City Council - Regular Meeting

I'd like to ask the interpreter currently on the Spanish channel to commence interpretation of the meeting. For those just joining the meeting, live interpretation in Spanish is available, and members of the public or staff wishing to listen to Spanish can join the Spanish channel by clicking on the interpretation icon in the Zoom toolbar. It looks like a globe. If you're on your cell phone or tablet, locate the three dots, tap them lightly, and put a check mark on your preferred language. Click done to activate and begin the interpretation. Once you join the Spanish channel, we recommend that you shut off the main audio so you only hear the Spanish interpretation. Losha, will you please restate this in Spanish?

Yes, thank you. Instrucciones de interpretación en español. Les invitamos a todos a seleccionar el español si se encuentra limitado en su dominio del inglés. De esta manera puede escuchar a las intérpretes del inglés al español. Si se encuentra en su computadora, busque el globo terráqueo en la parte inferior de su pantalla que dice interpretación donde podrás seleccionar español. Seleccionalo al hacer un click en esa opción. Si se encuentra utilizando su celular o una tableta, ubique y toque los tres puntitos que aparecen en la pantalla ligeramente y ponga una palomita en el idioma de español. Seleccione done o finalizar. Este último paso es muy importante para activar la interpretación. Gracias por su participación y esperamos que tenga una buena experiencia. Right back at you.

Welcome, everyone. The time is 4 1 and we can call this meeting to order out of city clerk. Would you please call the roll?

Thank you, Mayor. Council member Rogers. President Council member McDonald is absent. Council member Fleming is absent. Council member Ben Willows here. Council Member Alvarez. Present. Vice Mayor Okropke.

Here.

Mayor Stapp.

Here.

Let the record reflect all council members are present with the exception of council members Fleming and McDonald.

Thank you very much. All right, we can jump ahead right away to item 8.1, our community empowerment plan update. We have Ms. Wood this evening. Welcome.

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and members of the Council. My name is Misty Wood, and tonight I'll be briefly presenting the Community Empowerment Plan update for the month of August. I'm going to start out with one of my favorite events, which is happening right now, which is National Night Out. This is an annual nationwide event to help build police and community relationships. Our Santa Rosa Police Department and Fire Department are out at Dick's Sporting Goods from 5 to 8 p.m. tonight. This is a free, family-friendly event, and we encourage everybody to attend and get to know our police officers in a very relaxed and fun setting. Next up, on August 8th, Recreation and Parks will host its annual Park a Month volunteer program at Rincon Valley Community Park. And that'll be from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. So feel free to show up, bring your friends, or show up by yourself and meet some new people along the way. On August 15th, we have a creek cleanup hosted by Santa Rosa Water at the Prince Memorial Greenway. Anybody who's interested, meet at the Olive Park Footbridge near 1698 Hazel Street at 10 a.m. This run does require a sign-up, so please visit srcity.org slash calendar to sign up for that cleanup. Also on August 15th, the Rural Cemetery Preservation Committee will host their monthly volunteer workday from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. Projects include cemetery beautification efforts such as painting and other landscaping projects and maintenance work. Live at Juilliard is happening from July 12th to August 16th, so it is still ongoing on Sundays. This is a free, quite a large event at Juilliard, Juilliard Park here in downtown Santa Rosa. Everyone is invited to join in this free celebration. For concert dates and artist lineup and additional details, visit srcity.org slash live at Juilliard. And then finally, we are kicking off once again our district-based community meetings with council members and community advisory board members. Our first one is on August 26th. This will be with Mayor Stapp, Council Member McDonald, and community advisory board members Clay Dalton and Andrea Rodriguez. This will be at Montgomery High School from 6.30 to 8 p.m. on August 26. So this is an opportunity to get to share your feedback, learn more about how the city works, and have direct access to your electeds and to community advisory board members. And we will be announcing additional meetings as those are scheduled as well. That concludes this month's update, and I'm available for any questions that Council may have.

A full slate as always. Thank you very much, Misty. Any questions from Council? Right, no questions, but thank you for highlighting the event tonight with the police department at Dick's Sporting Goods.

I think a few of us are headed there after the fact.

I am too.

Well, let's go to public comment then. For those of you online, remember to raise your hand or dial star nine so we know you have a comment. Are there any members of the public in council chambers who wish to speak? Seeing none, we'll turn to Madam Zoom host, Lauren. Is there anybody online with their hands raised?

Negative, Mayor.

All right, we'll close public comment. And Misty, thank you very much for your report. We'll move on then to item nine, our city manager and city attorney's reports. Jason, anything from the city manager side?

Yes, thank you very much, Mayor. I have a few things to report on. First, I'd like to share an upcoming downtown activation that will help bring energy and activity to the heart of our city. From August 14th through October 31st, the Ross Street activation will transform the east side of Ross Street into a vibrant community gathering place. featuring live music, lunchtime food trucks, and family-friendly activities designed to attract visitors and support the downtown businesses. The City of Santa Rosa is proud to support this effort through funding, partnership, and coordination assistance from our Economic Development Division. We appreciate the collaboration of our downtown business community and event partners in bringing Activation to life in our downtown. For more information, please visit DowntownSantaRosa.org. I'm also really pleased and super excited to announce that the City of Santa Rosa has been named the North Bay's Business Friendly City. In the Best of the North Bay Awards, this recognition is especially meaningful because it's determined by votes from local residents and business community reflecting their confidence in Santa Rosa as a place where business can thrive. This honour belongs to our entire community, including the businesses, entrepreneurs, employees, and partners who contribute to our local economy every day. It reflects the strong partnership between the city and our business community and reinforces Santa Rosa's reputation as a place where success takes root. We're grateful to employees who voted, or to everyone who voted and helped make this recognition possible. Visit srcity.org forward slash doing business to connect with our team and resources. And I do want to just express a huge congratulations and thank you to all of those who are involved with helping make the business community in Santa Rosa really one that's thriving and someplace that really demonstrates how fantastic it is to do work and business here. And lastly, I'd like to invite our community to join us for another season of Movies in the Park, taking place this Friday evening or every Friday evening from August 14th through September 11th at Howarth Park. Families are encouraged to bring a picnic and a blanket and enjoy a free movie under the stars along with food vendors and pre-movie activities, including the train and carousel rides, lawn games, face painting, and special entertainment. This year's lineup includes The Little Mermaid, Dog Man, Monsters Incorporated, Leeloo and Stitch, and Zootopia 2. Movies begin at dusk and activities start earlier in the evening. Movies in the Park is a great opportunity to come together and enjoy one of Santa Rosa's most beloved parks. We hope to see you there, and for more information, please visit srcity.org forward slash movies in the park. Mayor, that concludes my report.

