e're in the process of establishing two new tenancies in the next 30 days both of them are going to be within city limits i'm not opposed to the mission i'm not opposed to the purpose of housing assistance but i am opposed to this ordinance the ordinance forces individual housing providers to enter into a contractual relationship with the governmental agency with all the inherent and the predictable difficulties of doing so the city housing authority officials have themselves already recognized the flaws of the system for example their acknowledgement that hud is more prone to hold housing providers liable when issues fall apart than residents even when hud realizes that sometimes the tenants fault that things occur they don't have the system in place you asked about the number of inspections and the inspections that are done every two years yes those inspections are done but the results of the inspection are reported to the owners saying these are things you must do they do not turn around and say dear tenant these are the things that you must do to keep your to keep your voucher i don't want to spend my time drilling into this on a very low basis um it's the ordinance is the ordinance is bad at a very high level the way it's written the incentives are not there for housing providers i hear from those of you on the dais that you are looking at what sort of incentives will make this more palatable the outreach was not there with any sort of significant measure you want to know what sort of incentives will make this more desirable attractive to owners speak to us um the idea that a policy or a possibility would be to say that you have these programs that have a six-month coverage so you write a six-month contract that's not beneficial for anybody you do not want to have a tenant move in it's disruptive to them it's disruptive to the tenants disruptive to the owner to say somebody's going to move in and then six months later just move out that's not itself necessarily a solution it's a complicated situation requiring a very complex solution and you're not ready to vote on this tonight unless there's a lot of changes thank you thank you george uberte followed by shelly clark thank you council members uh i think you know absolutely and unequivocally i want to put my support behind this ordinance right i think it's a step in the right direction okay um no if we're talking about a step in the right direction right we need to talk about where we're coming from okay now council member rogers and and i think one thing i agree with my uh the previous speaker is that we could use more incentives for landlords here uh council member rogers talked about ordinances like these increasing uh you know the lack of discrimination or decreasing the lack of discrimination by about 12 percent right uh on the contrary though miss combs talked about uh you know actual figures in this report it says uh 61 uh percent landlords accept miss combs said that uh denials are much closer to 90 percent right now that's a problem right it's a very very serious problem now a few weeks ago uh we had a meeting with uh midpen housing who's going to build an affordable housing complex and the affordable housing complex that they were going to build uh was a segregated one now we're passing an anti-discrimination ordinance right now the housing complex that they were going to build was segregated across exactly the lines that we're talking about discrimination existing on right here right now discrimination and segregation go hand in hand they have a reinforcing effect okay you know we want to talk about why our landlords denying at a rate by miss combs estimation of as much as 90 percent you know guaranteed HUD money every month why are they doing it right it's very easy to have a negative perception of someone you have absolutely no contact with right that is what segregated so when we're talking about the situation that we're in right now where we have to pass ordinances against discrimination across these lines we need to think about the environment that that discrimination is coming out of right it's coming out of segregated environments now i want to encourage the council not only to pass this ordinance but to pass the clearest and strongest version of it that they possibly can all right this three units or no when people hear about this they need to hear you cannot deny period somebody based on their income period all right and it needs to be clear or you know even with that clarity like with mr miss rogers estimation 12 percent okay let's look at how we can get enforcement of this ordinance at the highest level that we can be right now we talked about bringing civil actions right but let's talk about code enforcement right let's talk about you know like council was talking about who is required to bring the action okay people who are using section eight are not in a position of having too much power they're in a position of having too little power the city needs to put its power behind this ordinance and behind those people shelly clark followed by steve jones hello i'm shelly clark i'm the housing policy attorney at legal aid um our executive director ronnie um asked me to give her apologies that she's not able to be here tonight we're here to ask you to pass this ordinance and offer our support in both educating landlords and tenants about the ordinance and also help enforcing the ordinance we're open to working with any groups and there's a way to come to a compromise and to get this thing done as miss howard mentioned earlier the city of santa rosa set aside 48 vouchers for fire survivor for fire survivors our disaster team told me today that of the vouchers that have been allocated to the most vulnerable of those people they're having a really hard time using them because of this exact problem in the past month we have had three clients who are disabled senior veterans who are unable to use bash vouchers because of this type of of discrimination many other jurisdictions across the state have enacted this type of ordinance um the policy has been litigated and vetted through practice um santa rosa has the opportunity to be a leader in helping sonoma county's most vulnerable residents find and stay in housing please take this step to protect housing choice vouchers let's get this done thank you thank you c jones followed by kathleen kain hello steve jones doing business with steven ken jones real estate uh in 2016 another council passed a just cause eviction ordinance that was horrible for any landlord lady and fortunately the city voters overrule the city council i have a hunch that that might happen this time again because neighbors as well as landlords and ladies don't want to be mandated who will live next door to them thank you kathleen kain followed by sarah seats good evening i want to express my strong support for your passage of this proposed ordinance it is bears repeating and emphasizing that it is already illegal to discriminate in the rental of housing based on source of income it is illegal it has been illegal the what's that the the issue here is the definition of income if section 8 rental payments for example were provided to the tenant who then forwarded the funds onto the landlord it would be income because the money is being paid to the housing authority is paying the money to the landlord on behalf of the tenant it's not income that's smoke and mirrors it is a source of income is the definition it is illegal this program if you pass this ordinance would enable very low income tenants who are on housing authority waiting list for years to actually use the money they're winning the lottery this would allow them to actually get into stable housing housing that's located throughout the community in a concentrated way it's the it's just the model of mixed income housing in our community i do hear there are concerns on the part of rental property owners i admit i was the executive director of the sonoma county housing authority for 12 years so i am a little biased probably but i don't believe that it's a burden to contract with a governmental entity in this case as you've heard staff say the portion of the rent that is paid by the housing authority is guaranteed to be paid on time every month the fact that the tenant now only has to pay what's actually calculated as an affordable portion of their income for rent is a strong it's not a guarantee but it strongly helps ensure that that tenant will be able to pay their rent on time every month as opposed to a rental a renter who is not assisted under the program who's stretching to pay ever-increasing rents they're more likely to cause loss of income to the property owners and i guess with my time left my my final point is yes there are inspections yes HUD does require decent safe and sanitary housing but who among us would really argue that our renters in santa rosa should pay the types of rents we have for housing that isn't decent safe and sanitary i strongly encourage you to pass this ordinance thank you thank you sarah seats followed by kasey epp i'm sarah cites and i've lived in santa rosa for about 30 years and i'm supporting this ordinance is i have a 29 year old daughter with high functioning autism and she's been on the waiting list for the city vouchers for three years and she's hoping that by the time she hits 40 she might get off the list and she's really interested in living on her own so please pass this ordinance to support the low income and disabled citizens of santa rosa like hannah i don't want to tell her that many landlords won't rent to people with vouchers kasey epp followed by myles bergen advising attorney at fair housing advocates of sonoma a division of fair housing advocates of northern california and we've provided fair housing counseling services to renters in the city of santa rosa since july 2016 and many of our clients rely on the use of housing subsidies we also serve the rest of sonoma county with the exception of the incorporated city of petaluma as well as the county of marin and the cities of fairfield and vallejo first we want to commend the city of santa rosa for understanding the importance of affirmatively furthering fair housing and for taking for doing more to try to address and combat and counteract the barriers and impediments to housing choice for protected classes again we wholeheartedly support such a fair housing ordinance and believe it's a crucial step to preserving affordable housing for our most vulnerable populations and those are you know individuals who are protected under federal and state fair housing laws when there's a lack of rental protections for tenants it's members of protected classes who are targeted and who suffer disproportionately particularly racial and ethnic minorities people with disabilities and families with children and virtually all voucher holders fall into at least one of those protected classes our clients in santa rosa often allege discrimination or have a disability related