizing the continued use of teleconferencing for public meetings of the city council and all the city boards, commissions and committees pursuant to Assembly Bill 361. Item 12.9, an ordinance adoption, second reading, ordinance of the Council of the City of Santa Rosa increasing council compensation in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Santa Rosa City Charter. Thank you. Council, do we have any questions on tonight's consent calendar? Council Member Schwedhelm. Yes, I have a question on 12.1. Any questions surrounding the retroactivity of it? I just want to understand the process a little bit more thoroughly than what's in the staff report. If we could get Director Reeve promoted on Zoom. Yes, good evening, Mayor and Council Members. I mean, my question is during negotiations, you know, you've been in some of those different sessions where we don't worry. Council has not agreed to go with retroactive pay. And then this item, it sounds like negotiations occurred after the normal negotiating period. And now at first I thought it was a typo when it's retroactive to January 2nd of 2022. Could you just share with us a little bit more about the process that led to this recommendation of retroactive pay? Sure. Thank you. We have several classifications that were called out in the MOU during bargaining that were subject to a market study request and ultimately received a 5% recruitment and retention adjustment. Then we discovered that there were additional classifications that should have been linked to those identified classes. And therefore we are retroactively designating so that all of those classifications that were affected receive the same implementation date of January 1st. And can you share, because I know we also talked about the whole salary survey citywide, how does this intersect with that process that will be occurring in the near future? Sure. We are embarking on a citywide classification and compensation study, which will study all miscellaneous positions. But these classifications were evaluated separate from that study process. And it was related to, again, recruitment and retention issues that existed during the labor negotiations. Okay. Thank you. Any additional questions from Council? All right. Let's go to public comment. Mr. DeWitt. Thank you, sir. My name is Dwayne DeWitt. I'm from Roseland. On 12.1, it's good to see that the city is following this idea of giving some raises to people. One of the things that I am most concerned about though is making sure that the people at the lowest end of the pay structure get just as much equity. Excuse me. They're the ones that keep the city running. They're the ones that take care of our parks and our roads. And I think it's very important that if top management is getting 5% increases on things, that the people at the bottom end get that same level of increase. I noticed that the requirement for publicly available pay schedules is mentioned here. Last week when I talked about the new council pay and having time cards and accountability, people looked to scans. But it's actually something that's a good thing if you'll show the taxpayers how folks are earning that money that they're getting. One of the things in the past that I have always remembered right from the first meeting I came to, I think decades ago, was the elected officials constantly deferred to staff. Always saying, well, what does staff say? What's the staff's direction? When it's actually you folks who are the ones earning that pay, and it should be you who tell staff what your constituents need and what your constituents would like to have. Unfortunately, there's very few council members that actually reach out to constituents, at least in any forum such as office hours. Lee Pierce did it a few times in the past. Some mayors might have tried it a few times. But there's no way of really knowing the link between the constituents being served and the pay being earned by council members unless we have some sort of an accountable time sheet type of approach. And I know that the city manager would not let any city employee be able to get their paycheck without time cards, without being able to show what they put in in terms of their time to earn their wages. And that's all we ask of you also. You folks are employees, and that's the way that works. We didn't make it that way.  So please, keep that in mind. Last but not least, on 12.5, 15 years ago, there was a Roseland Community-Based Transportation Plan in which myself and others served on that mushroom committee. One of the things that's very important about this transportation money that you get, a lot of it coming from the federal government, is that you're supposed to involve the community and make sure that it is true and actual, authentic community engagement type of approach, not just that typical engagement theater that you folks use with your very highly paid community engagement department. And then last but not least, down here, 12.8, once again we ask you to open up all of the city meetings. Bring them all back and open them up to the public. Let's get off this Zoomster stuff. It's time to be real. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. DeWitt. Are there any other comments in the chamber? I don't see any hands-on Zoom. Did we have any pre-recorded voicemails? We have no recorded voicemails. All right, I'll go ahead and bring it back. Mr. Vice Mayor, please put a motion on the table. Thank you, Mayor. I thought I heard something. I move items 12.1 through 12.9 and wait for the reading of the text. Second. So a motion from the Vice Mayor and a second from Council Member Rogers. Any additional discussion? All right, Madam Clerk, please call the vote. Council Member Schwedhelm. Aye. Council Member Sawyer. Aye. Council Member Rogers. Aye. Council Member McDonald. Aye. Council Member Fleming. Aye. Vice Mayor Alvarez. Aye. Mayor Rogers. Aye. That motion passes with seven ayes. Okay, it's not yet five o'clock, so we'll come back to our public comment for non-agenda items at that time. In the meantime, let's go on to item 14.1, please. Item 14.1 is a report, high-density multifamily residential incentive program. Director of Planning and Economic Hartman will deliver the report. Good evening, Mayor Rogers and Vice Mayor Alvarez and members of the Council. So tonight we're going to go over the downtown fee incentive program. And presenting tonight will be myself and also Jesse Oswald. He's the chief building official for the city. On deck, we have the staff members, Jen Santos. She's Deputy Director for Parks. We also have Joe Shiboni, who's representing Transportation and Public Works. Jessica Jones, representing Planning. And Raisa De La Rosa, representing Economic Development. Next slide. So we're going to go over the background of the fee incentive program and also how it works and how it has been used. We're going to go over some of the projects that are in the queue that hope to make use of the incentive program. Should it be extended? And also go over some of the feedback that we've received from Council subcommittees, but also from the community. And then conclude with a staff recommendation. Next slide. So the incentive program was adopted in 2018 and it was to incentivize downtown housing. In particular, not just any housing downtown, but high, high intensity, high density and multi-story height. We really wanted to build up the height of our downtown and catalyze it as an urban center for the North Bay. We looked at incentives that related to fees and we experimented with this incentive program that had a limited term five years. And this was sort of a cool molation, this tool through City Council goals, which started out as looking for a vibrant downtown. And then in more recent years, City Council goals related to housing needs for all. And so tonight we're looking at a couple of recommendations for the program. And we're going to be looking at additional time for the program and also to do some cleanup to make it more compliant with our downtown stationary specific plan zoning and the way that works and how it was adopted in 2020. Next slide. So just to put the incentive program in contact before we get into how it works. The City of Santa Rosa has been earmarking housing as a priority since 2016 and really taken a practical approach, really looking at all the facets that go into housing production. And we concluded with the housing action plan in 2016. And then as all of us know, the tubs and nuns fired started a series of emergency responses. And that was, of course, a major hit in terms of our ability to produce housing. At the same time, we're trying to rebuild 3,000 units that we lost in the tubs fire. So downtown housing was a key priority for the City, a resilient location for housing and also not just downtown, but our priority development areas. What we created was an up downtown toolbox. So it's not just one incentive, but a layering of different types and different approaches to incentivize housing downtown. And one of those ways was called the citywide resilient city ordinance that talked about permit streamlining and whatnot. And we'll go over some of the other the measures but the most, the one that we're going to talk about tonight is the residential fee incentive program which was adopted in 2018. And we did amend it in 2019 because we were looking at how we were defining what is downtown and that definition was emerging and changing as we were entering into the specific plan downtown planning process. Housing for all has continued as a council goal. And in fact, we knew that since this was a five year limited program that started in 2018. The ability to to participate in this program was coming up to its term, which would be in August of 2023, which is next year. And so in this year's work plan. We knew that we were going to have to take a look at the fee and fee program and see how it was used and if we wanted to continue it or extend time. Next slide. This is just a picture of all the different incentives that layer into incentivizing housing downtown. Obviously, being vocal as a as a council and unified that prioritizing it has been has done wonders for developers to come in from other areas to invest in San Rosa. We've done permit streamlining. We've done environmental streamlining, such as adopting a new downtown station plan. So raising that ceiling and having that environmental review for at a higher level is no under achievement for developers in terms of streamlining. We look at fees and incentives, which we're talking about tonight and then other layers of support, such as you recently took a look at our city owned assets and looked at how we could leverage those for housing production. We've invested in the red housing fund. We're going to enterprise district housing fund to leverage housing both market rate and affordable and you've leveraged general fund and so one time monies into staffing and professional services. So all of that together has moved moved and incentivize housing. And so, but one of them, the fees and incentives is what we're going to focus on tonight. So the fees in 2018 were about 30,000 development, $30,000 per housing unit, multifamily housing unit for an 800 unit. And this was irregardless of it was downtown or not. So one of the things that we wanted to look at is how to incentivize placing that unit if it's 30,000 a unit into downtown, how to incentivize the unit to be downtown. And so we looked at what we've controlled as a city. We don't control all of these fees. So the school district fee, for example, is out of our control. But we do have an opportunity to leverage as a city the application of capital facilities fees and park impact fees. We have some opportunity to look at water and wastewater, but we know we had to approach that a little differently based on its the structure that wraps around that fee. But this was the extent of the fees that we were trying to address. So looking at capital facilities and park impact, we were looking at reducing the fee as an incentive, not doing away with it, not waiving it, but reducing it as an incentive. So building up a structure for that. And then for water and wastewater, looking at different payment options that might offer an incentive. So not a reduction, but different ways to pay it. Next slide. So in September of 2018, the city council adopted three resolutions and here they are. One, they each stand on their own because they're all a little different. So we had one that passed an incentive program for capital facilities, one for water and wastewater, one for park development impact fees. And again, as mentioned earlier, as we were going into the process for updating our downtown plan, we realized that we needed to update this fee incentive program to conform to the downtown boundary. That is that is what we use today, which is next slide. We have the yes. So then this slide shows the downtown boundary. So it's, it's matches what we used in the downtown stationary specific plan. So this includes the walkable zone around the smart station as well as the transit mall. So it's not just courthouse square. It's not just railroad square, but it also comes down to the northeast section of Roslyn, the Roberts Road area. And you can see it spilled out a little bit more, but this, this is the downtown plan when we talk about that. And so that was one of the 2019 amendments. The other amendment in 2019 was simply making sure that we're matching up all the eligible zoning districts so that anybody who's building a multi-story high density housing has the opportunity to opt into this incentive program. Next slide. So here we have in highlighted in red are the 2019 amendments that updated those sonings and making sure that those every zoning district that would possibly allow for multi-story housing could qualify to be eligible for this. Now, one of the key eligibility requirements of the program is that we want these projects not to just be paper projects, but actually getting into construction. The whole premise of our incentive packages was to produce