Thank you, City Manager. Do I remember correctly that this is the second year in a row that Santa Rosa has received the Business Friendly City in Sonoma County? You do remember correctly. And it's the second year that Rohnert Park did not win that reward. Is that correct? That is absolutely correct. Just as a matter of record. Thank you very much. Madam City Attorney.

Thank you, Mayor. I do not have any reports this afternoon.

Thank you very much. We'll go to public comment. Again, if you're online, raise your hand or dial star nine. Are there any members of the public that would like to celebrate Santa Rosa being named the business-friendly city in Sonoma County? I see one member of the public who happens to be my mom making her way to the podium. I guess legally we're required to allow this. Oh, thank heavens. Okay, no public comment yet. We'll turn then, Lauren, anybody online?

No celebrants online either, Mayor.

Thank you very much, Lauren. All right, we'll close public comment. We'll move on then to statements of abstention or recusal by council members. Are there any statements of abstention or recusal this evening? Seeing none, we'll go on to mayor and council member reports. Are there any reports this evening? Ms. Rogers, kick us off.

First, I'd just like to say hello to your mother. Too bad she wasn't here last week, because then she could have met my mother. So I think we're taking turns on sharing what we do here for the city. I'm excited to appoint Nadia King to Arts in Public Places. Nadia is a filmmaker, a photographer, a writer, and a substitute teacher for Sonoma County Office of Education. So I would just like to thank her for stepping up and wanting to support the city and what we're doing here. Also wanna wish Grant Davis from Sonoma Water a very happy retirement. The WAC and TAC met yesterday, Monday, August 3rd, and the WAC passed a resolution honoring Grant Davis, who is Sonoma Water's general manager, who will be retiring later this month after 19 very long years of service. He's seen us through floods and droughts and you name it. He's seen it. So thank you very much, Grant. For your service, Sonoma Water staff provided an update on water supply, noting that both reservoirs are in good shape due to implementation of forecast-informed reservoir operations, which is FERO, that allowed the Army Corps to store more water over the winter months. Sonoma Water staff provided updates on the Potter Valley project, noting that FERC extended the comment period for the environmental scoping of PG&E's proposal, and the WAC and other water contractors have submitted comments to FERC. Environmental, where we at? Last, the Ill Russian Project Authority, IRPA, is meeting this Thursday at noon in the Sonoma County Board Chambers. And then I also had the privilege of attending the Sonoma County Museum Gala on August 1st, which was a time to be had. It was very fun. So shout out to the Sonoma County Museum.

Thank you very much. Any other reports by council? All right, I like the pace we're moving at tonight, folks. We will go to public comment then. Any members of the public wish to comment? Looking in chambers, seeing none. If you're online, raise your hand or dial star nine. Lauren, is there anybody online who wishes to comment?

Surprisingly, no, Mayor.

Thank you, Lauren. All right, move on then to our consent items. Let's see, we have two consent items. This is a memorable meeting. Items 13.1 and 13.2, looking to council, are there any questions on either of these items? Seeing none, we'll go to public comment. Any members of the public in chambers wish to comment on consent? Seeing none, we'll go online. If you're online and you want to make any comments, raise your hand or dial star nine. Madam Zoom host, anybody online?

We do indeed, Mayor.

Well, for the second week in a row, let's have it, Lauren.

All right. So we have guest 8309 via phone. I'm going to enable your permissions. You're going to have two minutes. And go ahead and start. Give me one moment. Go ahead and start whenever you're ready.

Hello there. How are you?

We are well. You have two minutes.

Awesome. I think I might have pressed the wrong button. I was actually going to wait until the end of the meeting to comment about the construction on West 3rd and Fulton. So I don't want to mess up what you guys got going right now.

That's perfect. We'll do public comment on non-agenda matters at the end of the meeting and we can take this comment then.

Thank you, sir. Back to you, Mayor.

All right, thank you, Lawrence. We'll close public comment and let's see. We will, Vice Mayor, I'll look for a motion.

I'll move items 13.1 and 13.2 as submitted by staff.

Second. We have a motion and a second by Mr. Alvarez. Madam City Clerk, you can call the vote whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Rogers? Aye. Council Member McDonald is absent. Council Member Fleming is absent. Council Member Banuelos? Yes. Council Member Alvarez?

Aye.

Vice Mayor Okropke?

Aye.

Mayor Stapp?

Yes.

The motion passes with five affirmative votes.

Thank you very much. All right, so we are not yet at five o'clock. What we're gonna do is we're gonna condense our usual two public comments on non-agenda matters into one at the end of tonight's meeting, but that will allow us to go forward and take item 15.1, our first report on our pro-housing designation program application authorization. We have a housing-focused meeting tonight. Thank you very much to our team. And Ms. Nicholson and Ms. Jones, welcome.