need but because of their fear you know they're they're sometimes too afraid to raise those concerns or allow my office to intervene because they are a housing choice voucher recipient and they know the barriers in finding new housing finding someone willing to accept their voucher particularly after the loss of housing stock sonoma county's own analysis of impediments in 2011 identified a number of barriers for housing particularly those for those who are latinx often latinx families as well as people with disabilities and the complaint based and systemic investigations my organization has conducted over the last several years confirm that those discriminatory practices do exist against individuals who are latinx african-american families with children people with disabilities things like refusing to rent offering higher higher rents worse terms and conditions less availability and given the demographics of voucher holders studies have shown a refusal to section to accept section eight as often a pretext for discrimination based on those factors you know i'm not sure what problem a neighbor would have with knowing a neighbor of theirs was a voucher holder if there wasn't some other pretextual issue there i will say that my organization recently conducted a systemic investigation in all three counties looking at race discrimination for voucher holders so we had a caucasian voucher holder an african-american voucher holder we saw how they were treated i only have a few seconds left so i will just say our testing excluded from consideration properties that said no section eight or yes section eight so these are all neutral properties only 20% of those in the county of sonoma were willing to consider a voucher holder so the problem is much greater than we realize thank you for taking the step miles bergen followed by albie manuel thank you mayor schwaedalman members of the council i'm miles bergen from southwest santa reza i stand today in strong support of the non-discrimination ordinance but i think at the end of the day our goal with this ordinance should be to make our housing choice voucher program as efficient and effective as possible the fact is the status quo is neither effective nor efficient currently in the city of santa rosa voucher holders have an eight to ten year wait before they can claim their voucher and then once they're looking for housing the majority of units don't allow those vouchers to be redeemed in fact in the entire county of sonoma according to the cdc only 300 units per year turnover that accept vouchers meanwhile more than 5% of the county's population well over 25 000 people are on the waitlist at the county level at the same time we have hundreds of homeless veterans on our streets who would otherwise benefit from va supportive housing vouchers councilmember combs mentioned the housing and urban development study and that that HUD study shows that ordinances work on the high end of the five housing markets they looked at there was a 78 percent decline rate for voucher holders yet on the low end in the district of columbia where there is a non-discrimination ordinance that number was 15 percent in fact the study found that legal protections for voucher holders improves housing choice voucher program outcomes and merits further consideration if the trump administration says that non-discrimination ordinances affect outcomes and improve outcomes that should be no-brainer for us here in sonoma county it's important to do to pass an ordinance like this soon but it's also important to pass it right and i think there are some questions that still need to be answered about this ordinance councilmember combs mentioned possibly delaying implementation or talking about how long implementation should take i wouldn't be opposed to extending that period of implementation for up to 120 days from 30 days the reason being if we have landlords in our community that are threatening to take their their properties off the market and a longer period of implementation with more focused outreach to them could preach the benefits of a section 8 program and other housing voucher programs and prevent the unit from being removed from the market additionally we still have to look at the issue of air of air bnbs and vrbos the worst case scenario that vice mayor rogers mentioned is that the city of santa rosa turns into the place where i grew up in unincorporated sonoma county where well over 30 percent of the housing in my neighborhood is now air bnbs and vrbos or at least the neighborhood where i grew up which has a significant impact on local businesses on local schools due to declining enrollment we need to make sure that whatever we do today is effective and efficient but at the end of the day we have to do something because the status quo simply isn't good enough thank you very much albie manuel uh followed by iran evans thank you city council for allowing us to address the issue of chapter adding chapter 10 to 46 to the center of the city called prohibiting rental housing discrimination based on source of income including housing choice vouchers known as section 8 my name is albie manuel i'm a native on a fixed income and a renter six years ago i acquired housing at a senior complex and at that time the rent was 50 percent of my income five years later that complex increased the rent to double that amount around that same time i got noticed when city um housing that i was approved for a housing voucher however my place on that waiting list was 20 000 they were currently serving a waiting list of 7 000 i knew i had to find a new rental and soon or be homeless i started searching the press democrat and internet for a rental i saw several houses for rent which stated section 8 need not apply i never gave it much thought at the time because i wasn't looking for a house however now i realize the implications of that requirement i realize how unfair that is to families needing safe and affordable housing i became more sensitive and aware of the needs of my brothers and sisters that was why i became an active member of north bay organizing project and now i'm a member of the first sonoma county tenants union having affordable safe secure home to go to is a basic right it is a human right we are not products or commodities we are human beings who have hopes and dreams for ourselves our children and grandchildren i spoke to a good friend who is a landlord of several units and asked him how he felt about housing vouchers he immediately said he would absolutely accept your housing voucher because he knew there was a need for homes in our community kugana kasa chik saw igloo tp cabin trailer apartment house all expressions of what we call home it should be a place of safety refuge and security a place to make plans to have celebrations and create memories discrimination of any type is unacceptable i ask that you support adding chapter 10 dash 46 to the city council or to the city code thank you thank you herring evans hauled by thea hartman good evening i thank you very much for your time and allowing us to come and speak with you um i do appreciate thank you hello mayor and city council members um i want to tell you that i live at vintage park senior apartment and i am in my 70s and i'm a cancer survivor i worked hard all my life with corporate job i raised three children mostly by myself and now i have seven grandchildren and a great grandchild um my life is full but i have disabilities and i do have to um i use hud section eight and without it i don't know how i'd manage sometimes um hard for me to go to work with arthritic hands i can't do the computer work i used to do um i do appreciate the housing assistance i have it's very important that's why i'm here hard for me to come up and speak but i really want you to understand how important it is to all of us that have housing that have had how it means to us that we can have a decent place to live and have a portion of our rent played so we can actually live people who don't have hud i have a horrible time living on nothing just to pay rents even in a place like we live that has that has the rents are low so i want you to seriously consider letting us keep hud even though it may not be a perfect situation for a lot of people but we do need it and let's work the bugs out of it whatever they as we've heard tonight some that are and let's work it out so we can keep this and make it better if we need to but that's important to me and important to any of us that are trying to struggle with rentals so i do appreciate your time thank you very much thank you fia hartman followed by brian ling hello uh honorable city council members appreciated city council members thank you considering this this ordinance which is up in front of you i am not i i'm not a unlike my dear friend i mean i'm not a section eight recipient yet i'm on a list and those lists are long it takes a long time as people have said it's would be better for me and it would be better for our landlords um and thank goodness the place we live they they don't discriminate in fact i think they prefer it and the reason will be better is because i would pay a third of my income instead half of my income for rent that would be better for me for the landlord it would be better because they would get a the whole fair how fair rental market amount every month and now they only get my reduced rent so it's better for them too so it's better on both sides and it's better for the community too because if i had section eight then i would have more money disposable income to spend it would go back into the community and you just multiply that by a lot of people so i don't it's discriminating against people for having section eight makes very little sense i you before i moved where i am i lived with a man who was a landlord in oakland and he preferred section eight people he wanted section eight because he knew he'd always get his rent and even if they ended up not paying their portion he got the other 80 percent or whatever it was and you know it came in and he could he just knew it would just keep coming so he preferred it and i think that there's there's i'm wondering why i i know there's a few little hurdles but it can't be as much of a hurdle as uh trying to worry about whether the tenants going to have the money um i i suspect that this has been mentioned that there is a lot of racism and classism behind any discrimination that occurs and you know it's for the source of income but it's really uh directed at certain groups and these days uh what's happening in the federal government there are lots of just it's in the news right now laws that would discriminate further against immigrants who against getting any assistance so legal immigrants immigrants so i just really think santa rosa should take the lead and be strong in resisting that kind of discrimination thank you ryan ling followed by michael stanford ling sonoma county alliance executive director i do not our group does not represent a