housing, not to have entitled projects, but to actually see sticks and bricks in the air and actually change the landscape of our downtown. So this is a very key criteria and it's to break ground, not to get entitled, but to actually break ground before August 31st 2023. And so we've been minus was four years ago. This is right after the, the Tubbs fire, we thought we were going to have quite a bit of activity. We subsequently had quite a bit of activity, but not necessarily of housing production. We did have, we did have that, but we also had a lot of emergencies to respond to evacuations and wildfires. And of course, recent, more recently, you know, economic and in the pandemic. But breaking ground is defined as securing a foundation permit. So it's actually an incentive that goes towards the production of housing. Next slide. So here are the fees today and they're about the same. However, there has been some movement in some of these fees. So for example, there's been since 2018, our capital facilities and our park impact fees have gone up a little bit. But our water and wastewater demand fees have actually gone down a little bit. The housing allocation fee, which was handled under a separate program. I won't call it an incentive program, but we did reevaluate housing allocation fees, which is a fee that you pay if your unit is not affordable by contract. And so that that fee actually went up with the incentive is to to build inclusionary housing. So in the end, it's still about 30,000 a unit. If we don't have this incentive program. So let me talk about next slide into how this program works. So how this program works. This is a lot of numbers thrown at you and believe me, this, I'm just going to break this down for you. So this is a chart that really maps out what is the incentive value. And this is only pulling out the CFF and parks incentives part of the program, which is the key part of the program because it's a reduction in fees. What is the incentive value and how is it structured so really, if it's market rate, these are highlighted in blue, the higher you build, the bigger the incentive value. So we're seeing we're starting to see a lot of seven story building. So I'm going to use that as an example. So without the program, your CFF and your parks fees is about 15,000 a unit. So that's about 1.5 million. And so that's quite a that's that's quite a chunk out of a performer for a development project. So we're looking at how can we incentivize the reduction of that to encourage the construction of a seven story multifamily project.  And that is that's quite an incentive for a project. And we'll talk about how that's really played out in in real projects, not just theory. If you build affordable housing project downtown, and we need both, we need market rate and we need affordable. But if you build an affordable, there's even more incentive to do that. So the incentive you can see a seven story would go up to 11 and a half thousand dollars per unit. So that's about 1.15 million. And then in addition, if it's affordable, obviously going back to the other slide, you don't have to go back to the other slide, but going back to the other slide, you also don't have to pay the housing impact fee. So at $3200 a unit, you get, you get the incentive not to have to pay that as well. So it can really start to add up that incentive value. Next slide. So in addition to the reduced fee incentives, the park fee incentive also has a couple of other nuances to incentivize housing. So in addition to the reduced fees, the resolution that supports this part of the incentive program allows that the fees that you do pay. So it's a reduced fee. So you are paying some fees into the park fund. Those fees are allocated 100% to downtown. And again, that boundary is what I described in in accordance to that map. So that's the incentive is that it's not an assessment district, but it's another way to sort of earmark or allocate that some of the fees that the projects that are catalyzing downtown that some of those park fees. But in this case, 100% of those park fees that are paid will stay downtown. And this is in addition to it's not the only fees that support parks downtown. This is in addition to the citywide park fund. That's that's supported by four districts in the city. Now, we do have four districts in the city and one of them isn't downtown downtown actually overlays two or three of those those quadrant districts. But one of the challenges with this is not its own district that we contract, but we manually track projects that qualify and and track how much of these fees are going to be earmarked to downtown. In addition, there's opportunities to partner with development developers through development agreements and look for public private partnerships to leverage the park fees, whether it's citywide or these earmarked downtown to urban spaces. Lastly, I just want to point out the application of downtown funds. We're still working on the flexibility of that. Outside of downtown park fees tend to go for your traditional park structures, programming community parks and neighborhood parks downtown is different. We do have community parks and neighborhood parks in downtown, but in addition we have these urban spaces and we actually want to see more of that. That came out of our downtown plan so we're looking at this program but also just in a bigger picture. We're looking at how we develop parks and how we use our funds, especially if we only have limited funds, how we might how we might move those that vision as well the urban spaces in addition to our traditional parks. And we're still working on that. Next slide. So the other part of the package, those were the reduced fee parts. The other part of the package is the water and sewer impact fee incentive program. And again, we weren't allowed to reduce the fees in this sector, but we were allowed to come up with a program, different payment options and payment options because time is a lot as well. In fact, when costs go up time is everything. Actually, it's what we've learned. And so this actually has quite a value even though it's not monetary upfront like a like a fee reduction is. So in this case, there's two options, an applicant can defer the payment of the fees. So that allows them to get farther into their construction schedule maybe under different financial arrangement for their project. So this is a popular option. And then another option is to actually finance it with interest. So pay it but then pay it over time with interest. So we did have a consultant take a look at the relative value of this since it's not a direct reduction. And it still has quite a bit of value. It's a hundred and seventy a thousand seventeen hundred per unit. So for a hundred unit project, which is not atypical for what we get downtown. That's a hundred and seventy thousand. And that's in addition to the other incentives that we saw. So we're going to move into some of the projects that have come in through this program and many of which are pending. And we're going to talk about the timing of them. And these are projects that we know working with these applicants over the last three, four years that were attracted to Santa Rosa to build this high to take these risks because of all of the incentives that we offer. And in particular this one was very important and Jesse Jesse's going to take the next slide here and talk through some of the projects that are in the queue and we're attracted by this ordinance. Next slide. Thank you, Claire. Mayor and Council Jesse Oswald, Chief Building Official. So this this project, the first one on this slide here is is a project that's 20 years in the making. I had an awful lot of applause I could hear in the background when this thing finally really moved. So it's known as the Canary. Yes, it is the site downtown of the former Canary where the historic buildings are still propped up. This is one of the prime examples of the biggest bang for your buck, so to speak. This is a 100% affordable project. And you can see the incentives that this this project received in due to credits and things that were received due to old buildings on the site. We ended up paying a total of $63,778 in the park impact fees and the the development team expressed how many times I can't count what these initiatives did for this project and there are there are individuals that are still connected to this project that were connected to it 20 years ago that that literally said that this project would not be going vertical now if it weren't for these these incentives. So this is one of one of the real shining examples of this this program. Next slide please. So here we have some examples of projects that are actually the top two are under construction and not that far out from being completed completed. And this is the last which is over on the original address of 701 Wilson Street. This is also a labor of love I've actually worked on this project the entire 10 years I've been here in Santa Rosa. And this initiative actually made it go forward as well and it's been vertical and we actually have a temporary occupancy on one of the two buildings under construction so they are, we're able to actually start moving some folks into the first part of this, this project here. 884 Street which is just around the corner from our property here at City Hall. It's that giant thing that you cannot see you can't miss seeing from anywhere in our vicinity. This project received these initiatives of almost $500,000 as well. And it was very instrumental in getting it moving forward. Currently in plan review as shown here on the slide, the last phase of Coleman loss, it's a smaller building, but it's in plan review and not too far from being issued. That received the amount shown here approaching $400,000 in incentives. And then showing the Humboldt Street 88 units, the incentives there 1.3 and that project is actually in for plan review, worked with the developer and the team and that's been submitted for actual plan review within the last month. And then 420 Mendocino has been around. Some of you may recognize it. They are back in plan review. The project being 100% market rate has taken some twists and turns to get financing, but it is it is in for its revision to get the final version approved to go vertical and those those plans are moving forward. And you'll see nearly a million dollars in incentives on that project to allow it to move forward. Next slide please. So here is where we're in that ground of we've been working with folks for many years on these projects that are listed here. And these all would benefit from this this the initiatives that are being described. And I have spoken with all develop all these these developers on these projects and they they typically move a little faster when they find out what their what their brakes are going to be so to speak. So they do appreciate and understand the value and what this is doing for downtown Santa Rosa. All right, next slide. Thank you, Jesse. Let's talk about community feedback. So, like I said, the incentive program has been up and running since 2018, September 2018 with some refinement in 2019 for application definition of the downtown and whatnot. And we have to date one project that has made it over to the finish line of issued and paying a fees. When we're looking at the whether or not to extend the program and what other amendments might be needed. As we look at this at this program, we, we first went out to the economic development subcommittee sort of presented at that time in the summer of 2022. We didn't even have the one project over the over the finish line they were close everyone's close. But we were really working on even just that first that first candidate and as you can see from Jesse's list, there's so many that are sort of at the gate. And it in the last especially in the last two years just the volatility of the market, whether it was labor that costs went through the roof or materials or rents just all these different variables that we're shifting. We're trying to piece this together so the timing is just right to take that risk, hold the permit and pay the fees and get started. So we went to the economic development committee to talk with the community and talk with council members about how it was going out and start to collect feedback. We realized we simply need more time because we were just getting started with the program. We recognize there was a lot of delays that were out of our control or impacts bigger things going on that were impacting the projects that we had attracted to downtown, but I hadn't gotten close enough to get to the finish line to complete this to complete this incentive program by the date of eligibility which was breaking ground in August 2023. So they asked us to continue to monitor it and check in with the development community. One of the things that we did is we held a developer roundtable series, which was really just open conversations with developers, but housing developers in particular. We've met over the course of several meetings several hours, just dialoguing about their experience on and what it takes to get their projects to the to the finish line. And one of the things we heard loud and clear is one it's not one initiative it's really this this comprehensiveness of this package, but these p incentives are key part of that package. And we talked a lot about time cost certainty. And like I said when the costs are uncertain time is everything for these projects and so really adding that to this program. This enables them to be more flexible in getting these to the finish line. And a lot of feedback to extend the timeframe and the program, even if it's not codified, just to give it a little bit more time for its for its status. So to continue the dialogue about investing in downtown and investing in urban spaces and being much more flexible in coming up with ways to fund urban spaces that often compete. And I would say often don't compete very well with community parks that need to be programmed with lots of facilities such as ball fields and and lights and and turf and all that competing with the same dollars that we're trying to support downtown and public urban civic spaces. We need all of it so we need to figure out how to get there and I think will be need to be creative, such as through this program. Next slide. So the amendments are focused. We're looking at amending the eligibility to be a match to our 2020 adopted specific plan. So we have introduced new zoning called core mixed use which is CMU here. We've introduced floor area ratio as opposed to density and height. So if they are. And so we've calculated what is the exact match so that there's really not a content change here it's more of just translation of what was allowed for eligibility to translating it to our adopted station plan. And then really the the key here is just to add additional time. Now staff is proposing an additional three years so taking the eligibility to August 2026. And the reason is looking at that batch of projects that Jesse walked through. We think that we think that we can get those projects through they're ready to go those three years will make it work for them. And so that's where we'd like to start. It will actually give us some time also to evaluate the program like to actually implement it and see what that what that experience is like on both ends because again it is a reduction of fees so we need to feel as a city is that is that worth our investment. And on their side is this actually attracting is this attractive enough. And are we actually producing housing downtown. Next slide.  