All right. Thank you, Mayor and members of the Council. So as Ms. Nicholson gets the PowerPoint presentation up, I was just going to give us a quick little introduction. So I'm Jessica Jones, Deputy Director of Planning. The item before you is the city's draft pro-housing designation program application. So as you will recall, this is our second round of this. We did this three years ago. The program is through the state, HCD. And once designated, it lasts for three years. HCD established this program back in 2021. And it supports jurisdictions that really go above and beyond in housing policy and acceleration of housing production. And once designated, the jurisdiction has an opportunity to be a priority for processing of new funding and available additional points for funding moving forward for housing development. So Sacramento was actually the first jurisdiction to receive pro-housing designation back in 2022. And the city applied for and received our designation in 2023. And at that time, in the list of jurisdictions that had gotten the Pro Housing designation, we were very excited to be tied for fourth place in kind of the ranking of the number of points. So just to kind of put it in perspective, the minimum point total that you need to be designated is 30 points. And the points that we got last time was 57. And Sacramento at that time had 64. So we were right in there with some of these bigger jurisdictions like Sacramento, San Francisco, and San Monica. So we were very excited about that. It really just showed the amount of work that the city has done from a policy and development standpoint for moving housing forward. So now I'm gonna fast forward three years in, it's time for us to do this again. And so Amy is gonna be going over the application that we've put together and we are currently in the public outreach phase of that. As it's been drafted up, we've got about 89 points, which Amy will go into, which is 32 more points than we had the last time. And again, it really is just emphasizing the amount of continued work that the city is doing from, again, a policy and a streamlining perspective to move housing along here in the city. If we get accepted for those 89 points, which we expect that we will, that would put us in second or third place of 74 jurisdictions within the state that have this designation and well above the other jurisdictions within Sonoma County. which of those designated here in Sonoma County they all have less than 50 points so again just really emphasizing the incredible work that we're doing here so I'll leave that happy to answer any questions on those numbers as we move forward and then hand it over to Amy for the full presentation thank you so much and good afternoon mayor and council members

As Deputy Director Jones mentioned, the purpose of today's presentation is to bring forward a resolution for the council's authorization to submit a new pro-housing designation application to the state, and this will allow the city to maintain its pro-housing designation, which expires January of next year. The other purpose of this meeting is to announce that the public review period is starting now. So there is a 30 day window where the public can review the draft application and provide any comments for consideration. As was previously mentioned, the big benefit of this designation is to increase the city's competitiveness in receiving grants. So that includes both competitive grants that all jurisdictions can compete for that support affordable housing projects, but it also allows the city to compete for a pool of money that is only available to pro-housing jurisdictions. And then finally, this helps to demonstrate Santa Rosa's commitment to supporting housing for all income levels within our community. When the program was first established in 2021, it was a pilot, so it was a new program that the state began offering, and it was intended to morph over time, and so there have been some changes to the program requirements. Those two items are highlighted here on the slide, but one of those new requirements is a formalized public participation process, and the other is that jurisdictions document their homeless encampment practices. I will note that those are just baseline application requirements. So there are no additional points awarded for those two new requirements. Just to spend a moment on the progress made since the city initially received this designation in 2023. You'll see here a list of ordinances or long range plans, as well as development cost reductions that this council has advanced or supported. that allow the city to achieve approximately 30 additional points just over that three year period. In the last year, the council has adopted ordinances to allow for missing middle housing in walkable parts of the city, as well as tiny homes on wheels on single family properties, which is seen as a much lower cost form of housing for many within our community. We've continued to streamline the review of various multifamily projects, as well as take a look at how dense certain areas of the city are planned for in alignment with updates to our North Station Area Specific Plan, as well as establishing our South Santa Rosa Specific Plan. On the development cost reduction side, the council adopted a capital facility fee pilot program waiver for 100% affordable housing projects in 2024, and also a 50% cost reduction for permit fees for affordable housing developments. Just a few notes on the public participation process. This presentation to council serves as one of those milestones to just produce awareness within the community that there is a public draft available for comment. And then there's also targeted outreach with various different housing stakeholders who staff is directly in contact with to receive any comments that they may have. At the end of the public review period, those comments will be considered and as appropriate, they can be included in the application. And then at the conclusion of that, it will be sent to HCD for verification and a formal conclusion from the state prior to January of next year. So this slide shows the scoring framework that Deputy Director Jones previously mentioned. There are only 30 points required for the designation, and the city currently looks to be receiving about 89 points. Again, HCD still needs to verify this, but I will mention that staff has been working closely with their technical assistance team in putting together this application. There are four different categories, and these are broken out in detail in attachment one in your, or to the staff report. One category that the city receives points for is related to land use, and an example of a land use policy that awards the city additional points is additional density bonus being allowed in our north station area and our downtown station area above what state law requires. Another category is related to the acceleration of housing production. So you've heard a lot about how staff has moved forward with streamlining the review of a variety of housing projects. One example is a very large multifamily project can go through the review process process in a period of four months or less. On the development cost reduction side, an example which I previously referenced is the waiver of capital facility fees for 100% affordable housing projects. And then in the financial subsidies category, this was primarily documented from our Housing and Community Services team, who is here and available to answer any questions. But one example in this category is the regular use of funding to preserve affordable units that are at risk of conversion to market rate. So with that, the Planning and Economic Development Department recommends that the Council receive this report and any public comment as part of the public participation process. And then by resolution, authorize staff to submit the renewal application to the California Department of Housing and Community Development. And we are happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much and thanks for the incredible amount of work that it takes to actually put forward one of these applications to say nothing of all the policy work behind the scenes. Looking to council for questions right now. We have time to kill folks. Vice Mayor, start us off.

Thank you so much. Thank you for the presentation. Can you remind me what the benefits at the state level are for having this designation?

Thank you for the question, Vice Mayor. There are numerous grants that all jurisdictions can compete for, but the city receives both priority processing and higher point totals for any type of affordable housing developments. That could be to fund the production of new housing units, to preserve or rehabilitate units, and also to support infrastructure projects for those affordable housing projects. and then in addition there is a set aside pool of money that is only available to pro-housing jurisdictions that the city has been successful in receiving in previous cycles and our housing team can speak to that for more details on those numbers i don't think that's necessary i i

However, that's all great and good for us, but do we receive any ministerial control back for doing what's right by housing according to the state?

We do not. That is not a benefit of this designation.

Okay, thank you.

Ms. Manuelos.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you for the presentation. I think it's great that we, it looks like we're doing nothing but improving by getting more and more points. I think that's excellent. I just had a question. In looking at the staff report, I was looking at the little tiny section on analysis and it talked about you know, state housing law requirements that we have to also meet a range of income levels. And that's an area that I'm really interested in in terms of housing. Because we talk about affordable housing, we of course have, which we'll see in the next item, lots of market rate housing. And in this report, of course, you go through the missing middle and the duplexes and the tiny homes and all of that. That is all wonderful, but I'm just wondering, The area that I'm interested in besides affordable housing, or whatever that means, are the folks that don't qualify for low income housing because they make a little too much, but they can't really afford market rate. So those people are the people to me, I'm one of them, who are in the bottom low middle. And I think they get, They, we, get forgotten. So when they talk about a range of income levels, what does that mean, do you think, in terms of how it applies to this application?