particular landlord or tenant group uh although we continue to be advocates for all types of housing supply projects and that leads to our opposition of this one uh this ordinance by itself is not going to encourage or incentivize any landlord to invest more properties for the rental pool the rental pool will only go down the way to get more people housed the way to get the prices down is to increase the supply it's fundamental economics and we'll continue to fight for that at all these hearings we've got to do common sense ordinances that increase the supply this will only decrease it understand the merits both sides mayor you mentioned maybe there'll be a future compromise that can work maybe there can maybe there can't i think everyone in this room hopes there will be but if there can't we've got to go with what we have despite the the accusation status quo can't do status quo is better than the supply of housing going down which is the potential result of this we feel strongly that the unintended consequences of this are going to be overwhelming tenants will not benefit from this landlords are not going to benefit from this lawyers will benefit from this and at the end that only does the lawyers good so we continue to we will be back here every time to can encourage you to increase the supply any way you can there's numerous ways to do it we'll be there to support everyone here to do that but these type of ordinance that could potentially decrease the supply we will continue to oppose thank you thank you michael stanford followed by btrees kamacho good afternoon i'm michael stanford chair of the committee on political education for service employees in a national union local 1021 here in sonoma county and we are against any discrimination of any form or venue i'm here today to speak on behalf of my fellow members and their families who are renters and supported the proposed ordinance on expanding household opportunities for those who have housing choice vouchers last month i was told by a fellow member that a family member of hers who had a voucher couldn't get a place to live and was forced to forfeit the voucher for myself as a methodist christian we need a morally just economy and we need to have morally just ordinances such as this proposed ordinance that helps least of us thank you you thank you btrees kamacho followed by jennifer colman alcalde members del consejo muchos de ustedes me conocen mi nombre es Beatriz kamacho organizadora de inquilinos con el proyecto organizativo de norte de la bahía esta tarde estoy ante ustedes como Beatriz kamacho inquilina de toda la vida de santa rosa ahorita rento en el distrito tres y esto es un asunto personal para mí mayor city council members many of you know me my name is Beatriz kamacho tenant organizer with the north bay organizing project this evening i stand before you as Beatriz kamacho lifelong santa rosa tenant currently renting in district three and this is a personal issue for me i grew up in what is now district one although i grew up in an extremely low income family my parents always made sure that my brother and i had what we needed to survive they did the best they could with what they had i grew up in a beautiful three bedroom home where i remember always feeling safe the only reason my family was able to live in this beautiful home was because we were on section eight i remember the various housing inspections and in-office meetings that i or my brother would provide english to spanish or spanish to english interpretation for not always fully understanding what it meant but knowing that we had to do a good job because staying on section eight and in our home depended on it during our time on section eight we had a landlord that was like family someone who would come over for dinner because he would love my mom's enchiladas we were never scared to call when something needed fixing we were lucky my family was lucky to have found a beautiful home that accepted us as tenants on section eight i don't know what we would have done if we weren't able to find a place that accepted the only way in which my parents were able to afford a home if my landlord of about 20 years discriminated against my parents because they were voucher holders my reality our reality of living in a safe and beautiful home would have been drastically different this is an anti-discrimination ordinance which means that what is currently happening is blatant discrimination those who have expressed opposition to this ordinance appear to be in favor of discrimination think about the impact that this will have on so many tenants who are simply looking for a place to call home please as you'll make this important decision stand up for the tenants in your city and take a stance against discrimination i urge you on behalf of the countless individuals that couldn't be here this evening and depend on housing choice vouchers to please pass a source of income anti-discrimination ordinance the city needs this tenants need this and we need this gracias thank you jennifer colman followed by deborah tovaris name is jennifer colman i am uniquely uh qualified i think to have a perspective on this issue because i'm a renter and i'm a landlord um i i take a lot of pride in what i do um i want to keep my renters happy and i want to provide them with excellence in housing um when i screen people i take all applicants i i don't deny any application based on income what i do is i have to use my best judgment at every turn i have a business partner whom i have to run my decisions by so when i look at an applicant i take them on merit based on their credit their source of income it could be lottery winnings hud vouchers could be retirement savings i used to look at their past rental history background what their needs are with pets if it collaborates with what i can allow for pets um i i'm against section eight housing at this point in time because i do agree with my colleagues at cAA and some of the people that have spoken here that i think it's not streamlined and it's not properly manned in a manner that safeguards the interest of the stakeholders to the debate that is the renters and the landlords collectively who stand to lose on both sides i think the system needs refinement section eight i do believe have delays and potentially uh getting our units approved due to bureaucratic systems ill equipped to process section eight landlords um potentially months of inspections as other people have said what really scares me uh are the risk uh some of the things that scare me are the risk of unlimited co-tenants that can climb on board now maybe i'm ignorant to this so perhaps i need to learn more but that really frightens me because i don't have any control over my choices over my property and that feels like discrimination reversed uh problematic eviction rules for voucher holders again i'm confused about that and that that has ambiguity and it scares me as a landowner um compliance challenges also frighten me to date we've let go of three properties that i've worked so hard for my entire life i make 27 000 a year and i've scraped hard for everything that i've gotten and i have to pay the mortgage or just like i pay my landlord so it scares me when i think i'm going to be on the tarmac for a while waiting for approval and i still have to pay my mortgage it frightens me to death um lastly i'm just really not financially prepared to risk the problems that i believe still remain with section eight um i do feel for both both sides of the situation and i don't want discrimination to happen um i've had the joy of being able to rent to um somebody who came to me uh with the great and rancheria a year and a half ago and i worked hard with her to get her approved because her credit was less than adequate but i worked with her and we made it over that hurdle thank you thank you Debra Tavares followed by paul carol hi thank you very much Debra Tavares really saddens me that we have to see an ordinance that has rental housing discrimination because i think as a nation that's being used to really cause increased divide i think when we look at the bottom line we're all human we're all looking to be safe and in a safe place but i heard a lot of conversation today about incentivizing landlords i would say let's also incentivize tenants equally and what i'm bringing up is how you could do that because i don't think the tenants nor the landlords are aware of the climate action plans that you have approved and those climate action plans are going to catastrophically increase cost of housing period for both tenants and landlords when everyone becomes aware of the required retrofitting and the energy home scores that are already occurring in portland and in los angeles and in pasadena people will become inherently aware this is not about discrimination between housing this is about policy discrimination against everyone because when you look at housing and the requirements to bring down greenhouse gas emissions where owners are going to be required required or they're going to have substandard housing that will be placed on a substandard housing list no financing available and more difficulties to get off of a substandard energy list that means retrofitting every aspect of older buildings not that that is an opposed situation but landlords will have to take on more loans through pace pace are predatory loans put together by rockerfeller and pace loans which do cover in retrofitting are going to cost landlords and tenants untold amount of housing increases even if the landlords want to keep their housing down to retrofit to the requirements that are in the climate action plans that you have approved for everyone here whether they know it or not is going to go beyond discrimination for just tenants and versus landlords this is a city discrimination against everyone and i would encourage everyone here to please type in santa rosa climate action plans and understand how each and every one of you are going to be affected whether you're paying rent or whether you're paying a mortgage this is going to turn ownership and rentals on their ear as what is now currently happening in oregon and the energy scores are real thank you paul carol followed by isabel fisher paul carol 31 year resident of santa rosa um when racial discrimination was outlawed in relation to housing business interests cried foul they said the government was trying to control their property when the ada came out businesses cried foul again saying the government was trying to control their property um there comes a time when especially in sonoma county when there are thousands of people who will never ever enjoy the notion or sometimes a burden of owning property they're going to be tenants their entire life and the provision of rental housing so far has been viewed as a simple economic issue it's something that people get into to have a return they never have to accept the consequences that it's a human issue because a provision of homes even rental