I believe the first one is this capital facilities be the second one is parks. The third one is the water and wastewater. And we are here to answer any questions. Right. Thank you so much director. I'll look to my colleagues to see if there are any questions. Council member McDonald. Thank you so much and thank you for the presentation. I just had a couple quick questions on page seven of 13 of the staff report on floors five and six there's zero fees is that because those would be affordable housing or how does that particularly work when it comes to the finances. I don't have the staff report open in front of me. I'm working off the one screen. So can you repeat the page number. Sure. Page seven of 13. And can you repeat the question please. No problem at all. On floors five and six it showed no fees. Could you maybe explain why there would be no fees on those particular floors. Or is this an example of when it goes higher how we waive fees to make it more affordable. I will take a moment to go look that up. But if I can get back to you. That's no problem at all. And I apologize for not sending that in advance. My other question was is there any desire to increase the height of our buildings to allow for more housing specifically in the downtown area. And if there are are there any additional incentives that we have for those projects or is there a way that we can look at state and federal funding to support that. So other incentives if I understand you council member other incentives to increase the height of our downtown housing based on this fee structure that you showed us earlier. And I just wanted to show the fee structure where when they went higher they had an increase in in incentives. So my question was if we were to go higher to create more housing is there more incentives. Is that our incentive or does it come from the state and feds. And is it there any desire to increase the height of housing. That's a question. That's an interesting one. One of the things I think the short answer is we could continue to incentivize even higher. Early on in the stationary specific plan process we heard a lot of we should be unlimited we should should allow it to 1214 we should incentivize 1214 stories. In terms of the combination of Santa Rosa's market which is emerging and and the practicality of constructing housing different construction. There's different levels where the construction frame completely change which completely changes the market the construction cost of a project. What we're finding in this I would say early phase of Santa Rosa urban development of high rise is that you see a lot of seven and eight stories and that's that's generally the sweet spot right now for the market. The station area specific plan does allow to go quite a bit higher that they are framework allows we could get 10 to 14 story buildings. That's the way they are work so those incentives are already there in policy but the practicality is that we're seeing the market is really supporting seven or eight stories and I don't know Jesse if you have an add to that but that's what I'm seeing. So I will just add a little bit is the the the pro forma for the area what I hear from developers is to go higher than the say seven slash eight story. Once you get above that height you convert from what we typically call is conventional construction to then to a completely different classification which is called a high rise. And the type of construction that has to be executed for that large of a building does not pencil so to speak for this area. It pencils in the really metropolis areas and can eventually in our area as the financing works better. And I can help a little bit with the question on page seven of the staff report for council member McDonald is what those zeros you are seeing truly is what you believe you saw as that example is of a six story building market rate in floors five and six received zero impact fee assessments based on how the program works and depending on the area of town you have to do either a four story or more than four story. This one would be the area where you have to build it more than four stories. So the first three or four floors here have to be charged the the impact fees that normally would be charged. And then those floors above as you're seeing here are charged zero impact fees sans housing impact fees. And I do believe that I think the director can confirm this. I think it was a separate council action in 2018 where we put a cap on fees at four stories trying to incentivize any additional floors that were built above that. Thank you. Thank you. Correct. I appreciate that. Thank you so much. Any other questions from council members. Director one I want to appreciate the developer round table series that your office worked on through the summer. It was really informative to be able to sit on a couple of those. One of the topics that came up particularly related to the incentive package that we're talking about today was perhaps looking at a per unit sunset. Not a specific date where the program would sunset. I think there's a lot of that in that context. You know, some of the issues that we're talking about is an example, if we know we want an additional thousand units in downtown that this would be available until a thousand units have claimed that incentive. Is there a reason that we didn't consider doing that ultimately? Yeah. And I think there's a lot of different ways to figure out what the threshold is. I think one of the reasons why staff is recommending a time extension, as opposed to a numeric count couple different ways to look at it. One, the date is very clear. So anybody at the city can easily explain the program, its applicability and when it basically sunsets and developers in the same manner. So very simple, easy way and very predictable. What we hear a lot is, is please be predictable when you write things that could be need research or will take time to find out if you're there yet. That's where we start losing the audience. So one of the reasons we like the time is because it's very clear, it's very objective. Looking at the way we count housing, our downtown plan is proposing and planning for up to 7,000 units over the life of the specific plan. Specific plan doesn't actually have a time certain to achieve that, but we can imagine it's sometime over the next 10, 15, 20 years to achieve 7,000 units. The way our housing production interests work city-wide is through what we call meeting arena or regional housing needs assessment numbers. For example, if the city is looking to achieve 5,000 or close to 5,000 units over eight-year period, we're looking city-wide and we don't actually have a subset for what is making it in priority development areas or downtown. What we do have is lots of layers of incentives to promote those areas for development, but not doing a separate beam counting if you will for those. So it just complicates the tracking and the predictability of when we get there. So staff's recommendation at this time is to do add time. But as we head into the next three years with this extended time, I think that's something we can look at. Because one of the things we'll want to look at is this, if this is working and we want more of it, we might want to look at how else can we restructure this in the future to even fine-tune it. I appreciate that, Director. Any additional questions from Council? Let's go to public comment on item 14.1. If you have a comment, go ahead to approach the podium. We'll start with Mr. DeWitt. Dwayne DeWitt, Sonoma County Housing Advocacy Group. Please further the incentive program. Let it be in existence for many years if need be. The up downtown toolbox is a good idea. Your downtown map shows that Rosalind from Sebastopol Road to Dutton Avenue eastward to Olive is in the downtown area. Incentivize for more downtown residential specifically right there. The Roberts Avenue properties have already been through phase one assessments from EPA Brownfield money and could be developed in the future. If the city of Santa Rosa staff would be supportive of such activities. Park fees are an important thing to keep in the mix for the Rosalind area specifically. In that section of downtown, those neighborhood parks have been projected for many years and nothing has come forward. Community parks aren't needed. It's neighborhood parks that are needed by residents. Continue to invest in these downtown parks and urban spaces. That's what's shown in your presentation. Also what's really important about incentives, you have to have accountability. Accountability to verify those who receive any of these incentives actually do as they say they're going to do. This is something that happens with transit oriented development. People get density bonuses saying they're going to put in more things for people who are going to use transit. They build the housing and then the people don't use the transit. This is something that doesn't get looked into. I've asked staff about it. They're like, well, that's not something we do. You have to find a way to make sure there's accountability for the incentives that you have given. One of the things that's really important as you talk about the core mixed use, the CMU. Down on Healdsburg Avenue is a perfect example of how that's not working. A multi-story residential mixed use building was put in across from the EDD building. The first story for commercial is empty. It hasn't been filled for well over a decade now. So those types of units should be allowed to be residential. If they can't get a commercial tenant, allow it to be housing. That helps us with our housing mix. And then last but not least, the kind employee Mr. Oswald, the building officer, he talked about the Cannery project and how it's taken 20 years. You have to realize that it wasn't the developer that made it take that long. It was city staff that got in the way of that project. And those people tried for years to get by the obstacles put together by the staff. So it's good to see that the planning department is saying they're gonna jump on board and they're gonna help us get more of this multi-family residential housing in the downtown area as soon as possible. It's been 25 years since the Housing Advocacy Group was formed to advocate for that. Let's get as much as possible in the next 25 years. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. DeWitt. Go ahead, sir. Good evening, Mayor Rogers, council members and staff. My name is Josh Shipper. I'm the new director of special initiatives at Generation Housing, where we lead the movement for more, more diverse and more affordable housing. Generation Housing just wants to recognize the success of the first phase of the downtown fee incentive program. Reducing impact fees is a really bold step that reflects the foresight of the city council and we think sets the bar really high for the rest of the county. We also think, as you've heard in the presentation, we think it's very evident based on the city pool of applicants that the city has received that the new fee structure enabled developers who might not otherwise have pursued affordable projects in Santa Rosa to apply. And it's why we wholeheartedly endorse the extension of the program for another three years. To us, it seems as if developers apply despite uncertainty in the housing market, as the staff report noted. And while we know that cities can't regulate the fluctuations in labor, materials and other financing costs, these impact fees provide that extra certainty that increases the chances of projects penciling out and we've seen it in practice. So again, reducing fee revenues may look like a sacrifice, but Santa Rosa has shown that it's an investment in housing that can boost the local economy through city sale tax and bolster its property tax revenue. Just to wrap up, seeing the success of the downtown target next year and moving forward, we encourage you to repeat this program and extend the benefits of these incentives to other transit hubs and commercial corridors, not just downtown. Our 80 to 140 AMI workforce is not necessarily limited by geography. You've also demonstrated that these incentive fees attract interest from a wider range of developers. And so we urge you to vary where possible the types of incentives that are available to encourage multiple kinds of proposals. Just one example that we that that we find is very effective is cutting fees for smaller units that incentivize developers to diversify unit sizes and produce smaller units that are more affordable to residents. So we commit to working with you on this model or on a model that best suits Santa Rosa. The city has already shown its creativity in incentivizing some of its smallest and most successful unit types through its ADU fee structure and extending those fee structures to multifamily units of the same size is really doable and would build on this program success. Thank you very much for your work on this project and we're excited to continue to to work with you and partner on it. Thank you so much, Josh. Is there anybody else in the chamber who'd like to provide comment on this item? All right, let's go to Zoom. We'll start with Adrian. Oh, my apologies.  