Thank you for the question, Councilmember. My understanding is it is referencing the various income levels that are defined under the regional housing needs allocation, so that would be very low, low, moderate, and then above moderate income, and those are each bracketed by percentages of area median income. And so this, application and the policies within it describe various different strategies to support each of those income categories, but there aren't any that are really specific to say moderate income households in particular. It can be broad and talk about encouraging housing production for really all income levels, or in some cases, especially on the financial subsidy side, it's more specific to the lower income residents and households and do you feel that

At this point, we are building enough low income then, if that's what they want us to focus on more than, I don't agree with that. I think we should be looking at both. But if that's what they want us to do, do you all feel, I shouldn't say you personally, but you all feel that we're meeting that need by having the 89 points?

So I think the points in the application are really looking at kind of the broader policy work and streamlining that the city has done. I think your questions kind of speak more to the RHNA, the regional housing numbers that we have to meet. And so as it stands right now, we have almost met all of our market rate needs for RHNA. We are doing pretty well on the low and very low. There's still lots of work that we need to do, and we are continuously working on that. Where we have struggled, we're struggling with this cycle, and we have struggled with past cycles, is with that moderate income. And so we are looking on our end at all the policy work that we're doing. And when we're talking to developers, what can we do to help incentivize that moderate income? which I think kind of speaks more to what your question is. So, you know, it's something that we continuously work on. It's a challenging one. And we hear that from developers that that's a really challenging one to meet.

Thank you. Thank you. Other questions? Just a couple for me. And Kelly, I hate to make you get up again, but I am kind of curious. What is the total amount of grant awards that we've received? I remember we got the nine and a half million a few years ago to do site work downtown. Is the pot larger than that?

Thank you for that question. Kelly Kuykendall, Housing and Community Services Manager. So directly related to this pro-housing designation that we received, the city was awarded $1.25 million, and that was appropriated by the council in April. So the city has received other funding for affordable housing, but specifically related to this pro-housing designation is the $1.25 million.

That's helpful. So that 9.5 million, just to refresh my memory, that wasn't directly related to the pro-housing, but it was taken into account as a result of that grant decision, as I'm recalling from a few years ago. Is that accurate?

We received some additional funds we weren't expecting.

Megan, am I making things too complex here? Kelly, sorry to put you on the spot.

Good evening, Megan Basinger, Housing and Community Services Director. I believe the $9 million you're referring to is an infill infrastructure grant that the city was awarded that was with the encouragement of HCD. It was specifically for downtown-centric properties and specifically the garage located on 3rd Street. We also have benefited from some other infill infrastructure grants that aren't directly related to pro-housing, but do have points associated with some of the efforts that we've undertaken in the past years. And those are probably pushing about $30 million for a compilation of projects throughout the downtown area.

That's helpful. Thank you. And what is the total pool of funds that is exclusive to cities with the pro-housing designation? Do we know that? Like a rough, back of the envelope number.

The last round of funding when the city was awarded was just a little over eight million. So it's a very competitive funding pool with relatively limited resources. So we received 1.25 of about eight million that was available.

Eight million statewide?

Yes. That was the last funding round.

All right, so let me ask the Vice Mayor's question in a slightly nicer way. So it has been, I'm sure the state has heard much from cities with the pro-housing designation that we go through the work, you go through the work to put together 170 page grant applications to say nothing of all the policy work, all the other policy work behind the scenes. And yet that has not to date been taken into account when it comes to decisions of local control. We're not the first to voice this complaint. Are there even murmurings at the state level that they might be interested in treating pro-housing cities differently, especially given that the actual pool of funds in reward for all this work is relatively small?

That's an excellent question, Mayor. And I have not heard of any murmurings, but I would love to hear of murmurings moving forward.

THIS HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP WITH AT LEAST OUR CAL CITIES LOBBYIST. I'M SURE YOU HAVE BEEN IN THE EAR OF A LOT OF FOLKS AT THE STATE LEVEL TOO. BUT AGAIN TO THE POINT THAT THE VICE MAYOR MADE, IT'S INTERESTING THIS HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT GIVEN ALL OF THE HOUSING LEGISLATION THAT'S BEEN DROPPED ON TOP OF CITIES. ESPECIALLY CITIES LIKE OURS THAT HAVE MADE EVERY EFFORT TO BE GOOD ACTORS IN TERMS OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. I'LL END MY QUESTIONS THERE. NOTHING ELSE FROM COUNCIL?

all right let's open up to the public again if you're online raise your hand or press star nine but we'll start in chamber uh mr farron mayor and uh mayor and members of the council let me try to answer it a little differently as you know i'm one of your appointees of the housing authority and yesterday as the Housing Authority's subcommittee on the implementation of a NOFA that we have out, I learned that that 1.25 million plus some money from the infrastructure long ago is gonna help us probably fund portions of two very, very focused low-income projects. So we're gonna get some more housing for the 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, Not 80, I don't personally consider 80% of AMI anywhere near affordable. And I wanna remind you that the state has two categories below 30%. The very low and low and modern, it's all great, but the state recognizes extremely low and acutely low, which is the projects I used to work on. So I'm a little, I will differ a little with Jennifer about whether or not we're really, really doing our bit for very low and even below than that. And I recognize that we're not doing our full bid for moderate, but I want you to remember that if I were in your shoes, I would have asked Kelly and Megan to tell you a little more about what that might mean for the 30 million you're trying to get for the second phase of Caritas. Yeah, the little pots they've been giving you are great and you certainly showed that Santa Rosa is in the leadership statewide for the little pots. But I think the state is going to begin to think about rewarding those pro-housing designations for the bigger pots. And I'm particularly looking at Home Keep Less.

Gregory, thank you. Anybody else in chambers wish to comment? Seeing none, we'll go online. Lauren, anybody with their hand raised online?

No, Mayor, not even a false alarm this time.

Thank you, Lauren. All right, we'll close public comment and I'll bring it back to council. Any final discussion? All right, then Ms. Rogers, I'm looking for a motion.