homes is a human issue and it's something that landlords which is kind of an archaic term in a sense need to understand is they have a social responsibility at that point they have entered into the social compact and in doing so they should not be able to discriminate against anyone you know they should again check the references of the people that come to them make sure they have a good rental his his history i worked in section eight for 12 years we responded to landlords as quickly as possible i currently manage you know some units that we entered into a section eight lease with the city of santa rosa they were out we got the request for lease approval in like on a wednesday they came out the following wednesday the specious argument that there's three month delays are just are just those types of our arguments it doesn't happen we need to move beyond the concept that property a person's home can easily be taken from them or denied them landlords need to understand that they have a social responsibility or they should not be landlords you know and the threat that they're going to take their unit off the market well maybe they shouldn't be in the market and those same threats were made back when racial discrimination came up and when the ADA came out thank you isabel fisher followed by victoria yanez good evening council members my name is isabel fisher and i'm a tenant living in santa rosa i'm also a member of north bay organizing projects housing task force i'm here tonight in strong support of the source of income anti-discrimination ordinance i grew up here in sonoma county and when i came back here after college with lots of student loans to pay off i moved back in with my parents as so many young people around here have had to do i thought that this would be very temporary and was looking forward to moving into a place of my own as it turned out even after getting a good job with quite a good income i still had to live with my folks for two years before i saved enough to even start considering moving out as i looked through numerous craigslist postings for apartments not only were the rents almost always too high for my income but about half or more of all the descriptions i saw read no section eight no section eight no section eight now i was lucky and privileged enough to eventually secure an apartment that was doable for my income but as i was looking at all those listings i kept thinking to myself god if i was on section eight or had a housing choice voucher i would have an incredibly hard time finding a place to live it's important to me that you pass this ordinance because nearly every young post college person i know who moved here for work after college or returned home to this county or city after college is already in debt from student loans how are we supposed to live in this beautiful place we grew up in as independent people contributing to our community when rents are unreasonable and we are already in debt if landlords can discriminate based on how a person pays for housing then how are low income or fixed income people on housing choice vouchers supposed to find housing when the assistance they receive is so widely not accepted 90% as councilmember combs said i can imagine that it makes it extremely difficult and i want to echo what another speaker said earlier that it's already illegal in the state of california to discriminate against the tenant for certain source of income like it's illegal to discriminate if they're on social security so i don't really see how this situation we're dealing with tonight is that much different so i think that opposition to this proposed ordinance and not passing it is allowing discrimination against low income and fixed income people to continue happening we need to ensure that folks get housed especially the most vulnerable among us please pass this ordinance because shelter is a human right and a home is a human right the way that you pay your rent should not dictate whether or not you get a home thank you very much victoria yanez followed by thomas ells is victoria still here no thomas ells followed by alex coffin thank you for the opportunity to speak and thank you for addressing this particular issue victoria had an emergency as i understand so she had to leave so we understand that hud pays by the fifth uh mortgage holders are paid by the 15th usually by fanny may and freddy mac so uh on a pass through if you're a mortgage holder uh that means what happens is everybody's mortgage uh is sold to fanny and freddy if you didn't know that everybody's mortgage is sold to fanny may and freddy mac and uh so the person who owns your mortgage no longer the bank and that person that owns your mortgage is paid on the 15th they're never paid before that so if you're paid by hud on the fifth that's gravy and people think fanny may and freddy mac is is a government agency an entity it's quasi-governmental hud is a government entity when you're guaranteed your payment you are 100 guaranteed um and the numbers sound different because if you pay 30 percent of your income to the mortgage or to the to the rent uh it sometimes is only 20 percent of the rent because people make less than the total rent so they couldn't even afford it if they paid 100 percent of their income to the rent uh that's that situation discrimination is dehumanizing and that's why it was changed from you know alimony and child support made the families would depend on children that was called income and so they said you cannot discriminate on the basis of income but hud is not income because it's not going to be taxed uh that amount it's not going to be taxed so it's not income and therefore not discriminatory so um cathleen kane is absolutely right and i want to point out that we are a distressed community it was cathleen kane who mentioned 80 percent of sonoma countyans pay more than 50 percent for their rent and transportation it's the highest in the country there is no other place that's higher in the country new york cities does not pay more of their income for rent and transportation than we do san francisco does not pay more for their rent and transportation than we do um san amonica was one of the earliest adopters of rent controls and various things with high density housing they only have 92 000 people we have twice that many people we're twice as big a city as san amonica and we should do better who are the landlords that we're talking about multi-family uh housing really uh and why would they resist inspections are they slum lords do we remember uh the slum lord in chicago uh the famous one who went to jail uh the point is they should not resist those inspections thank you thomas alex kauflin uh followed by tom amato good evening mr. mayor and members of the council my name is alex kauflin i'm with the california parliament association thank you for the opportunity to be here this evening and to comment on this item um i am here tonight in opposition of this ordinance um we believe the way this ordinance is drafted um it is a costly mandate that fails to provide additional funds necessary for local agencies to administer the program there's also no incentive or risk mitigation measures for landlords who actually participate in this program and there are quite a few many of them are members of caa so to stand here and also hear the notion that we have landlords that do not understand the significance of this pro of this program is a little bit disheartening we may disagree on how to implement it but i do think there is a place for this program um and i'm also sort of questioning the notion of stakeholder engagement and i say this um and with all the respect to your staff i think it's frustrating to to be handed a document that is pretty much 99 done um which is then presented to city council and we're then told that there was stakeholder engagement i am really grateful for the opportunity to discuss some of the issues that we saw in the ordinance but quite frankly most of them were not addressed we continue to have these problems um this is why i am opposing this ordinance i would love to be here to say you know we worked with staff we had concerns but we were able to work them out and we're going to do our best because the one thing that's crucial i think for everyone to understand here and even your own assistant city attorney mentioned this it's very hard to implement this ordinance and the only way it works is if both sides actually agree to work together and sit down and talk about how to draft this in such a way that it's equitable for tenants and for landlords and there was a comment made that if you are here opposing this ordinance that you're discriminating i could not agree with that more and it's that particular rhetoric that quite frankly prevents us from really having a productive discussion of how this policy should look for it to be really successful because if it is successful it will work for the tenants and the landlords and for the city so i am happy to continue this discussion to work with the city to offer c a as a resource and continue to move forward but we have to have an honest discussion thank you very much thank you tom amato followed by al liner i'm tom amato and i'm the chair of the okman democratic club and right before coming over here our leadership team endorsed that we would ask the city council to approve this ordinance because we think it is a good ordinance which is good for our city i'm also an active leader in the north bay organizing project and i salute their effort to organize tenants for me this is a fairly personal issue i have three relatives that have profited or have survived is a better way to put it because of vouchers one is a formal art former air force vet who has mental health issues the second is a woman who has been who worked for a good part of her life but then has serious physical health issues and the third is a woman who raised her family worked for the government retired at age 70 and still was low income that happens to a lot of women in our society and is one of the reasons where there's a need for this ordinance vouchers all of them have profited or profitors again survive because of vouchers one of the things i want to address my family when i was a kid we did rent property and i'm aware we've set up a market economy which gives landlords the right to rent their property and a right to make money and a lot of cases a right to make a lot of money but with that right also does come responsibility it is a social contract with our community and renters are both stakeholders and they also have a right to a decent place to live and it's up to governmental agencies such as city councils to balance that out to make it fair moving this type of ordinance forward does make it much more fair and and helps landlords to be accountable not the good landlords already are but helps the landlords who want to make money but don't want to help the whole community it holds them accountable to the community need so