Thank you very much. This is Eric Frazier. I'm a voter in the fourth district and a community activist. I do want to congratulate you on reduction of fees. I think building critical housing is certainly top in the list here, but I'm a little confused about the euphemistic use of language. For instance, you're calling this incentives, but it appears that these fees were over aggressive to begin with and you're rolling them back, calling them an incentive. But I guess there's a disconnect in my mind between what was chronic overcharging and something that you're apparently taking away and calling it an incentive when it should just be a reduction, I suppose, to encourage the housing to meet Rena numbers. I'm also a little confused about the discussion about public spaces, especially since in that downtown specific area, there is the old courthouse reconstruction, which was probably one of the most expensive park or open space builds ever, including the budget that was totally underreported and underestimated. I think there's a trust factor actually when it comes to dealing with the city. I don't speak on behalf of the developer community, of course, but I do feel that there's probably really quite an issue there. The other issue that or the other thing that I wanted to make comment of was it wasn't too long ago when there was a proposal for an 18 story building, which would have been the county offices. And it seems like rather than having staff determine the height of these builds, it really is something that the developers and the market should determine. So I'm a little confused there, I suppose, from what you're saying. And then lastly, I am concerned about whether or not the incentives create the type of performance that you want. I think we can point to a building at the intersection of Seventh and Riley, which I think was built as condominiums, but all of a sudden opened up as a hotel. And that seems to be sort of contrary to our goals, our rena goals for building housing. And so I'm not exactly sure how that happened. But again, it probably goes to that trust issue that the city has. Thank you very much. Thank you, Eric. Anybody else? All right, let's go to Adrian. Good evening, Council Members. Good evening, Council Members. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. OK, great. Thank you so much. And my name is Adrian Covert. I'm a downtown resident and local lead for Santa Rosa Yimbi. That's, yes, in my backyard, a group of volunteers, citizens and neighbors who are passionate about more housing and the benefits that it brings, more housing brings to our communities. And I just wanted to call and express our strong support for extending the program, the fee reduction program in the downtown area for a period of three years. Obviously, the program has shown its popularity, despite some of the unpredictable market conditions over the past few years. And given the high interest rates we see now, it's never been more important to do whatever we can to reduce the cost of building housing in our city, especially given the real targets that we've been given by the state, more reflective targets of actual demand. So thank you, strongly support staff recommendation and congratulations. Mayor Rogers on two years as mayor left leaving the city at a better place than you found it. Thank you so much, Adrian. Do we have any additional public comments? Do we have any pre-recorded voicemails? Looks like we have one additional hand on Zoom. OK, let's go to Gregory. Good evening, Mayor and members of the council. I want to answer Diane's question and I want to say it in a way that hopefully is still supportive of all that the planning department and all that you're trying to do. But I have to tell you that this is not about affordability. It's about profitability. All of the incentives, including lowered incentives for a high rise from the point of view of the lowest income members of our community have to be seen as getting an environment in which the development community sees the finish line, not as serving the broadest sector or or variety of members of the community, but allowing them to make profit off of what they do. Honestly, this is about trying to get what people often refer to as penciling out and getting to the finish line. Now, honestly, I've developed housing, getting to the finish line and penciling out means I end up with more money in my pocket. I end up with the ability to be able to do the project in the first place. All of those incentives and all of the things we've been talking about from the developer's point of view are simply making it possible and making it possible to them means promising to get affordability, but not delivering it. My fear is that we're going to have a lot of building downtown and hardly any of it is going to be affordable. Hardly the only incentives they have to make things affordable are the original agreements they made with the city about those entitlements, promising to have 30 percent of annual income, promising to have 40 percent, promising to have 50 and then turning it into when it's built 70, 80, 90, 100, 120. The low income community I'll tell you what their finish line is. Their finish line mostly from what I can see is dying. Their finish line is having 20 to 30 years on the street with no place to live. Their finish line is watching developers get richer and and and by developers I mean not just the people who put this together in the first place. It's everybody who participates. This is going to be a healthy economic boom for our community, but it's not going to be anything for those folks making less than 30 percent of the care of the annual income. Anybody making 30 that let's let's be honest. Anybody making 50,000 or less in this community is not ever going to get a job and not ever going to get a place to live. If you don't put pressure that's different than from being able to build it. It's being able to occupy it. I want to see people move in who are low income. Thank you, Gregory. We'll go to Evan. Yes, good evening. My name is Evan Wigg. Thank you for having this discussion. I'm a resident here in Santa Rosa, and I just want to first off, thanks. Thank the council for taking this up and really want to encourage the city to look for more incentives for downtown development as a whole, especially getting housing downtown to really create, you know, 24 hour experience of life downtown as opposed to just offices and businesses that stay open during the daytime. I think it's really going to increase the quality of life, economic opportunities, and the whole feel of Santa Rosa. I also, you know, based on that, the last comment, I do also want to really encourage the city to seek any solutions to increase those incentives where units are made more affordable, whether it's affordable by rights or smaller units, units that are going to be available, accessible to lower income and even even middle income residents. So just anything you can do to create incentives that even further incentive affordability or increasing affordability or even just providing mid-rate housing options, I think, should really be considered for all the options. So thanks again. We'd love to see revitalized downtown. Alright, thank you so much, Evan. I'm going to go ahead bring it back. Council Member Fleming, I think we have three resolutions. Can you please put a motion on the table? Indeed. And, you know, what's really great about this is that it is our council enacting our goals, and it has been one that developers and residents can count on for continuity for some time. The first draft of this was enacted prior to my getting on council, and now we're on the third council that has taken action on these items. And I want to send a really special thank you to staff for working on this, both previous and current staff members. And so with that, it is my pleasure to begin reading a lot of numbers and words to you. Alright, are we ready? I bring a resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Rosa rescinding resolution number RES2019-066 and setting forth a revised schedule of the capital facilities fees charged pursuant to Chapter 21-04 of the Santa Rosa City Code and amending the eligibility criteria for the high density, multifamily residential incentive program to increase high density development and affordable housing downtown and wave further reading of the text. Second. We have a motion from Council Member Fleming and a second from Council Member Sawyer. Is there any additional discussion from the Council? No comments? Alright, Madam City Clerk, please call the roll. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Schwedhelm. Aye. Council Member Sawyer. Aye. Council Member Rogers. Aye. Council Member McDonald. Aye. Council Member Fleming. Aye. Vice Mayor Alvarez. Aye. Mayor Rogers. Aye. That motion passes with seven ayes. And our second motion. Need resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Rosa for rescinding resolution number RES-2019-067 and setting forth a revised schedule of park development impact fees charged pursuant to Chapter 19-70 of the Santa Rosa City Code and amending the eligibility criteria for the high density, multifamily incentive program to increase high density development and affordable housing downtown and wave further reading of the text. Second. Motion from Fleming. Second from Sawyer. Let's call the vote. Council Member Schwedhelm. Aye. Council Member Sawyer. Aye. Council Member Rogers. Aye. Council Member McDonald. Aye. Council Member Fleming. Aye. Vice Mayor Alvarez. Aye. Mayor Rogers. Aye. That motion passes with seven ayes. Alright, and the last cliffhanger here is resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Rosa for rescinding resolution number 2018-169 and establishing payment options for water and wastewater demand fees and amending the eligibility criteria for the high density, multifamily residential incentive program to increase high density development and affordable housing downtown. Second. And a motion from Fleming and a second from Sawyer. Let's call the vote. Council Member Schwedhelm. Aye. Council Member Sawyer. Aye. Council Member Rogers. Aye. Council Member McDonald. Aye. Council Member Fleming. Aye. Vice Mayor Alvarez. Aye. Mayor Rogers. Aye. That motion passes with seven ayes. Great, thank you so much Council. And great work, Director Hartman. Let's jump back to our first public comment period for the night. If you have a comment that falls within the jurisdiction of the Santa Rosa City Council but is not on our agenda tonight, go ahead and approach the podium. Do you want to kick us off, Doug? Mayor Rogers, thank you, Council. Thank you for all your hard work and all your investment in downtown. Unfortunately, I was regrettably unavailable to be here last week to continue our alignment with the beliefs of the downtown action organization as it relates to the designation of the Third Street Garage, which always grew up the number. But putting it in the surplus land designation, I would really beg of the Council, as I support the 14 staff members of ER, Sawyer Jewelers and the 12 of Max Delicatescent, that the documents that you base that decision on may not have completely taken into account what it's gonna take for us to survive the uncertainty of that designation. So I am asking of the Council to reconsider or to reconsider their action of putting that in the surplus land act and give us some more time to get together as a group as we have so far over the millions of years I've been down here and follow through with finding ways to continue on the pattern of increasing housing, but at the same time, not at the sacrifice of the potential impact of what it will do to our business. While I did and still do continue to support the reunification of Courthouse Square, we did unfortunately get to see the first town impact of what a six month delay in that project did to the overall traffic patterns to downtown and how hard and how much money it's cost to restore that. And again, the Council and staff have been amazing in all of their efforts, but I'm begging of you to reconsider the action you took in last week's meeting. So thank you for your time and thank you for potentially your reconsideration. All right, thank you so much Doug. We'll go to Mr. DeWitt. It takes a few seconds to boot up. Hello, my name is DeWayne DeWitt. I'm from Roseland. What we have here on an overhead, which is hard for you to see is about equitable development planning that's community based. This is specifically from the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The picture is of the administrator at that time in 2009 at their national conference talking about how traditional urban development patterns have emphasized growth at the city edge, resulting in sprawl and creating places of disinvestment in the city center. That's happened specifically in Santa Rosa for many decades. Roseland has been one of the disadvantaged communities because of that. The Brownfields initiative at the federal level has been going on for over 25 years. This is from 20 years ago when Roseland residents went to the conference up in Portland, Oregon. We bring this up because essentially often the city's talking about housing and fairness and resiliency, sustainability, those are the buzzwords that get used. This is from the 2016 Roseland Area Spabastopol Road specific plan community engagement