Thank you. First, I'd just like to thank staff for all their hard work, even if sometimes you don't see the fruits of the labor directly. Thank you for jumping through the hoops and all the hard work that you do. And with that, I'd like to make a motion to adopt resolution as presented by staff.

Second. We have a motion and a second by Mr. Alvarez. Madam City Clerk, you can call the vote whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mayor. Councilmember Rogers? Aye. Councilmember McDonald and Fleming are absent. Councilmember Banuelos? Yes. Councilmember Alvarez? Aye. Vice Mayor Okropke?

Aye.

Mayor Stapp?

Yes.

The motion passes with five affirmative votes.

Thank you very much. And Amy and Jessica, thank you again for all the work. Are you staying around for our next item, both of you? Amy, you get to depart. Thank you again. We'll move on to item 15.2, a report on high density multifamily residential incentive program. Mr. Osborne will join us. Thank you both.

OK. Thank you, Mayor and members of the Council. Jessica Jones, Deputy Director of Planning again. So the item before you is the High Density Multifamily Residential Incentive Program. This program was originally adopted by council in 2018 and it was designed to incentivize downtown housing development and it supports the council goals of economic development and housing for all. The item before you tonight is consideration of an extension of that program by five years. That time would allow city staff to develop an updated impact fee study, engage with the community and developers, and ultimately adopt an updated program. In the short term, staff would be looking at putting together a study session for Council, likely towards the end of fall, beginning of winter, where we're going to be looking for a more robust conversation on our existing fee incentives and hopefully to receive some guidance from Council on an overall approach. So in 2016, the city embarked on a major effort to address the housing crisis, and that included a presentation and analysis looking at development and tax revenue, which was presented to council by Urban 3, which is a planning and economic firm. That analysis provided economic data supporting higher density development in the downtown area. That same year, Council adopted the Santa Rosa Housing Action Plan, and that looked at strategies to boost housing supply, expand affordable housing, and streamline residential development. In 2018, the Council adopted the program that we're talking about tonight, and then in 2019, there were corrections made to two of the resolutions that adopted the program to identify and match up eligible zoning districts within our downtown. In 2020, the council adopted an update to the downtown stationary specific plan. That original specific plan was adopted in 2007. The update looked at providing new tools to facilitate high density mixed use residential and commercial in our downtown. And then due to the ongoing housing crisis and to support the anticipated projects in downtown that we're hoping to utilize the incentive program, in 2022, the Council extended the program by three years and that program is now set to expire at the end of this month. So the purpose of the program is to encourage housing development at all affordability levels with increased densities in the downtown area through reduction and deferral of fees. And these reductions include reductions to the capital facilities fees, also known as CFF, reduction to park fees, and then deferral of the payment of water and wastewater fees. And there are no reductions to those water and wastewater fees. It would be just deferral. So this slide provides an example of what the fees would be both with and without the incentive program. The incentive program provides reduction, on this slide we've got, what it looks like without it in the yellow, what it would look like with it for market rate project in the orange, and then what it would look like for a project that would provide onsite inclusionary housing in the blue. And so this example is looking at a project that would be in the core mixed use zoning district, which is really the central area of our downtown. And it would be looking at a project that would be at least four stories in height with at least three floors dedicated to residential use. And for the purposes of this program, when we talk about residential floors, it means that it would have at least 25% of gross floor area dedicated to habitable space. So in this case, we're looking at a seven-story, 266-unit residential building. The first two floors have less than 25% dedicated to residential. So the incentive program would start after floor five. So for floors six and seven, they would not be charged the CFF or park fees. And then if the project were to provide onsite affordability, again, that's the blue column here, and for our downtown, when we talk about meeting our inclusionary housing ordinance, that would be onsite production at 4% of the low income, or 3% for very low income for a for-rent project, or at least 5% moderate income units for a for-sale project. And for that, the fees would be further reduced to $2 per square foot. So as I mentioned, the program provides an option for deferral of water and wastewater fees, and there are two options for that. The first is deferral of payment until after 75% occupancy of all residential units, or six months from the final inspection, whichever comes sooner. And then option two would be a five-year payment plan at five equal installments subject to interest. So since adoption in 2018, there have been a number of projects that have taken advantage of the program, which we've shown here on this slide. Completed projects include the Cannery, Pullman Lofts, 888 Fourth Street, and the Felix. And we also have three projects that are currently pending that are hoping to use this program, and that includes Avenue 320 Apartments, the third phase of the Pullman Lofts project, and the Humboldt Street Apartments at 425 Humboldt. So looking at next steps, so for tonight, as I mentioned, we are recommending that the Council extend the program for an additional five years, and that would run through August 31st of 2031. This additional time, as I mentioned, will allow for that overall discussion of an overall approach to impact fees. It would allow us time to engage community members and developers and develop an updated impact fee study. Following that, the program would be amended and obviously brought back to Council for final action. In the meantime, the residential projects, including those that are currently pending that I mentioned, would be able to continue taking advantage of the current program. So with that, the Planning and Economic Development Department is recommending that the Council by three resolutions amend the project to add those five years that I discussed to 2031. And we're happy to answer any questions.

Thank you both. Again, lots of work behind this. Bringing it back to council for questions. We have 15 minutes, everyone. Thank you, Ms. Banuelos.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you for the report. Just off the top, of course, I support this completely. Love to see incentives, because that's what we are always asked about when we're out in the community. Why aren't we offering more incentives? Even though we already are, people think we're not offering enough. So all of that is good. I was just curious about the impact fee study. or doing the updated, is that something that staff will do, or do you have a consultant do that, or how does that get done over the whatever time period you have that you're looking at?