again i would recommend that you approve this and move it forward so thank you thank you outliner followed by heather dunn can you hear me there you go um first of all thank you for letting me speak i would like to remind the council that this ordinance is the first very very small step in a very big looming housing crisis this is only a small step um one of the things you know santa rosa used to have a motto the city built for living do you remember that that's no longer the case it's just not true a one bedroom apartment or house costs around 15 to 1700 dollars a month a two bedroom one bath minimum 2300 dollars a month we know that renters make about 40 000 a year or less do the math it doesn't work it can't work this is not the city built for living anymore unless you make 70 000 a year it just doesn't work out that way to all the owners who i get that you don't want to be under the thumb of government i totally understand that and the reason i understand that is because i have been a renter since i returned from vietnam and i have been under the thumb of landlords the my entire adult life so i do not understand what it's like to be under the thumb of somebody else my rent goes up 10 percent a year since the fire it's just just natural i live on a fixed income and i'm just an example of everybody else that rents this needs to be the city built for living for everyone once again it is just not that way i truly truly support this and and i feel bad for those people that don't because you're not understanding what it's like to be a renter thank you heather done followed by ben terry hi my name is heather done i am the supervisor for the head bash program we partner with housing to house our homeless vets i just want to speak on behalf of them because that's where my experience is and this isn't about forcing people to rent to to to my veterans it's about giving them an opportunity just to apply and that's that's where i really want you to hear is that i just want them to be given an opportunity to just apply like everybody else we have a housing specialist works 40 hours a week they comb through craigslist they comb through all kinds of things to try to find available units he maybe has three a week for our 35 veterans currently trying to locate housing so we have 35 veterans with vouchers currently three viable options for them to actually apply so it's an absolute crisis i've been doing this for eight years when we first started our turnaround time was 30 days 30 days from admission into the program to housing that's eight years ago now we're like 120 days maybe 160 nationally we should be at 90 days that is our requirement we have to house them in 90 days of admission we don't meet that standard um nationally we are one of 10 worst housing markets how do i know that because we applied for assistance to help us find housing to low to house our veterans and we were granted the assistance and the assistance couldn't even help us that's how horrible it is to try to house these veterans so all i want is an opportunity for them to apply you know you can do all of your background checks you can do all of the stuff that you do with you know on a regular basis for our veterans i just want them given the opportunity to give you an application that's it thank you thank you ben terry followed by daisy pistilin good evening i have a couple questions i'd like to ask the city council and the housing authority why didn't you reach out to the black community just in case you don't know it they're all black community here the black churches different organization a region community the nacp the 100 black men's and i can name a lots more i don't think you guys are ready to take a photo on this but i wish you would go back and revisit those peoples that you really need to talk to thank you thank you daisy pistilin followed by clayton angstrom hi daisy pistilin um i just want to share that for most of you this isn't a personal issue and you're listening to stats and figures and you're hearing from staff on what the numbers are but for those of us for whom it's a personal issue this is really a crisis my sister lives on section eight and she's disabled and i've gone through this with her and i've seen she sat waiting to get a section eight voucher for something like four or five years living in an moldy place she couldn't afford to move out of when she got the voucher there weren't places available she was luckily that landlord accepted her voucher and was able to keep her there but it gave her health problems and it wasn't until one of these amazing affordable units opened up several years later that she was able to move out of there i've sat with her and looked through rental ads and seen them say how few will accept section eight vouchers and even when they do accept them how hard it is as someone who's disabled or differently abled or has any sort of thing that make you seem different from this society to be accepted into one of those units this is one small piece of making acceptability higher for these people giving them a chance to get into a home that any of you sitting there has that allows you to be healthy that allows you to live a life that you don't have to worry about your housing this is completely it's just complete discrimination against people who had no choice these people have sometimes served our nation and we now discriminate against them because of things that befell them and i really hope that you guys think if you were in this situation how much you would hope that the people who represent you in this city would support you in this and give you the opportunity to apply for any available housing and have the opportunity to potentially be accepted thank you thank you clayton angstrom followed by leneita marie johnson marsh well home members of the council thanks for indulging us here tonight um i've been a landlord for 39 years um of those 39 years probably 30 of it i had a voucher person or persons in different rentals that i do have my first rental i bought when i was 20 years old i was paying 44 of my income not to live in the house it was a rental that was in 1980 i was paying 12 and a quarter percent interest the only what i'm trying to express to you is Sonoma county has always been expensive and it's you got to dig deep it hurts it really does hurt and this is not an anti-discrimination policy you're trying to establish you're trying to force landlords to take a volunteer program and make it mandatory let me express to you some of the differences expressed by the people your staff it's going to be a minimum of 20 they say 20 days is their average if the property needs any kind of work and repairs done to it you got to get a contractor in there go through get the repairs done at 1500 a month 50 bucks a day 20 days instantly the delay is going to come as reported by staff 20 days is a thousand dollars cost to get into the voucher program so let me just say that you're not comparing apples to apples it's a different type of program also the voucher program has a 90 day to vacate the unit whereas state law is 60 days so there are differences and to say the thing that this is just about discrimination it's not i said i've always been available for vouchers the last rental i had i got an email from the veterans group saying wanting to know if i would take a voucher my immediate response to them was of course i will what do you got i would love to instantly be able to have stand people standing in line that would be the right people for my properties that would be wonderful to have not every property not every tenant fits every property every single property is as unique as the human beings that want to occupy it how many vehicles they have how many people are in their party just parking issues there are so many different issues that not everything is going to ever be a perfect fit and to make it punitive on the landlords i'll just say that threatening owners and managers will not place more voucher holders but it will create a bad environment for both parties if i have anything other here yeah the best tenant is not qualified just by their income and i will say now i do have a 20-year tenant in one of my properties that is a disabled vietnam vet he came with a voucher he does not he lost his voucher he's still there thank you lenea mary johnson followed by erin george good evening everyone council members staff i every time i come in here about any kind of issue my first thought is how come there's nobody over there that looks like me it just it just befuddles me the closest it's my buddy down there mr oliveris thanks for doing your best to represent however this issue about housing is almost laughable you can either afford to live here or not it's not a lot of middle ground you're either married to somebody who can afford to live here or you're not is a discrimination issue and it's an issue that needs to be addressed and i am so happy because every time i come down here for something i'm the only one with a tan so mr terry thank you for being here sir and i so respect you for everything you do in our community and young lady i don't know who you are but i'm glad to see you here too but nevertheless the bottom line is why should we have to come to the city about an issue that's economic it's not political it's being politicized but the bottom line is it's about economics i went to college i'm from the east coast i'm the oldest of nine so i have to be the perfect example for my siblings that's been the story of my life get an education get an education get an education that's that one if you're a girl get married i didn't do that nevertheless i had offers right now what i'm living about is that we're even having this conversation it's clear something needs to change and it needs to change now i'm facing becoming homeless because my landlord raised my rent knowing full well that i couldn't afford it i didn't ask to be disabled i got a brain tumor i didn't ask to live in a place that i couldn't afford or at least i didn't think it would become that and i urge you to strongly consider this ordinance on behalf of the people who deserve it otherwise it is just plain discrimination in plain english thank you thank you erin george thank you again for having all of us here not only the city council but also for all the community members that came out because this is really where changes start i'd like to think um first i wanted to make sure that we were recognizing the difference between housing vouchers that are provided through HUD and the discrimination that is apparently going on to totally separate issues that are going on um i see many people that i know that have benefited greatly from having HUD vouchers and many that are still waiting to be on that list i've had the what i will call unique opportunity of owning a three-unit building in the unincorporated area of sinoma for 10 years in that 10 years i had one person call asking if i would accept her as a voucher recipient and i said