directives. I was a part of the mushroom committee for that. And I have here from the Planning Commission of 2016 a report item about Roseland Area projects and how the area was going to become a part of the downtown station area specific plan and how it become a priority development area. The dilemma is that our disadvantaged Roseland area which has the census district lowest on the Sonoma County portrait has basically become the poster child for folks to use saying we're gonna build out Bellevue which is to the south by about a mile and a quarter. That's fine for those folks in Bellevue but the people up along Spabastopol Road the people who've lived in that community for 30, 40 and 50 years are the ones who need to be helped and they need to make sure that anything that comes forward from the American Rescue Plan Act funding should be helping them first and foremost instead of going out and developing the green fields to the south. I know that you folks are big on land development and land sharking is an important part of local government but the real deal for us is we should be getting the benefits of improvement. We should be thanking Bill Gallagher who's building the Boys and Girls Club on Spabastopol Road right now with private funding. It would be really nice if the city of Santa Rosa was using some of that federal money to help get those things that Rosalind residents need up there. You talk about putting them all the way down to the south in Bellevue people aren't going to ride the bus or their bicycles down there. That's gonna be where they drive their cars to an exact opposition to what you talk about with your resilient sustainability. Please help Rosalind first, thank you. Thank you Dwayne. Do we have any other comments in the chamber? Go ahead to Eric. Yes, thank you very much. This is Eric Frazier and I'm with an organization called Truth and Tourism. I'm here to give an update on short-term rental policy in the city. So a couple things to cover. First is the community meetings that have been called. First of all, there are a bit of a ruse actually. What happens is that the massive amounts of people that attend these meetings are divided into groups and then a staff person from planning and economic development heads up each group. The people in the groups can't hear the comments that are being made from participants in the subgroups. And then the staff reports the crux of the comments in the breakout sessions, if you will. And depending on the staff member, Ms. Quote's people, Ms. interprets what's being said. It's a bit of a sham, a bit of a ruse. I can't believe you allow that to go on. But I guess it's not that unusual because when we look at it, I guess that's how you do that. So we know. I don't know if it focuses on that. But at any rate, when we look at the permit applications, there's quite a backlog of permit applications to be approved. In fact, it looks like the oldest application that's still in plan review is from October of 2021, over a year, when we look at these individual files, what we find is that typically the substance of the application is approved within a matter of a couple of weeks, but it sits in languages probably for good effect because what you guys are doing is you wanna drum up more code enforcement files.  Even people that have a history of paying TOT, for years and years and years. Really, it's a really shameful act that the city is doing there. And so I did mention permits and code enforcement ganging up on permittees, and that seems to be pretty disgusting, actually, but it gets worse. So here in this particular report, just recently came to light, of course, none of you guys on the DS would tell us about this, that a city employee was arrested for attempted extortion, not just any city employee, but a code enforcement officer. And given the amount of shenanigans that are going on with the short term rental policy, I imagine this is just the tip of the iceberg. In fact, some of the things that you've done to limit the amount of permits is ripe for exploitation and corruption. What do we have to do to get to the bottom of it? Why don't you do your jobs, the oversight jobs that you were elected to do? Do we have to pull in outside forces, the Attorney General's Office or something, to get to the bottom of the massive corruption that the city has become? Thank you. Thank you, Eric. Is there anybody else in the chambers who would like to provide public comment for non-agenda items? Seeing nobody moving to the podium, let's go to Zoom where we have Brian, followed by Natalie. Good evening, members of the city council. My name is Brian Winter. I'm a land use attorney with Miller, Starr, Regalia and Walnut Creek. I wanted to briefly comment on the issue with respect to the city's property and the surplus land act. I'm also a former city attorney for Walnut Creek, a frequent special counsel for public agencies throughout California. And I've handled many projects, both as a city attorney and as a private sector attorney in connection with the surplus land statute. And I wanted to note for the city council's benefit that one of the exemptions to the surplus land act is for property that a local agency is exchanging for another property necessary for the agency's use. The question of what's necessary for the agency's use is up to the agency. And in my opinion, if the city of Santa Rosa has the desire to relocate at city hall, it could do so in exchange for another property that under that exemption of the surplus land statute would qualify as necessary for the city's use, even though the city already presently has a city hall. So if the city desires to move its city hall to a different location, it could use the exemption under the surplus land statute to do so. All right, thank you, Brian. Let's go to Natalie, followed by Adrienne. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Great. Good evening. My name is Natalie Balfour and I'm here on behalf of Airport Business Center. And tonight we're just asking you to reconsider the approval of resolution RES-2022-234, which was passed last week, declaring garage five surplus lands. We submitted a short letter along with a letter from the Chamber of Commerce, which supports postponing this decision. And I also attached a letter from the Downtown Action Organization, which we actually voted to support never developing garage five in any way. We're not asking that you be convinced of any idea that we have at this point. We're just asking that we be given the time to look into it with you guys further. This includes looking into both structural and legal concepts that have been brought up specifically in the last meeting. Giving us more time does not harm the city. Worst case, it would be inconvenience. But keeping garage five declared surplus, all but guarantees our building goes bankrupt. When laying this decision, please choose not just our livelihood, but the livelihood of property and business owners dependent on the garage for their success like ER Sawyer, who you heard from earlier. Please choose our livelihood over inconvenience and reconsider the approval resolution RES-2022-234. Thank you. Thank you, Natalie. Let's go to Adrian. Hi, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Okay, great. Thank you, Council. My name's Adrian Covert, resident of Downtown and lead for local Santa Rosa Yimbi Group of Volunteers supportive of developing more housing, particularly Downtown and all the benefits that has. First, wanted to speak in favor of the resolution from last week to declare the parking, the surplus lands act on parking garages three and five. There's just a stupendous surplus of parking and this land is totally not used in an economically productive way or a productive way for folks who live and visit Downtown. So thank you for your leadership on that. And I just want to touch on something in the previous discussion about the incentives Downtown, it was mentioned how 7,000 homes are going to be built Downtown over the next decade or so. And that's a huge opportunity for the city really excited about it. It's the right direction, but it is going to cause without intentionally planning around it, it could potentially cause a lot of traffic congestion, a lot of cars moving around Downtown. Again, if we're not intentional about the role of transit, walkability and bike ability, because about 20% of all trips in the city of Santa Rosa are less than two miles. These are trips that we can easily mode shift a lot of people to bikes into walking if it's pleasant and safe to do. And we know that people will take that option when given safe and pleasant alternatives to driving because that's what happens in other cities who prioritize it. There's a warning, however, in what's been happening with the discussion around Mendocino Reconfiguration. That's a project to repaint Mendocino from Courthouse Square to college. And it looked like we were really close to getting some protected bike lanes on that stretch, which is crucial. Protected bike lanes are really crucial for making biking safe and pleasant experience for people and families to bike. When you don't have a protected bike lane, it's only the most fearless rugged riders who are out there, a small fraction of the potential ridership. So protected bike lanes are crucial. However, at the last minute, the fire department expressed opposition to the planning department about the protected bike lanes. And it looks like we're gonna go back to ending up with unprotected bike lanes on Mendocino with even more parking spots created. And given the surplus that we have for parking, that we're gonna end up backing ourselves into a solution that creates more parking on Mendocino just seems like a big lost opportunity for the city. So I recommend the council begin some conversations between the department of transportation and the fire department on ways to get around. Thank you. Do we have any prerecorded voicemails? We have no recorded voicemails for this item. Okay, Madam City Manager, let's go on to item 14.2, please. Item 14.2, adoption of emergency operations plan. Emergency preparedness manager, Bregman will lead the discussion. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Rogers and Vice Mayor Alvarez along with the esteem council. My name is Neil Bregman and I'm the emergency preparedness manager for the city of Santa Rosa. We are here tonight, that slide is slightly off. We are here tonight to look at the emergency operations plan update for the 2022 emergency operations plan. Not sure what's going on at the slide, we'll move forward. Presenting with me tonight is, there we go. No, these are not the right slides. I apologize. Presenting with me tonight is Brittany Miller, Deputy Emergency Preparedness Coordinator. Do we have the right slides? Good evening, Mayor and council members. I'm happy to just speak to you because it looks like we had a slight glitch with the wrong presentation being loaded. So I will just speak to you to what I wanted to cover anyway. So our emergency operations plan is meant to be reviewed and updated every five years. So that is why we are here today. The last update was in 2017, which unfortunately that looks like the slide deck that you all had to look at for a moment. So what I wanna do with you today is cover two of the primary changes we made to the documents since 2017. And then the smaller changes that were made can be found within the plan itself. So the emergency operations plan structure was one of the primary changes that we made since 2017. And the reason for that is we wanted to align with national best practices. So within the basic plan itself, the way the content is distributed and outlined is a slightly different format than you may have seen in 2017, but it still covers all pertinent information related to the emergency operations plan. The way that the plan is structured is there is a basic plan that covers all the overarching information pertinent to our emergency response in the city. And then there are attachments, which are our annexes that are both functional annexes and hazard specific annexes. And those specifically are mass care and shelter, alert and warning, and damage assessment for our three functional annexes. And then earthquake, wildfire, storm, terror, active shooter, and public safety power shutoff for our five hazard specific annexes. Now the EOP is meant to be all hazards, meaning that what is in the basic plan applies to any hazard we could face in the city. But it was important to have these hazard specific annexes because there are specific processes unique to that respective hazard that we wanted to pay attention to within the emergency operations plan. We also have within each of the annexes, there is a designated structure as well for how the information is presented. So as you go through each annex, they will look and feel very similar, covering the purpose, scope, and planning assumptions for each of the annex, roles, and responsibilities within each of the city departments. The concept of operations, which is really the meat of each of the documents, and then any attachments that were deemed appropriate for the emergency operations plan. Now I wanted to spend a minute, if you're not familiar with what an emergency operations plan is, just covering what it is and what it isn't to give it a little bit of context. The EOP is a high level document and it outlines key steps that are taken by city departments in the city of Santa Rosa. It outlines who has responsibility for what tasks during an emergency. And like I mentioned before, it's an all hazards document with the exception of where we highlighted specific actions in our hazard specific annexes. What the EOP isn't, and often this gets confused so we feel like it's important to highlight. The emergency operations plan is not tactical procedures or checklists. It's a very high level document covering the who does what within the city organization. In any type of standard operating procedure or tactical level checklist is managed within the respective department that it belongs to and is not