Yes, thank you, Council Member. Gabe Osborne, Director of Planning and Economic Development. Typically, it's referred to as a nexus fee study, and what it does is anytime you have an impact fee, it determines the projects that you're attempting to fund with that impact fee, and then a proportionate share that new development pays. So it's really a very lengthy review on better understanding what the fee program is attempting to cover and how it's delivering projects to the community. Parks, it's new park space. CFF, it's typically new projects that are in the infrastructure arena. So it's a very staff heavy exercise and it usually is supported by consultant assistance to handle the technical documents. makes it a bit more defensible. There's a lot of regulations that go along with nexus fee studies, so it brings that level of expertise in. We have discussed that for quite some time. We can actually leverage the existing funds that exist in the fee programs to cover this. That's an allowable expenditure, so it doesn't necessarily have a general fund impact to do so. And we should be doing that on a regular timeframe anyway. So as fee studies age, they naturally need to be refreshed. We are getting to the point where CFF and parks is on the same track. So we've been looking at a target date and working with our city manager's office on how to better understand the prioritization of that as it does affect multiple departments in the collaboration of that fee study.

Just one other thought. In terms of incentives, I assume, I hate to use that word, but assume that you all have talked to developers and other folks about whether or not they like these incentives or that these will actually incentivize them to build. Especially with this chart on slide seven, You can see that it's primarily market rate housing that we're doing here. And I know we're talking about mostly downtown and not, I guess what I'm thinking about is, and I've been talking about this the last few meetings, what can we do to incentivize more low-income housing, whether it's low-low or low-income housing and moderate housing, to make it pencil out? Because I do feel like there is a large percentage of folks here that are stuck in certain types of environments because they can't get to the place where they can save money to move into market rate housing. And I know that, my district is, I always say it's working class, I'm working class, and I know when I talk to folks that that's where they feel, they feel stuck. So I just want to make sure and advocate for that, that we find ways to do that. And I know that's not necessarily in here, but clearly just with what we've been doing downtown, great developments. I love the Felix and all of those things, but I think we really need to focus on people who really live here, you know, and families especially. There's not, you know, the cannery is a wonderful project. I think it's fabulous, but not enough of things of that nature. So thank you.

Did you want to respond, or are we moving on? I can respond very quickly, and I think that's an incredibly important point. We have done fee programs in the past that are very focused on a specific development type, and I think that downtown is a prime example. It incentivized housing downtown. We also have a CFF program that attempts to incentivize affordable housing. What our goal is towards the end of the year when we come back to the council is to understand what a comprehensive incentive package looks like to support housing in general and to gain feedback on the various housing types, to understand how it would apply to the downtown. So we are able to tie that into the fee study instead of the one-off programs that have different timelines, having a more robust discussion about how we can potentially track with our RHNA numbers, understand what really the community needs, and how does the fee play a role in that, and what would an incentive package look like. But I think that it's an incredibly important point, and we will be having that conversation later in the year.

Thank you, other questions? Just one from me. So the list of projects that have come through since implementing this essentially pilot program, they're impressive. To what extent can we draw a correlation? How many of these projects would not have happened if we hadn't provided our impact fee incentives? And conversely, do we have a sense of how many projects are not happening primarily due to city impact fees? All of us get an earful on a regular basis and it's hard to suss out what the real impact is, what the correlation is. From your perspective, do you have a sense of either how effective this program has been in spurring new development and how much more effective we might be if we tweak our impact fees again?

Thank you, Mayor. It is a little difficult to determine. I think in the downtown in particular, we developed a fairly comprehensive program that involves streamlined permit review, involved predictability in the process, consistency with the downtown station area plan, and a fee incentive on top of that. And what I can state is that that package really put downtown Santa Rosa on a different map as far as tracking development. That interest came, we moved that forward and ultimately it resulted in development. There were also other pots of money that came into the equation to help close the funding gap. I think it is very difficult for development to really pin down one specific fee category that will be the catalyst to move it forward. Typically, especially with market rate housing, it is very dependent on the rents. The cost of construction often works against things. It's going up. We are very similar to San Francisco in cost of construction, but very different than San Francisco in rents. And that's one of the challenges. So oftentimes what developers are attempting to do is close the gap, and then they look at the various fee items, and oftentimes the fees don't necessarily provide an immediate benefit to the development. They're looking at infrastructure long term, service fees do provide an immediate benefit because they're bringing staff into making sure permits are approved quickly. So oftentimes impact fees do get identified by the development community simply because they don't necessarily see it as a necessary line item in their overall costs, and that becomes the focus. The flip side of that, it is a very important fee for developing infrastructure and really balancing out building communities as opposed to simply building housing in communities, that's a critical component to balancing that out. So really what the department attempts to do is better understand construction costs, better really learn what the gap is and how we can close it through other creative ways to really avoid the hyper focus on the fees, because I don't think it's simple to say that if we waive fees, it produces development. And I think the CFF pilot waiver for affordable housing is a prime example of that. We did actually, the council took a very aggressive approach to zero that fee out. We have not seen any development take advantage of that. It may in the future, because it may help to close that funding gap, but it doesn't necessarily produce that immediate result.

Very helpful answer, and I like your comparison of building homes versus building communities. That's a helpful clarification. Where do we stand on the spectrum of impact fees statewide and then potentially nationwide? Where is Santa Rosa? Are we super expensive? Are we kind of in the middle? Where do we stand?

I would say generally what happens is as costs increase, agencies will redo their fee study and fees have a tendency to go up because of the increase in cost. So essentially it creates this leapfrogging process where jurisdictions can be high and then all of a sudden they're low based on other jurisdictions adjusting their fee. When we did our last fee study, typically what happens is there is this exercise, you determine a maximum fee that can be collected, and then that fee is oftentimes lowered based on how the market can digest that fee. So it's brought down to account for how much that fee is percentage-wise of the development. So typically that exercise, and most jurisdictions go through that, naturally causes them to level out a bit. Really what's happened specifically with legislation that's come through is it focuses on the proportionality of that fee. So as unit sizes decrease, the fee should decrease along with that. Agencies have often set a fee based on a door. So a residential unit, no matter the size, pays the certain rate. So we're seeing a lot of jurisdictions go through that process and that is bringing it down. And as Santa Rosa does its next fee study, we will look at that proportionality as well, and it will likely cause a lower fee for some of the smaller units. So I think on average, Santa Rosa is competitive. There's areas for the smaller units where that fee can come down to approve the proportionality. But really what I do see is because of costs, any time a city goes through a nexus study, unless there's reductions in incentives that bring that down, just naturally construction costs want to raise that fee because of what's intended to be covered with that fee.