absolutely and i'll tell you the truth it was a really great program i actually felt as if i had won the jackpot um during the time that she was there the stove was working fine the refrigerator was working fine both were upgraded i think that through the work of our programs that we have available here at the county maybe through pgenie if i remember correctly it was great why is this word not getting out why are we only hitting heads with the discrimination issue that's out there because i did not see that i still i sold my building let's say my mother and i each put down 60 000 every single penny that i had to beg borrow and steal in order to buy that unit sold it 10 years later and i was able to put 45 000 in my back pocket not one month did i take one penny out of that house and i still have great joy when i run into the people that i had the opportunity to provide housing to um i have also had the great privilege of being a real estate agent in sinoma county since 2002 and have the benefit of not only talking to tenants but also landlords and i can tell you that having the strict restrictions put on landlords will absolutely affect the supply that we have i think it would be a really interesting to statistic to look to the other counties and jurisdictions that have implemented do we really want to look like san francisco do we really want to look like burkley is that the type of housing that we want to offer i'd like to think that we could go back to the drawing board and create a real true win-win because i've seen it happen and i know we can do it thank you those are all the cards we have deem any others that's it right um i will bring it back to council and councilmember combs you have this item if we can start with the motion we can have additional conversations well i actually before we go there are there any questions of staff based on any comments from the public go ahead okay um was there somebody who had a card who didn't get called is that lisa go ahead lisa lisa badden for government affairs director north face association of realtors i will keep it quick first and foremost thank you for your work on this obviously um this is a complicated issue a very heated complicated issue i have been homeless and a homeowner and it is legitimately complicated i just wanted to be very very clear we represent 3600 professionals that own buy manage sell and rent property we saw this proposal on uh friday morning so we stand ready and engaged ready to deliver to you some of the real complex complexities of a proposal like this the programs that exist in san francisco and in marin and in the 15 other jurisdictions that we were able to find kind of today all focus on trying to mitigate the same concerns for landlords and so i do think that there are legitimate concerns many owners there is this idea that owners can just kind of shoulder whatever kind of cost come their way because they own property and it's a very different reality in the day-to-day the vast majority of your owners here in santa rosa are small private owners as proposed this ordinance would include my mother's rental and single family homes and everything across the board it sounds like future discussions are on the table and we are here and prepared and happy to be there thank you thank you lisa miss commas thank you um i'm gonna make the motion uh i'd like to make a few comments with it um it it's certainly i i fully support this ordinance um i'm delighted that staff has brought it forward to us um i think we've had what is functionally a good study session i think we have some points that we would feel better um if we could have deeper conversation with the community and with council about those those key points you brought us some questions i think we brought some questions and the community has also brought some questions so i'm going to modify the motion asking that instead of dealing with the ordinance today that we give folks some time to read it and to do more outreach uh so the motion i'd like to make is that we bring this back on a date certain and that that date be september 10th of 2019 i need a second second thank you i i want to be really clear i support this i hope we will see you again on september 10th i hope that between now and then many conversations have occurred um it it sounds to me as if stakeholders need some time with this and some time to have conversation i do not anticipate that we can get to a complete everybody's delighted state i don't think win-win is completely possible all the time but i think we can do a lot to make what we're doing work better for renters and for landlords um so i guess i'm suggesting that we talk to share uh more stakeholders including veterans groups fair housing groups the apartment association uh north bay north bay organ you're on my list north bay organizing project the black community NAACP um i heard churches uh i think i think staff heard that there are some people to reach out to to still talk i think anybody who came here today uh who are with groups we should be reaching out to them um i think we have a strong interest in the risk mitigation pool and i think it needs to come with um maybe others will make a statement up or down about whether we want that to come back with but i think details about that options with regard to data implementation um uh that's included um i have a strong interest in the security deposit assistance um i don't know if we have time to do the rbo rbnb conversation uh we do not have time to do that um i i would like to ask when does the rental inspection program come forward is that scheduled on our future dates we already have a discussion of a rental inspection so it's it's on september 24th okay so close enough that if we came back on september 10th uh any rental inspection issues we can discuss the next time at the 25th so so my only concern is with the with the timetable as it's laid out we would we would like to strive for the 10th but there's a there's a lot of folks that want to be touched in this conversation well that's four weeks well it's four weeks but there's a major holiday in there and there is scheduling and getting things posted so i will say uh what we would like to do is is outreach to folks and get that conversation set but to your point council member we have that other item coming at the same time we would like to strive for the 10th i just want to make sure that you know there's going to be a huge effort here to make some outreach there are going to be some impacts to potentially other items so and i don't know what that is but i want to just make that apparent that that this is a community outreach effort coupled with a stakeholder specific outreach effort and we will make it for the 10th we've got the the item on the 24th but there may be some other things that are going to get a little bit delayed out of that conversation i'm feeling pretty strong about the 10th but i understand if it needs to come back on the 24th and i will listen to my colleagues regarding a change from the 10th if they so desire but i don't want us to leave here without a date certain i'm comfortable with that i just would say that that if we move to the 10th and the the outreach list that you've provided i'm happy to have staff start working on that but i want to have a legitimate chance to crack that open for staff i would also appreciate it if i can recall having a one-on-one meeting with a staff member regarding the rearrangement of the leaves on our Santa Rosa symbol i mean it was the little flower with three leaves and they were talking about rearranging the leaves it concerns me when we have something this important and i didn't get a one-on-one conversation with staff so if there can be some kind of communication with council members about the choices and so that we can more fully understand what the option so so again if that's going to be the direction i would really lean toward the 24th because you understand we have a 10 day posting requirement too in here as well i mean i'm not i'm not trying to be difficult it's just or the consequences if it's going to leave the 10th you're going to leave it to me to look at the other work plan items and there may be some consequence i'm happy to have time on the 24th to bring this with the rental inspection program we will make time to do it there as i said i may have to do some rearranging but if it's going to be the 10th what i'll need is some permission to what i'm asking for is if you're going to move it to the 10th which i will do i may have to do some other rearranging with staff workloads if we do it on the 24th and we bring it with the rental inspection program it's very similar groups of people that would be reached out to can we include the outreach for that so that's that's one of the reasons i'm pointing to that is that we could we could work on a plan that captures some community engagement efforts around that particular enterprise so that's that's why i'm saying we can i think that pairing i would ask mr oliveris says my second are you comfortable with the 24th and i'm very comfortable with the 24th i don't want to rush it through the next four weeks i don't want it to look like we're just going through the motions of engaging people i want true engagement in this process if we're going to do that so i i think i don't want to hear from staff on what is reasonable to make that happen well again i think that to me we can we can partner up our efforts on some of these these discussion items and so that would give us some clarity about and pathways that may have already been established so so that would be comfortable for us to to move it to the 24th and pair these engagements and make sure we're doing them and we'll also know about the bill by that time right sb 239 wasn't it well it sounds it sounds like based on councilmember rogers that will have a better better idea how that's progressing and i will be clear that i continue to have the desire that we craft this in such a way that it suits santa rosa the best way santa rosa means appreciating the legislature's work but i think we need to have a look at it for ourselves so i'll change my with the permission of my second change the date to the 24th as a date certain yes thank you okay so that's the motion and we've got a second so any additional comments we've heard from his comas miss phleming thank you um i gotta say i think that this was not an inevitable outcome for tonight i think that had we done the type of community outreach that we see out of other departments that we would have come to at least a better process where and we would have had a study session and then we would have had a vote and i find this frankly unacceptable to have this larger piece of impactful um policy not i mean you heard from all the groups that didn't feel heard from and i would add you know that the council on aging and maybe the commission on the status women that the people on both sides of this needed to be outreach typically in these types