part of the emergency operations plan. Coordinator Miller, can you give us one second? I really want these slides to get loaded. I think this topic is too important. There we go. Yes ma'am. So if you could please move forward to slide five, that is where I was speaking to. Perfect, thank you so much for that. Are we good to go? Persee, thank you. Okay, thank you. So I'm on what the EOP isn't right now. So I mentioned it's not those tactical procedures. It's also not a document talking about how the city coordinates with the county or how multiple cities coordinate with each other during a disaster. That's covered in the Sonoma County Emergency Operations Plan because they are the lead for making sure that all cities are coordinating and they provide support directly to us. So if there's any questions related to how the city coordinates with the county that could be found in their plan specifically. And it's also not a continuity of operations plan which we published separately, which outlines how as a city we're going to ensure that our essential functions continue no matter what. And we actually had to enact our coop during the COVID pandemic. So very relevant plan considering what we just went through the last several years. It's also not a mitigation plan which I know you all are familiar with the city's hazard mitigation plan which outlines what our hazards are and what we're doing to address those hazards specifically. And then it's also not the city general plan. But what I will say is that the EOP or the emergency operations plan does kind of weave amongst all of those other plans and they all support one another. Next slide please. One, the other thing that's new this year besides just the restructuring of the plan to meet national best practices is Senate Bill 160, which in the state of California requires a county to address cultural competency within its plan update. So whenever it's due for its next update for the emergency operations plan. As I mentioned, it's required at the county level only but we voluntarily decided to follow the processes outlined in Senate Bill 160 for two primary purposes. We wanted to align with the Sonoma County Department of Emergency Management and their emergency operations plan which was just adopted by the Board of Supervisors earlier this year, since they are a key partner of ours in emergency response. And also frankly, we just felt it was the right thing to do. So we took the steps necessary to make sure that we addressed all the key aspects of cultural competency within our plan which I'll cover in more detail in the following slides. Next slide please. So the two terms that are key to Senate Bill 160 are defined here for you. Ultimately what cultural competency and what Senate Bill 160 is all about is ensuring that our procedures for emergency response are inclusive and that they address the unique needs of our community in a nutshell. That's what it asked us to do and it outlined very specific steps for how we should do it. Next slide please. So as part of Senate Bill 160, it required the county to integrate cultural competency in these five specific areas listed here. And the way that it outlined that we should do so is by forming an emergency operations plan advisory council which we did. And it was made up of community leaders as well as subject matter experts within city departments where they reviewed the plan updates that we made and provided input to us. They supported us in the process for soliciting community input. And they also evaluated any public comment that we received to ensure that it fit properly within the scope of the emergency operations plan. So as part of that process we held two public meetings, one in-person and one virtual where we gave the community the opportunity to provide us direct feedback. And we also created a survey on a public facing let's connect page where the community could access copies of the basic plan and all of the annexes in English and Spanish could review them, fill out a survey and provide us comment through the website. And that was open the entire month of September. So overall, we feel that we are, we feel very confident that we gave the community the opportunity to provide us critical input to our planning efforts and to ensure that we're addressing cultural competency and the standards that are outlined in Senate Bill 160. Next slide please. So that is the end of my presentation and the resolution that you have in front of you this evening is the recommendation that you adopt our 2022 version of the emergency operations plan in its entirety. So I will stand by for any questions you may have. Great, thank you so much, Brittany and Neil. Council, do we have any questions on the item? Seeing none, we'll go to public comment. If you're interested in providing comment in the chamber, please approach the podium. Seeing none, I don't see any hands on Zoom either. Do we have any voicemails? No voicemails on this item. All right, I'll go ahead and bring it back then. Council Member Rogers, I believe this is your item. I move a resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Rosa adopting the City of Santa Rosa Emergency Operations Plan and way for the reading of the text. Second. That was a motion from Council Member Rogers and a second from Council Member Fleming. Any additional discussion? Madam Clerk, please call the vote. Council Member Schwedhelm. Aye. Council Member Sawyer. Aye. Council Member Rogers. Aye. Council Member McDonald. Aye. Council Member Fleming. Aye. Vice Mayor Alvarez. Aye. Mayor Rogers. Aye. That motion passes with seven ayes. Okay, Council, we're gonna take a two minute recess while we make sure that we have all the folks we need for our Council reorganization and then we'll come back with item 17.1. All right, Council Members, start to make your way back, please. All right, Madam City Clerk, please call the roll to reestablish our quorum. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Schwedhelm. Here. Council Member Sawyer. Here. Council Member Rogers. Present. Council Member McDonald. Here. Council Member Fleming. Here. Vice Mayor Alvarez. Present. Mayor Rogers. Here. I could show that all Council Members are present. All right, Madam City Manager, item 17.1, please. Item 17.1, declaration of results for the general municipal election held on Tuesday, November the 8th, 2022. For one, the purpose of electing members for four district-based offices of the City Council for districts two, four and six, each for a full year term of four years and district three for a term of two years. Two, submitting to the voters measure H and relating to the sales tax measure. Measure I, relating to district-based elections and measure J, relating to city charter language update and modernization. Can you share the presentation? Thank you. Thank you, Council, Mayor and Council. I'm gonna, this is to declare the results for the general municipal election held on November 8th, 2022. Next slide, please. So as you know, the general municipal election was held on November 8th, 2022, pursuant to Santa Rosa Charter, section 30, and the Sonoma County registrar voters has canvassed the returns of the election and has certified the results and we receive those results from the registrar's office on December 2nd. Next slide, please. So following the completion of the canvass of votes and before installing the new officers, the city council must adopt a resolution declaring the results of the election for districts two, three, four and six, and for city measure H, measure I and measure J. Next slide, please. So it is recommended by the city clerk that the council, one, by resolution, recite the fact and declare the results of the consolidated general municipal election held on Tuesday, November 8th, 2022, for the election of the city council of Mark Stapp for district two, Victoria Fleming for district four, Jeff Okrepke for district six, each for a full term of four years, and Diana McDonald for district three for a term of two years to fill the remainder of that term for that district and the approval of the city of Santa Rosa measure H, city of Santa Rosa funding for public safety, measure I, city of Santa Rosa charter amendment, district-based elections of city council members, measure J, city of Santa Rosa city charter update and modernization, and next slide, please. And two, adopt an ordinance amending chapter three dash 26 of the center of the city code to extend a quarter cent transaction and use tax to fund public safety and violence prevention programs and to update permissible uses of the tax revenues. Thank you, Madam City Clerk. I'm gonna go to public comment and see if anybody has comments on the certification of the results. We'll have an opportunity to also talk about the candidates that are being certified after this. Thank you, thank you for your patience. Can we get this in focus? Thank you so much, thank you so much. Yes, thank you. And again, this is Eric Frazier. Thank you for your patience and your time, voter in the fourth district. Congratulations to all the candidates that won their contest. That's really good, but I have to report on something that's pretty serious here. And again, this contributes to the erosion of the public trust in a big way. So while we welcomed in district elections, I'm afraid the council's a bit derelict and actually really understanding the significance of them. For instance, in the fourth district where I'm a voter, once again, we have a candidate that won by a minority of the votes. So we see here this candidate coming in at 40% of the elected, of the total. And that relates to just 4.62% of all city registered voters. That'll be significant in a bit. But this is the second election that this has happened where my district is represented by somebody who's elected by a minority of the voters, hardly a consensus. Also important to note out, and I see this hasn't been discussed, is that there is significant undercounts in these district elections. In the third district, we see that there was an undercount of over 4,000 ballots. That's a lot. In the 2020 election, there was an undercount also in the third district of 5,100 ballots. Now, is that because that voters are not educated, that it's a district election and they're supposed to vote for one or is this voter disenfranchisement? They don't trust the process. Why is that so outrageously large compared to the other districts? I'm sorry, my data set isn't complete because before we had district elections, of course we had general elections. And so when a candidate was elected, even though it wasn't the majority of the vote that was electing that candidate, it still was a significant amount of voters that were supporting it. Ernesto Alveras received 37.64% of the vote, 39% for Chris Rogers originally when you ran in a general election. And now we're on the precipice where Chris, you can't be a mayor anymore apparently, but this is significant stuff here and really points to the defects that we have sort of built in place to our approach of district elections without rank choice voting or primaries to really winning down the pool of candidates so we have a majority winner. I feel like my civil rights, my voting rights have been abused and continue to be abused by the city council. So I think maybe we need to get back on the phone with the attorney that filed the letter showing that the city was in violation of the California Voting Rights Act to try to have you guys do your job of oversight. Thank you, appreciate it. Thank you, Eric. Go ahead, sir. Hello, my name is Anthony. I'm from district one. I would just like to congratulate all candidates at one. During this campaign season for Sonoma State, I was the political insider. So for my capstone project, David McKinnon gave me district two, four and six to cover and so I was able to work with the legal voting voters and I created the candidate forum questions for him. And then I would like to thank council member elect, Mark Stafford, showing up to my presentation in front of my class. And I would just like to congratulate all the winners of this election. And also in district four, you guys, it was a lot of money I had to go through. So thank all you guys. Thank you, sir. Do we have any prerecorded voicemails? We have no voicemails for this item. All right, I'm gonna bring it back and ask council member Sawyer to put a motion on the table for the certification of the election results. There's somebody at the other podium who wishes to speak. Oh, my apologies. Go ahead, Omar. Good evening, everyone. My name is Omar Lopez on behalf of Generation Housing where we lead the movement for more, more diverse and more affordable housing. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Mayor Rogers for your service to the community. It takes commitment to dedicate your time and energy to public office. Your service, especially in the complex and contested area of housing, has been a testament to your engagement and desire to listen to residents evolving needs. Thank you. I'd also like to thank our sitting and outgoing members, Tom Schwedholm and John Sawyer with a combined 32 years of service and each having held the mayor's scabble during their tenure. I wanna thank you for your continued vision, perseverance and dedication. To our newly elected council members, welcome in a heartfelt congratulations on your success. We appreciate everyone who is willing to put their vision out for their community to hear and to test it on a campaign trail. And we hope the process has made you even more determined to accomplish these goals. For those who may not know me, I've been a proud resident of Santa Rosa for nearly a decade. I was honored to serve on the Santa Rosa City Schools Board of Education as a student board member amidst the COVID pandemic and through impactful decisions on things like on campus, uniform, public safety officers. Since then, I've been inspired to become as involved as possible, advocating for much needed change. I hope to continue living in the community I have come to love and cherish, but the harsh reality I and so many others face is that I don't know if I will be able to afford it to live here. And even if I can, will it be a budget worth living off? I like to do better than to just barely pay my rent. My reality is not unique. It is shared by many young people across our county and city. While we have taken strides to better our housing and cost of living crisis, there's still work to do. I'm excited and hopeful for what we will accomplish by working together. Thank you for your time and your service. Thank you. And Jen, is it on the certification of the election results? Or is it about the outgoing council members? Both. Mostly.  