Thank you. Again, helpful. And final question from me, and it goes back to a comment you made where you underlined that a number of incentive programs or policy changes that the city made, and I'm guessing you're talking about the Renewal Enterprise District as well. Some of the things that we put into place, we're attracting a different class of developer or a different category of developer. Are you referring to the related Californians and the LH housings? Are the larger players coming here because of this range of incentives or assistance that we've provided?

I think that's a correct statement. And really when we went through this exercise many years ago of figuring out how we can get higher density in downtown, the staff understood that it is a different type of developer that does that. And that developer will often work in a market that produces the highest profit. So the Bay Area, San Francisco, obviously we've seen a lot there. So really a lot of those efforts started putting Santa Rosa on the map as a potential. And we have seen a number of those developers that go with more of the higher density projects, build up, focus on downtown development, we have seen them actually invest in Santa Rosa. So now that concept needs to be proved out as far as how successful those projects are. But we are seeing an interest and it really is a steady interest in many of these opportunity sites in downtown Santa Rosa as well as Santa Rosa as a whole. And it really is a different class of developer that moves forward and takes on those types of projects.

Thank you. And is that class of developer, are they a little less sensitive to impact fees? I hear it less in relation to their projects than I do with some of the more regional players.

I think oftentimes those developers factor that in. They understand, they're used to dealing with different jurisdictions that have equally or higher fees. So that's worked into the program before the concept of developing on a site even comes into the mix. They often also understand the benefit of those fee types because they are really in the long game. Many of those developers will hold properties for a lengthy period of time. Those fees are returned back to the community in the form of infrastructure and usually in growth. So it builds out parks, it builds out roadway networks. So it's really making the environment and the community around that site better. And oftentimes developers see the value in those monies flowing back to the community for that purpose.

Thank you. Helpful again. All right. No more questions from me. Let's open it up to the public. We'll start with in-chambers comments. But if you are online, raise your hand or press star nine. Anybody in chambers wish to make comment on this item? Mr. Farren, nothing? All right, good, good, good. We need to burn a few more minutes here, Gregory.

Thanks a lot, Mayor. I don't think you should think that you're only attracting the rich developers. I mean, sure, they're gonna come when they see a real opportunity. But I want you to understand that building something takes a lot of money up front. It takes a big, huge bank behind you, or it takes real success in your past. smaller developers who don't have that cash flow, who aren't interested, I mean, who would rather put the money in their own staff to come down and talk to our staff than pay an incentive fee or something early. Delay of your fees is helping a lot of middle income developers, and you should recognize that.

Thank you, Gregory. Lauren, anybody online?

We do, Mayor. We are going to start with guest 8309.

You're going to have two minutes.

Give me one moment. And we're going to enable your permissions. Go ahead whenever you're ready. You may have to unmute yourself, guest 8309. There you go. Go ahead.

Thank you. Mayor and council members, thanks for taking my call. I'm a concerned citizen who's living over here at West 3rd and Fulton. And I'm hearing a lot of great talk of development. And I love it. It sounds great. It's excellent. And a lot of discussion about contractors and impact fees and stuff like that. Have there been any studies on the impact of the neighborhoods, of the people where these low-income facilities are being located? And any studies on stuff like that, at how it affects the people in the neighborhoods? And I do have compassion. for the homeless and low-income housing. I understand it, I get it. And I'm hearing a lot about development in the downtown area. Excuse me. But here at West 3rd and Fulton, they are building a, they just broke ground and are getting ready to pour concrete. And it's going to be an unhoused women's clean living facility. And it's going to be a 10-bedroom facility that will impact this neighborhood so much. I'm very adamant about talking to my neighbors and friends in the area. We're already dealing with a homeless problem at a place to play park, which is just right adjacent to this facility that you're going to be building. The place to play park is somewhat unsafe after the sun goes down.

Thank you, sir. Lauren, are there any other online comments?

We do. We're moving on to guest 9303. If there's anyone else, please raise your hand or hit star 9. Guest 9303, I've enabled your permissions. Go right ahead.

nope they left mayor thank you very much so no more online comments correct all right we will close online com or close public comment uh bring it back for any final comments or discussion from council miss rogers did you have uh did you have a final a comment

Yes, thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to say that I believe we need housing for everyone. So when you say affordable housing, it really is what people can afford. I hear Council Member Benuelos, but really what happens is if we don't have the middle the middle housing that people that can afford a little bit more stay stuck in what is available for the middle housing. So it makes it difficult for people that's all they can afford. So having incentives and programs like this I think is very important. But we also need places like the Felix in different places for people that can afford it so that they can get what they desire and what they want so they don't stay in that middle housing income bracket. I think that's very important. But we do have people in Santa Rosa that have all different types of income levels. And so we do need to have a variety of housing for everyone. And I feel like sometimes we go, oh, we need very low. and we need middle, but we don't need high, but we do because we have people that enjoy that. We have people that come up to me and say, thank you so much for having this downtown, we really need it. This is so great, I can walk to restaurants, I can do this, I can do that. So I think we just need to keep it in perspective when we look at housing. We have an array of income levels here in Santa Rosa and we need something that, appeals to all of those levels.

Thank you. Any other comments from council? All right, then I'm looking for a motion. And let's see, is it Ms. Banuelos?

Yes, thank you, Mayor. I move that we adopt the three resolutions as presented by staff and waive reading of the text.

Second. All right, we have a motion and another second by Mr. Alvarez. Madam City Clerk, you can call the vote whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Rogers?

Aye.

Council Member McDonald and Fleming are absent. Council Member Banuelos? Yes. Council Member Alvarez? Aye. Vice Mayor Okrupke?

Aye.

Mayor Stapp?

Yes.

The motion passes with five affirmative votes.

Thank you very much. All right, we're close to the end. I'll call the public's attention to item 17.1. And Gabe and Jessica, thank you so much. Thank you for that item. I'll call the public's attention to item 17.1, our notice of final map. Let's see, you can find that information online. We are gonna go to our first and only public comment on non-agenda matters this evening. Normally we have two. We ran a very efficient meeting tonight, so we're down to one. Are there any members of the public in council chambers who wish to make comment on any items not listed on the agenda?

I see that there are.