of situations departments will come to individual council members i'm so frustrated that there was the lack of community outreach the lack of data and the lack of clarity around some really basic questions that i would expect to hear from in this situation i i stand with my fellow council members who have said that they want a risk mitigation pool to be brought forward with this i definitely understand that we cannot address um vrbo's and in this timeline and but there are also issues around adus and loopholes in there and um of course the inspection program so i i'm going to support the motion on the table and just please know that i appreciate all of your work but i know that we can do better Mr. Olivares any comments yes i would like to get uh when it's coming back a little bit more information related to an outreach plan once if we do move forward with with this ordinance is what are we going to do for the outreach what are we going to do related to education not just of our property owners landlords but also tenants that this is a change um you know and against some more clarity i think i'm hearing different things about the inspection processes and all the others just get in the sense for what that looks like so that we have a comfort level in this i think that's something like this can't be a part of a broader comprehensive housing plan by eliminating barriers to unequal treatment but i think that if we're going to be the first i think doing this as right as possible would be would be good for us and again it related to the landlords tenants etc property owners renting is a business and it comes with government regulations just like other businesses so it's not that's not the issue for me i think the issue for me is making sure that we have an equal process for people who want to rent and to deal with the issues but also to make sure that we have uh the true active engagement of all the stakeholders in place before we make a final decision on this thank you Mr. Reichmeyer thank you Mr. Mayor so eight years ago i was working on a piece of legislation sponsored by gsmol the mobile home uh organization and what was happening in southern california primarily was that the mobile home park owners were denying the transfer when one owner would sell to another owner and once they had denied 50 of the folks who lived in a home they could sell off the entire mobile home park so we had a bill that would prevent them from being able to deny that transfer if somebody met the particular criteria stability so some very similar parallels here and i sat down with the mobile home park owners and what they said to me right off the bat was we're going to fundamentally disagree with your bill we're going to disagree we're going to oppose it but here's where you have some conflicts in current state law with what you're trying to do it turns out what we were actually asking in the bill and in the language was contradictory to other parts of law that they're going to be under requirements about and if we had not actually reached out and talked with them we would have never been able to catch some of that and to actually craft what ended up being a good bill that we did pass that does protect tenants while at the same time doesn't put an onerous burden or an impossible at the time burden on the mobile home park owners uh what i'd like was really interesting to me about this conversation is at the end of the day the landlords and the tenants should be on the same page in a program like this from a from a landlord perspective you're getting a guaranteed income you're getting a tenant that comes with it a level of of uh certainty that you don't normally get from somebody and from from a tenant perspective you're getting access to a place to live to a home and there's a disconnect that we're seeing here amongst what are some of the concerns and fears from the landlords uh that haven't been addressed and to me that means that we haven't done enough outreach that we haven't done the level of coordination because what we've seen in other communities is when they've worked together they actually have figured out a middle ground where everybody ends up winning out i i mentioned san rafael and in marin county so i am supportive of of the continuance for that to take place i do want to have a menu of options for landlord incentives to come back that actually have been based on conversations with landlords about what their actual fears are not the discrimination side but some of the legitimate concerns that have been raised about loss of income while they're going through the approval process uh who is going to actually uh help if there's damage to the unit um the red tape and the wait times and then also talking with tenant advocacy groups fair housing and groups that are underrepresented in our community already uh talk with the NAACP talk with the rosin community building initiative groups that have been focused on this so that we can actually hear what's the actual the actual outcome that we're trying for which is to put people in units and how do we address the actual legitimate concerns thank you and my call i'll just be brief because i don't want to echo what you've already heard today really that desired outcome for me is that both sides be have felt like they're heard and there may be some disagreements okay then the seven of us you know if there will be seven however many of us will be here we'll make that decision but where i'm uncomfortable where it starts sounding like an avicera relationship because we're in the same community together like you know i get win-win may not be the right word for it but where everyone's feeling that they're they're being heard and this is a fair response to this because no one wants discrimination that's not a community i want to live in and i know the task sounds large for you and i also think for those in the audience here it's just not dependent upon staff to get the word out if you have an opinion about this work with our staff because the those up here on the council want to have all the information so we can make the best decision for the city as a whole not what's the best decision for tennis what's not the best decision for landlords we're sharing the space together and we call santa rosa so i think we can do that and i'm very supportive of you know continuous i appreciate you uh recommending that and i'm hoping with our staff priorities i get it mr city manager we're balancing all these things and if we can combine it on a couple different items so makes it more efficient for not only staff but for the community and for the council up here i'm willing to move forward so with that uh we have a motion in a second to bring this back date specific in september 24th 2019 your votes please i'm thinking we're missing our vice mayor do we need to do that again or let's try it again may i ask that we also have some clarification in the meantime about who needs to recuse and who doesn't and under what circumstances thank you no worries we're almost there oh here we go your votes please she'll get it yeah there's only five of us there we go you now for the continuation five oh thank you very much okay mr city manager do we need a break are you good for 16.1 we're good for 16.1 thank you item 16.1 public hearing preferential parking permit program kim nadeau parking manager presenting good evening mayor and council members this item proposes adding a new chapter to the city code to establish an on street employee per parking permit program currently the city there are constraints in the west end neighborhood on certain streets on street employee permits are not available and long-term spillover parking is impacting parking for those who live in and work in the west end oh well this is where it would have been better if this had been tested this the colors are not showing up as well as i had hoped on this slide so i apologize for that what i'm looking to show here is the purple area on west 6th and adam street which is where we recently installed three-hour time limits at the beginning of this year at the request of local businesses who are having issues with people parking they're coming early parking all day there was there was no turnover so we did some outreach and reached out to the businesses in the area about putting in three-hour signs we didn't get any negative feedback at that time so we installed them at the beginning of the year what what transpired from that was that the people that were parking on 6th street appear to have moved over to west 7th and west 8th street so our problem just pushed the bubble so we conducted two community meetings at deterrent round barn and one meeting with key stakeholders to discuss the current conditions and the needs of the area the solution being proposed is to expand the three-hour time limit into the commercial areas of the west end and offer permits to employees of eligible businesses in that area the permits will allow employees to park all day exempt from the posted time limits while deterring long-term parkers who don't work in the area so this map shows the new expanded area so the areas that's marked in yellow is where we propose to expand the three hour time limits so that would be on west 6th 7th and 8th these areas are adjacent to commercial properties the permits would then be located to businesses that are located within 200 feet of that designated preferential area they would need to provide a valid tax certificate and proof of employment for those employees and they would be able to purchase up to 25 employees per excuse me permits per business so this slide shows the entirety so it's the existing three-hour time limit plus the expanded area this is the area where the eligible employees would be allowed to park and this shows the 200 foot zone around that area where the eligible employee the eligible businesses are so we would have three hour time limits from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Saturday the permits would be $25 a month and would allow the employees to park beyond the posted time limits in the designated area the permit does not guarantee a spot however we did do a survey of the businesses in the area and asked them to let us know how many employees they had parking on the street so we think that this area will be sufficient there's about 110 spaces and through the surveys that we got back there was about 80 employees who were parking on the street there may be more because not everybody responded to the survey but certainly the most significant employers did and the other point to make is that not all the employees are parking at the same time so there's a lot of some people work Monday through Friday some work on the weekends or different hours so I think we're going to have the capacity to be able to absorb the demand so it's recommended by the finance department that the council introduce an ordinance adding chapter 11 dash 26 preferential parking to the city code to establish an