Give us two minutes, let us certify the results and then I'll give everybody a chance to make comments about our outgoing and incoming council, if that works for you. Fair enough. I will wait patiently. Excellent. So now council member Sawyer, let's get that motion on the table. Thank you, Mayor. So for my last and final introduction of a resolution of the council of the city of Santa Rosa, residing the fact of the general municipal election held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, declaring the results and such other matters as provided by law and waive further reading of the text. Second. We have a motion from council member Sawyer and a second from council member Rogers. Let's call the vote. Council member Schwedhelm. Aye. Council member Sawyer. Aye. Council member Rogers. Aye. Council member McDonald. Aye. Council member Fleming. Aye. Vice Mayor Alvarez. Aye. Mayor Rogers. Aye. That motion passes with seven ayes. All right, thank you so much, Madam City Clerk. And obviously as we declare the election results from here in 2022, that means that we are saying goodbye to two incredible public servants that have served this community through, not just more than a decade and decades as a city employee and as a police chief and as a council member and as a mayor, but also through some of our most challenging times dealing with one disaster after another. I wanted to just thank both of them, not just for what they've done for Santa Rosa, but it's meant a lot to me to be able to work with the two of you. I think that there is no better compliment that you can pay a public servant than to say that they worked hard for the community that they worked for. And that certainly is something that I know applies to both of the two of you and not just your experience, but your personalities are gonna be really missed moving forward from the day as, I know Jackie and I know Dan are really excited to get the two of you home a little bit more and I just wanna say thank you to them for sharing the two of you with this community, with this council and I know we'll still see you from the day as, so I just wanna say thank you. We have a couple of resolutions for the two of you from our legislative delegation from Senator McGuire, Senator Dodd, Assembly Member Levine, Assembly Member Wood, I believe Aguiar Curry is on there as well. They just really wanted to express how much they've appreciated working with the two of you over the last couple of years in particular. I'm gonna kick it over and see if there are any additional comments that council members would like to make and I'll get you guys your resolutions for you to take a look at. Council Member Fleming. Yes, thank you, Mayor. You know, I learned so much from the two of you and you know, in particular, there's things that each of you bring to this, they're just so special and you know, Tom, your commitment regardless of what you might think about the way that somebody does something to the process and to the principles is unwavering and your character is unimpeachable and so, you know, teaching me where the lanes were and how to stay in it and leading by example rather than being dogmatic about it was just an incredible experience and I will never forget those lessons and the way that they were delivered. To you, John, I would love to be on vacation with you. I've always imagined that being stuck on a desert island with enough tequila would be no more fun than anyone but sorry to my family, but you. So if you're ever planning on going on vacation, please do invite me but seriously, you taught me how to disagree with someone while being agreeable and kind and respectful and through our many disagreements and a few agreements along the way, I believe we've made well reasoned policy and we've done well for the community as a whole and I've made a friend along the way. So we are losing two incredible members here and I for one will miss you both heartily. Mayor, will we have time later to talk about your service? Great, so I'll rest my comments there. Thank you, Council Member. Let's go to Council Member Rodgers. So short and sweet, I have definitely enjoyed working with the two of you. I look forward to working with you longer because I have your phone numbers and you both promise to answer the phone when I call but you guys have taught me so much and just being on the Council for these two years, I'm happy that I was able to sit with you. I'm happy that you are always able to give an unbiased opinion when something is asked of you despite how you may feel or how you're gonna vote on a certain issue. So I just wanna thank you and I also wanna thank your families for your sacrifice and your time and for allowing them to serve for the years that they did because I definitely know it was a sacrifice and it was a lot of time. So you can have them back but on behalf of the city, I would like to thank you and thank you guys so much for everything. Council Member McDonald? Yeah, I wanna say thank you as well and Tom, I think what I've inherited from you and it might be true is I just need more data on this item before I can vote on it. So I just wanna say thank you to both of you so much for all that you've done for the city for so many years. We're all trying to figure out how do we retain you in another way because your institutional knowledge on this incredible city is so, so valued. And John, I really appreciate that you are just such a true statesman and when we don't, when we do disagree on something, you're able to call me the next day and talk to me about something completely different when I think that you're gonna call and yell at me. So I appreciate you both so much and as Natalie also said that the support from the families are critical when we do this work and so thank you to the families for the decades of service that both of you have brought to our city. It's been an honor serving with you, clearly you're smart since you chose me. Council Member, excuse me, Vice Mayor? You know, I was wondering, Tom, if we gave you a little bit more real estate in your cubicle, would you be willing to stay? It was after deciding factor right there. No, to both of you. It's been a pleasure. It was too short. But I do appreciate everything that you've offered. That's knowledge, that's experience. And I heard it before, the unbiased opinions to make sure that we're as best prepared as we can be to serve the city of San Rosa. And as a young politician to have come on the council and thought that every item was gonna be a fight and to discover that it was exactly the opposite that I was gonna be surrounded by people who wanted me to succeed. To wanted to see District One succeed. At that level, I appreciate everything about both of you gentlemen and you will be sorely missed. Thank you. Let's go and go to public comment for folks who'd like to provide comment and I'll start with you, Jen. Mayor, may I make a few comments? Oh yes, absolutely, my apologies. So Tom and John, I just wanna let you know that it's been my pleasure and honor to have worked with you over the years and to serve as your city clerk during the last few years of your terms in office. You both have been gentlemen and I appreciate all the work that you have done to support the employees of the organization, the residents of Santa Rosa and especially the support you have given me over the years as I've moved through my career that has meant a lot to me. I will miss you both, but I wish you all the best in your retirement and I look forward to seeing a lot of pictures on Facebook. Go ahead, Jen. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening, council members. Jen Close, I get to be the executive director of Generation Housing and I want to echo Omar's appreciation for our outgoing council members, council member Schwetham, council member Sawyer, and join in his welcome with the new council members. Tom and John, your list of accomplishments is too long to go over tonight and in any way, I would prefer to specifically acknowledge not what you did, but how you did it. You have both been models of civility, models of how to listen and of true open-mindedness. You've both led with strength, but also with humility and real generosity of spirit and a true commitment to be of service. You are a model of this. Tom and John, you will be greatly missed. Mayor Rogers, thank you for bringing an even-handedness and real professionalism to your job as mayor. Thank you for not being afraid to dive into the muddy nuance of issues. And you run a very tight meeting, which is not easy and the importance of which is underestimated by folks. You have set the bar high for your successors. To the sitting and new council members, you'll notice that when generation housing comes to comment here, whether it's congratulatory or questioning or advocating or critical or some combination of those, we always conclude with gratitude for your service. And what we want you to know is that this is not a throwaway perfunctory cut and paste line. It is cut and paste, but that's just so we never forget it. We mean this deeply. We mean this for real, even when we disagree with you. Every person on our team has served in some capacity as public service and we know that your job is hard. You have to know a ton. And the decisions you make are difficult and weighty and you have to do it in public, which is a weird way to do a job. Doing this job takes tremendous courage. It's the courage to be vulnerable and public. It's the courage to say, no matter what I do, someone's gonna be mad at me. And you do this at great expensive time, our most valuable and totally non-renewable resource, and you do it for nearly no money or very little money and congratulations, by the way, for the modest raise. I would give you more. But in any case, we always trust your good intentions and your commitment to serving the community the very best you can. And for that, we are always grateful and we always mean it. So we thank you for your service that you've given. We thank you in advance for your service and for working with you to help move the needle on housing. Thank you. Thank you, Jen. We'll go to Brian. Good evening, Brian Ling, Senator's resident. Just, I have to take the opportunity to pile on the accolades here briefly. Thank you and congratulations to council members and former mayors, Tom and John. They insist I call them Tom and John and that's just part of the beauty there, I think. You have both been exemplary leaders in our community throughout both your personal careers as well as your public service. Your dedication to our city, our families, and visitors has always been amplified by your commitment, your confidence, your character, consistency in care. You've set a very high bar for your successors on the city council. Thank you again. We so admire, appreciate all that you have done and look forward to seeing you in our community and continuing to enjoy the fruits of your work. Thank you. Thank you, Brian. Brendan? Mayor Rogers and council members, my name is Brendan Sweeney. I'm here tonight representing Congressman Mike Thompson. Thank you for your extensive service to our community, council member Schwedhelm and Sawyer. Your leadership has guided us through some of our darkest and most challenging years and we would not be in as good a position as we are now without your support. Tonight I'm also bringing with me two congressional record statements which are remarks delivered by the congressmen in the well of the house, permanently entered into the US congressional record in honor of the achievements of council members Schwedhelm and Sawyer so that we have a permanent record of their service to our community and our wider nation. Thank you both. Thank you. Wayne? DeWayne DeWitt, congratulations for getting those nice congressional recognitions, Mr. Sawyer and Mr. Schwedhelm. I wanted to say thank you and I also wanted to say something in honor of Jack Osborne of Del Monte Court who used to come and talk with you in the past and he's about 95, 96 now and I bet he'd be here to thank you for your civility and your understanding, listening to folks who sometimes doubt the wisdom but know that you folks will take the solmonic approach. You've done very well during your time here and I think it's very good that you were able to serve our city and help serve the community as we have this new change with Ms. McDonald already here but then three new members. It's congratulations to four folks coming forward to serve our community and I'd like to say that to them right now. I can't stay for the reorganization and the election of the mayor. I just like to put in right now that I hope you guys, especially you new folks coming in would look to the west of the city, look to those folks, those people of color, look to those folks who haven't had much chance to be in the leadership role here in Santa Rosa. There used to be a wall over here with the pictures of all the former mayors. It was almost all white men, there were a few white women on there and then it wasn't until Ernesto Oliveira's got here that we had a person of color. So I'm hoping that as we get our next mayor, it'll be a person of color from the west side of town. That would really be a good thing for the future and I know you'll perhaps talk amongst yourself and see who you might wanna be there but I'm from Roseland. I gotta advocate for Roseland. I gotta stand up here and say hey, give us a mayor from Roseland.  