Let's see, Ms. Flores, let's start with you, and then we'll move on to John Claes.

Good evening, Council. Recently, constituents have expressed concerns regarding your leadership, particularly with Councilman Okrupke, because the trial is taking place for former Windsor Mayor Dominic Folpoli that is facing multiple rape allegations. It was not brought to my attention until recently that Councilman Okrupke's father was on the Council alongside Mr. Folpoli, And at the time, Mr. Okrepke was highly involved in active 2030 clubs. So I'm not sure why there's been really no mention of that in the media. So I'm curious if Mr. Okrepke was involved in any events at Christopher Creek Winery. The reason I'm concerned is because listening to the Folpoli trial, these incidents took place at Boys and Girls Club events. George Peterson Insurance, so Krupke's firm, they provide insurance to Boys and Girls Club. I'm litigating with the club right now because over 40 undocumented boys were raped and trafficked and the predator's doing 150 years in state prison. However, they're saying I made all this up. So I find that very odd. I also didn't know until I read Councilman Krupke's father's bio today for Little Sirs that Bruce O. Krupke was the board president at Boys and Girls Club. So this is very concerning because, you know, A lot of politicians run in the same circles, like with Terry Sanders, who's also running for council right now. And Mr. Sanders was going to utilize Mark Adams of White Star Group to hold his listening session. That gentleman's a very close colleague of Mr. Okropke. So Mark Adams offered me money to throw my lawsuit with Boys and Girls Club. That story, I was on the cover of the Press Democrat on Saturday. So none of this sits well with me, and I hope we get more answers during the full polling hearing. God bless you. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Adina. John? And if there are other members of the public who wish to speak, make your way to the podiums now to save time. John, go ahead.

Yes, hi, I've been a resident here since 2010. And I'm here to talk about the ever popular graffiti abatement. I'm here on behalf of Anti-Blight Ordinance 3601 and 3729. I'd first like to bring our attention to the Bellevue Area neighborhood wall backing to the 101 North Freeway on Highway 19. 101 north of Todd Avenue, sorry. I certainly have had the concern for many years that this is adding blight to the area. It's the gateway to Santa Rosa in my opinion from all areas south and it is not going to win any awards for people who are visiting here for the first time and see that we don't take that section of the 101 seriously. I'm aware that it is private property, and I've been told that it is not an HOA, and I think we should do something about it. It's not a Caltrans issue. Because we've done little about this blight, We now have, on the east side of the 101, an area that backs to the Santa Rosa apartments that are brand new, another area on the wall that has been hit, and for at least three months now. We've done nothing about that, in my opinion. I don't believe the owner even knows. I know that we have a reporting platform here in Santa Rosa, but it's very difficult to access. I'm concerned that this is moving north, this graffiti, on the 101. I personally removed graffiti on the backside of the dog eye care clinic near Steel Lane last week. It is now on the backside of the Wells Fargo Bank facing the 101. We need to put some energy into this. Thank you.

John, thank you. I'm looking at our city manager right now. Do we have, are these areas on our radar screen? Do we have the information for them?

So appreciate you highlighting them for us. I think we are aware of it and there are areas that we'd like to try to continue to work with the community to abate and address. I think our director of planning and economic development will come up and just make sure we get your contact information to circle back.

We're not, yeah, we won't go back and forth right now, but we will get your information. Thank you, sir. And a shout out to the Promise Center, a local faith community that's doing a lot to help the city and our graffiti evatement team deal with these situations. All right, next public comment. Mr. Fix, welcome to council chambers.

Good afternoon, council members. My name is Brian Fix, and I'm here to represent the Santa Rosa Police Officers Association. I am here today to address the Measure Q tax measure, which was recently voted on and placed on the November 2026 ballot. After a great deal of discussion and debate amongst our membership, I stand here today to vocalize the POA's support and endorse the tax measure. To be frank, this was not an easy decision to come to. But what helped sway our decision to support this measure was acknowledging the city's effort to make financial changes and to make tough decisions to implement cuts and reduce spending citywide over the past two years. While we were not thrilled to take nine cuts in the process, we understand that the police department had to do its part in these dire economic times. After sitting through countless budget discussions and meetings, it is clear to us that there is no alternative path forward other than asking our community for support and to present them with the choice of voting to support or oppose this tax measure. The Santa Rosa Police Officers Association wants to continue to support this city and to remain loyal to the community that we so proudly serve. We hope that the community will join us in supporting this tax measure so that we can continue to see this city grow and to improve for generations to come. Thank you.

Brian, thank you, and thanks to the POA and SRPD. Are there any other members of the public in council chambers who wish to speak? Seeing none, we'll go online. Please raise your hand and dial star nine if you're online and you wish to make comment on any items not listed on the agenda. Madam Zoom Clerk, are there any questions? Are there any hands raised online?

We do. We have one, Mayor.

Perfect. Thank you.

Okay. Guest 8309, I'm going to enable your permissions. You will have two minutes as soon as you unmute yourself.

Hello there, Councilmember. It's me again.

I was talking earlier about the impact

of the homeless shelter that's going to be built on West 3rd and Fulton. We're already dealing with somewhat of a homeless crisis over at the park that's very close to this facility. There has been an uptick with the building of the fence for the construction site. We've already seen an uptick in graffiti just from one week of the fence being put up for this facility. The impact of this facility on the neighborhood is very, very, very heavy and deep feeling. All of the homeless people from the place to play park will now come to this shelter. It's going to bring trash, drugs, a lot of traffic in this dead end cul-de-sac that will be leading into this facility. Not only that, but the stress and the impact of this facility, nobody, everybody that I've talked to, there is not one positive side for us, the people. The only upside is that across the street is a, it's Big Oak Liquor. may have an increase in alcohol and tobacco sales. But other than that, there is no positive thing for the people of this neighborhood of having this facility here. My question is, is there any way that we can stop this from being built?

Thank you for your comment, sir. We can't get into a discussion, but you can certainly pay attention to our planning meetings and contact the city at a different time. Is there anybody else online, Lauren?

No, Mayor. That's the last one.

All right. We're going to close public comment on non-agenda matters, and the time is 5.15, and we're officially adjourned. Thank you, everyone.