on-street employee permit program and by resolution approve the revised schedule of parking user fees great thank you bring it back to council any questions for staff can you clarify if you don't mind go ahead news comes sorry I was buying time for her can you clarify what happens if a resident lives in the area this area is all commercial where there's no residents in the area at this time well I will there is one exception so when we installed the first round on west 6th and Adams there is one house on Adams street between chops and Starks so we have I reached I reached out to them because it's the only house in this whole area so I did reach out to them and I said if you're having problems parking let me know we'll make some arrangements and initially they didn't have any problems and then several months later they asked for a permit so they have they have we've made an exception for them because they're the one house and the other thing I will note is that the residents of the west end who have also been experiencing a lot of challenges with parking are circulating a petition to establish a residential permit zone so I expect that we'll be coming to you in the not too distant future with their petition and then that will expand it's you know a different program but similar in concept and that will be adjacent to this area thank you for the exception for one person I appreciate that any other questions from council on this item okay this is a public hearing so I'll open the public hearing you don't have to fill out a card would anyone like to comment on this item to the council anyone anyone at all and we have no cards Dana then I will close the public hearing bring it back to council are you graciously accepting the responsibility of introducing this item Miss Fleming you know me I'm gracious thank you all right well thank you for your great work in engaging the neighbors and the businesses in the west end and so it is my pleasure to move an ordinance of the council of the city of santa rosa adding chapter 11-26 to the santa rosa city code authorizing preferential parking in designated areas of santa rosa and with further reading of the text second we have a motion to second any final comments okay your votes please that was quick unanimous we have five eyes thank you mr. mcglenn item 16.2 item 16.2 public hearing the santa rosa fire department annual weed abatement program reports paul lowenthal assistant fire marshal presenting saving the best for last a good evening mayor members members of the council here tonight for our annual lean process as you know the city santa rosa fire department coordinates the annual weed abatement program throughout the respective parts of santa rosa unapproved lots over half acre and the wildland urban interface the season is declared through cal fire upon the declaration of the fire season partials are required to comply with the ordinance following the declaration of the season fire department staff conduct the inspections moving across santa rosa from highest priority to lowest priority when they identify a property that has not complied with the ordinance they issue a notice a notice is sent to the property owner that is listed through the assessor's office and that property owner is given a minimum of two weeks to bring the property into compliance for reinspection when the reinspection occurs if the property is found to be out of compliance still they'll then receive a notice of violation the initial notice that they receive lets them know that if they don't bring their property into compliance and they approve time in the required time frame then they will be subject to the fee associated with the inspection if the property remains out of compliance following the second inspection and another period of time we then send the property to abatement if the property is abated then we have to recover our fees associated with that and the properties that have not um essentially paid their fees that are outstanding to the city now have to by resolution be turned over to the county for the lean process so in your attachment is itemized list and we ask you to ratify and confirm the itemized list that's provided by the fire department for the cost of the weed abatement as approved by city council code or city code sorry great thank you council any questions mr vice mayor thank mr mayor this do city parcels also go through the same process yes so um city parcels do go through the same process and the city parcels are almost treated as the same way we would treat property owners that have multiple properties that we're responsible for um one of the issues that we've seen uh in santa rosa this year like a number of the parcels across santa rosa is the the regrowth and the time it took to actually do an effective cut this year this year we are treating much differently than previous years based on the conditions that we have the leans that are associated with this report are from 16 17 and 17 18 so previous years where we weren't experienced the same conditions regardless yes we the city is required to bring our properties into compliance just like our community is however um one of the issues i was trying to was explaining is that much like private properties and the city properties there's timing issues and we routinely and regularly grant extensions to parcels that have timing issues contractor issues and or multiple or large properties um that they have to bring into compliance so basically the way we treat we treat ourselves the same way we would treat our our community members and those properties that are not that do have issues that go through this process and receive those notice of violations and have penalties associated with them we regularly receive requests to um basically waive the fee and we'll look at several um trying to get a good example we'll have people that have hardships we'll have people that had issues or contractors will canceled and they'll provide you know documentation to our department and we'll we'll waive the fee it's a really roundabout way of assuming i had a feeling where you were going with that sounds good these columns thank you i've received a number of social media comments about city properties and so i'm following up with my colleagues question in part because i have some concerns about city properties and i'm aware that we recently made the decision to not continue a set of positions in parks um for maintenance workers um our i guess this is a city manager's question can you get back to us and let us know what the obstacle is to having prompt clearance of city properties because i'm getting an awful lot of so so we're looking at that and that's probably a wider range of conversations about that involves frankly uh some of the the the landscape ordinance that's coming back to you shortly i think we'll be starting to touch on some of those things and what's what's what are we going to do with our parks what's an acceptable way of encountering our parks and it may be a larger community conversation i certainly do not expect a short answer tonight but to address this exact point i think you know we're going to be working on this and so yes it's going to be a we have to have a conversation about what is a suitable way to maintain a park but also what's acceptable you know what's and we may have some education out of that so yes council member it's going to be a very much a part of a longer conversation about that i look forward to talking at length about that any other questions from council okay this is a public hearing so open the public hearing we have one card alex crown oh not on this item would you like to comment on this item anyone else mr. gosner you interested open book anyone don't have to fill out a card okay see and then we'll close the public hearing bring it back to council miss flamin i think you have this item also yes i do thank you for your outreach in our community with our property owners and so forth okay the resolution of the city of the santa rosa confirming the itemized report of the santa rosa fire department of the cost of removing weeds and or rubbish from a pond or in of certain lots or partials of land within the city of santa rosa all right any additional comments seen none your votes please keeping your suspense paul and that passes unanimously with five affirmative votes thank you all right no written communications public comments mr. crone you wanted to speak on this item 18 non-agent items you're up thank you uh i'm alex crone i'm a physical therapist here in santa rosa i've lived in santa rosa my whole life born and raised and i'm here to speak to you for the many concerned residents about having small cell phone towers placed in their neighborhoods here we are about a year later and i want to thank you for you guys's time and listening to us last year the project i guess has been on pause and most of the 112 contracted sites with verizon and mobility haven't been built yet but i can tell you the ones that have are very powerful they're not low powered like they were advertised they're anywhere from 500 to 2000 or 4001 case millivolts per meter at ground level the neighborhoods were at about 10 millivolts before they were installed um i want you guys please to educate yourself on the matter please look at credible scientists who have spent their careers studying the biological effects of wireless radiation on living organisms and i understand the federal FCC and guidelines handcuff you guys quite a bit but there are lots of local municipalities in california who are trying to protect themselves and do what they can um i would appreciate if we had a thorough public notification process for any future cell sites um and if you really look at the FCC and the people who are trying to strip our local authority away from us to control these things it's tyranny their current chairman the headman for the current FCC um attempt to really streamline these things is verizon's ex attorney think about that a tnt and verizon between the two of them they own comcast nbc cnbc tnt tbs direct tv universal studios e bravo cnn and yahoo so it's frustrating that maybe we don't see this very important issue on the news channels we watch again i'm asking you to educate yourself i want to invite you formally there is a lady named dafna tack over coming to town this weekend saturday at two o'clock at the rink and valley library she's an international attorney um from israel and she practices in israel in new york she's an expert in the legal matter of this and she was also in the israeli army and specialized in telecommunications so she is an expert in the science and um really the health issues of this as well so i have some flyers here if i can pass that out or you can remember if you have time i think you owe it to your constituents and your residents to santa rosa to educate yourself on the issue thank you right thank you any other cards madam city clerk okay no other items on the agenda adjourn the meeting