I don't know if it'll happen in my lifetime but what the hell, I gave it a shot folks and you heard it here. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you Dwayne. Does anybody else in the chamber want to provide a comment? Go ahead Maddie. Yeah, I just wanted to say to council members, Sawyer and Schwedhelm, thank you for your service. By the way, Maddie Hirschfield I'm with the North Bay Labor Council and Lord knows we have disagreed on just about everything. Not everything but just about everything. That said, I really do wanna thank you for your service. You both have served and been upstanding men that has, I've always enjoyed talking to even when we're disagreeing but you've been there, willing to talk and I thank you, thank you for your service. Outgoing mayor, Chris Rogers, you've done a fabulous job. I've known Chris Rogers since he was a pup and it's been really fun. Watching him grow into such a strong able leader. Thank you, thank you all for your service. Thank you Maddie. Anybody else in the chambers? All right, we'll go to our hands on Zoom. We have Callum followed by Ephron. Good evening and apologies I couldn't be there in person. Yeah, Callum Weeks here, resident Santa Rosa and I just really wanna take a brief moment to thank both John and Tom for really your strong leadership and incredible service to our community. It's been a hell of a hell of a past five years and certainly we've been through it all and it's really been an honor to be alongside you during some of the more challenging times in the history of this city and watching you as you know, kind of we progressed through these challenges together and so I wish you the very best and I know this is not goodbye I'm gonna see in the community because I think you both know it's not that easy to walk away and kind of fade into the shadows. So I'm sure we'll be seeing each other in the community and I very much look forward to working with both of you and wish you all the best and hope you take a well-earned vacations and be certain to have a drink and recognition of your work tonight. So with that, thank you again for everything that you've done and I'll see you all soon. Thank you so much, James, I'll Callum Weeks. We'll go to Ephron. I'll come back to the podium in a moment. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, honorable council members of Frencarillo with Burbank Housing. I also apologize. I cannot be there in person. I have a middle child at soccer practice this evening. Tom and John just want to take a moment and really reflect on your tenure on the council and the partnership that you demonstrated not only with the city's residents and with the Santa Rosa community but with the entire county, your efforts specifically to the annexation of Roseland having been discussed for well over two, three decades, your direct involvement and getting to that agreement between the city and the county, the violence prevention partnership was something that you both directly were involved in. Tom as a police officer and then as chief and then again as mayor for the both of you. That work has carried upon really the promise of working with our young people and ensuring long-term success and the adoption of the upstream investment model and evidence-based practices. But last but not least, you both were instrumental in getting Sonoma Clean Power launched. The city of Santa Rosa was instrumental in ensuring that that collaboration would get off the ground. And I still remember those phone calls at the early beginnings and your leadership and participation and ensuring that got over the finish line. And lastly, your direct involvement into addressing homelessness and housing as an affordable housing advocate and someone who's in the community, your leadership absolutely conveys a legacy that continues. And yes, the crisis is still there but the policies and the partnership and the collaboration that you both were able to deliberately focus your efforts on, I do believe is helping us at least break some of those challenges across the spectrum. Thank you for what you've done for the city and for the community. And we'll certainly hope you aren't strangers to continuing to be involved in community wellbeing. And last but not least, Mayor Rogers, thank you for your leadership as mayor, your steady hand and really your vision to creating and bringing forward strong policies to make the city a better place. Thank you. Thank you, Efren. With that, I'm gonna go ahead and bring it back. I'm gonna kick it over to Council Member Schwedhelm. Well, thank you, Mayor Rogers. Gotta tell you, it's really an uncomfortable feeling for me just to be sitting here and hearing this stuff. So I really appreciate all the comments. But thinking about it, one of the reasons why I feel a little bit uncomfortable I've always believed whether it be the police department or here on the dais, it's a team sport. It's not about me. It's not about I, it's about us, right? So you're hearing all these things and yes, we've been engaged in stuff, but it's been a labor of love. And literally once I start looking back and I talked to John Chief Krigin today, we attended a swearing-in ceremony for new officers. When I started with Santa Rosa Police, my baddest number was 132. And John shared with me today we're up to 605. I'm like, dang, when did that happen, right? Because it doesn't seem like almost 40 years, but you see there you're trying, I always wanted to try to make a difference in the community. And I just think it's where the city is in a great spot chiefly because of the two ladies sitting at that table, the city manager and city attorney are honestly rock stars. You know, and I think one of the biggest compliments I could pay you, Mayor Keisha, I kind of wish, not know John, I'm no threat, but I wish I could have been chief of police working for you because I like your management style. And I think you just, it's all about relationships and that's something that I know. I was a real big advocate for you coming here and selecting you because it is about relationships, people helping other people. You know, with some of the speakers said it's John and Tom, you know, we don't need the titles, right? And Eddie, I do have to correct you. I look at us as being politicians. We're local elected officials because there's a difference. We're here for the community, the local community and making that difference. And I can't speak highly enough for the staff. And again, when I started looking at the police officer numbers, how many different staff members? We have about 1,200 employees and having wonderful relations with them it makes all the difference in the world. So I know those here recognize that. The two that'll be joining us here, relationships are everything because it's not about ego, it's about working together to solve these challenging problems. And also the other thing I just wanted to say before closing here is that it's always been a great spot for me. And Chief Krigan used it today with one of the new employees. This is kind of like, you know, the Goldilocks. This is a perfect size city. And when I've gone throughout basically the world whether it's in Jeju, South Korea or Sister City when I was vice mayor or into Mexico at the mayors of Northern California Conference or in New York City or Washington, DC representing the interests of our city. I've always never hesitate to say, yeah, I'm from Santa Rosa. And it's not just about me. It's about the folks here. It's about the community and it's about the employees. It's always been a source of pride for me. And I really think that again, that's not an eye. That's an us. It doesn't happen by accident. And I do want to specifically thank John because John and I agreed to come on together. John four is second, third, fourth term. But when we started in 2014, it's been a magical journey. And same thing, Ernesto was out there. I've learned so much from you Ernesto both at the police department and in here. And lastly, some of you had mentioned and I appreciate you recognizing my lovely bride here. You can't do this by yourself, right? And Jackie's the only family member that I have here but also my two kids and now my grandson and I have a daughter-in-law and a son-in-law, it's awesome. But without their support when we're not here. And yes, there's some venting to be able to go home but it's been a very supportive environment. And I couldn't have done it without you honey. She's only experienced 35 years of it during our marriage but so there's five years I didn't have her but it's been an awesome experience. So thank you so much honey. Yes Natalie, she's gonna be seeing more of me and I hope she likes it, but thank you all. And my last comments for our mayor, as I look at this as a team sport, you've been the quarterback for the past two years, you've done a phenomenal job. I've learned a lot from you and more importantly, I think you've really made a difference in this community and I really appreciate it working with you. Thank you. Thank you council member. Council member Sawyer, John. Thanks Chris. Well first I would like to, I'm humbled by the, my colleagues kind words and those of others in the chamber. I want to thank the voters for putting me in this chair four times. It's a real distinct privilege to have served four terms on this council, both as at large and in district two as well. I will sincerely miss working with what I consider my city family, very, very hardworking individuals that make this city run. We as policy makers have a small part in that, but they really take the ball and run with it and get the work done and they are forced to be reckoned with. I'm proud of each and every one of them. I'm sure that my 35 years ago that my future husband Dan didn't expect to be the treasurer of six campaigns. I know I never expected to be sitting in this chair back then, but you know, things happen and one gets called and asked the question, would you be willing to serve or would you be willing to run that it takes that first? And it has been quite a journey and in short, the experience of a lifetime. And I'm honored to have been able to serve this community over the years. It's bittersweet that I leave this seat. I've spent almost a quarter of my life in this, not necessarily in this room, but doing the work. And it is, like I said before, it has been quite a journey and all journeys come to an end and that is what's happening tonight. And I look forward to watching the efforts and the successes of the new council members and this body and the people that I've had the pleasure of working with. And I've worked with a lot of council members and I've worked with a lot of mayors and I had the distinct privilege as well of working with three of the hardest working mayors that I had in my tenure here on the council. Both Tom and Chris really, especially during difficult times, showed us what mayors do and why they do it and how to get it done. Ernesto and I go way back. So I've had the privilege of working with three of the hardest working mayors that Santa Rosa has had. And I will miss being here on Tuesdays, but I'm ready to make a change and do something new. And so I thank you all and appreciate that some really unexpected acknowledgement and very pleased that the legislature had the time to create these and it was an unexpected gift and I appreciate it. And I know Chris, you had a lot to do with making that happen. Thank you council member. We'll excuse the two of you from the dais, but I just want to say thank you. Madam city clerk, we have item 17.2. Yes, I will do the administration of oath of office to the newly elected council members and the incumbents because this is a new term for you. And so I will go in order of the district starting with district two of Mark step. So if you could please come down to the front of the dais we will administer your oath. Testing market, please repeat after me, raise your right hand and repeat after me. I please state your name. I Mark step. Do solemnly swear. Do solemnly swear. That I will support and defend. That I will support and defend. The constitution of the United States. The constitution of the United States. And the constitution of the state of California. And the constitution of the state of California. Against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That it will bear true faith and allegiance. I will bear true faith and allegiance. To the constitution of the United States. The constitution of the United States. And the constitution of the state of California. And the constitution of the state of California. that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter. Discharge the duties upon which I'm about to enter. Congratulations, I just need you to sign your oath here and then you can take your seat at the desk. And I will be giving all of the newly elected council members a copy of the oath. Mark, here's your certificate of election, I'm sorry. Okay, Diana, if there's a better way to do this. So, Diana, please raise your right hand and repeat after me. I, Diana MacDonald. Do solemnly swear. Do solemnly swear. That I will support and defend. That I will support and defend. The Constitution of the United States. The Constitution of the United States. And the Constitution of the State of California. And the Constitution of the State of California. Against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That I will bear true faith and allegiance. That I will bear true faith and allegiance. To the Constitution of the United States. To the Constitution of the United States. And the Constitution of the State of California. and the Constitution of the State of California that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I'm about to enter congratulations okay Victoria please raise your right hand I Victoria Fleming do solemnly swear do solemnly swear that it will support and defend that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies foreign and domestic that I will bear true faith and allegiance that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the co