City of Santa Rosa Council Meeting October 1, 2019

ALL RIGHT WELCOME EVERYBODY TO TODAY'S COUNCIL MEETING. WE RECENTLY HAD A CLOSED SESSION. LATER WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A STATE SESSION. I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE EVALI AT THE LEZ AND SHE WILL BE DOING THE COUNCIL SIT ALONG ALL THE WAY TO THE END, CORRECT? SHE IS SMILING NOW. MR. McGWYNN DO YOU DO YOU WANT TO INTRODUCE THIS ITEM. >> YES, ITEM 3.1 M.O.

U BETWEEN THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA AND CITY SCHOOLS TO ALLOW AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON FUR RIDGE DRIVE LOT F, APN173-620-020. ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, DAVID PRESENTING. >> THANK YOU, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. AS THE CITY MANAGER MENTIONED, WE'RE HERE TO DISCUSS A PROPERTY. SUBJECT OF M.O. U BETWEEN THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA AND SAN JOSE DISTRICT. THERE IS A LNG HISTORY OF THIS PROJECT. CALLED FUR RIDGE AT NORTH. A SHY LIGHT OF THE ITEMS THAT HAVE HAPPENED FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS. SINCE 1988, AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND DEVELOPER WAS ESTABLISHED FOR THAT PROPERTY. THE SITE WAS TO BE HELD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE SCHOOL OR LOW OR MODERATE INCOME HOUSING. THERE WAS A NEGOTIATION PERIOD BETWEEN THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE SITE. THERE WERE A NUMBER OF TIME LINES OUTLINES IN THE AGREEMENT.

AND THEN THE THOUGHT WOULD BE THAT IF NOTHING DID HAPPEN, THE CITY CULD BRING THAT BACK INTO THE CITY IF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD. SOME XAOE POINTS BETWEEN 1988 AND 2015, JUST AS A NOTE, IT WAS AMEND 12 TIMES. SO IT'S BEEN IN FRONT OF OF THE COUNCIL A NUMBER OF TIMES. TWO MAIN PIECES, TWO MAIN IMPORTANT DATES THAT HAPPENED IN THIS TIMELINE WAS IN 2003 WHICH CHANGED THE AGREEMENT. OR THE CITY COULD DEVELOP THAT SITE AND DEVELOP LOW TO MODERATE HOUSING WITH RESIDENTIAL USE.

IN 2016, IT WAS MODIFIED AGAIN, AND THEY EXTENDED THAT FOR THREE YEARS. EXTENDED THE AGREEMENT FOR THREE YEARS. AUTHORIZED THE CITY MANAGER TO EXTEND THE AGREEMENT IF PROGRESS WAS HAPPENING. THE INTENT WAS ASSUMING IF IT START TODAY MOVE FORWARD. THE DEVELOPMENT WAS CHOSEN AND THE SITE WAS BEGINNING TO BE DEVELOPED. WE WANTED MAKE SURE THAT W EXTENDED THE M.O. U. THE OTHER THING THAT THE M.O. U DID WAS FORMALIZE AGREEMENT TWAOENL THE CITY AND THE DISTRICT AND THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT PIECE TO MAKE SURE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS WORKING TOGETHER TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT SITE WAS USED TO ITS BEST VALUE. A LITTLE BIT OF VOCATION, THE SITE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, IS IN THE NORTHEAST PART OF SANTA ROSA AND FOUNTAIN GROVE AREA.

IT'S RIGHT OFF OF FIR RIDGE DRIVE, THERE IS A LITTLE BIT BLOWUP. IT'S ABOUT 6.3 ACRES. THERE IS A PARCEL THAT CAME BACK IN THE 1980s, THAT'S FOR RICH PARK, ON THAT SITE. SO THE SITE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE I IDENTIFIED IN RED, IT'S A SIX-ACRES SITE IN THE FOUNTAIN GROVE AREA. SO WHERE WE ARE TODAY AND IN BACK OF THE CITY COUNCIL. THE CURRENT M.O. U AD THE THREE-YEAR AGREEMENT IS COMING DUE, PRETTY, IN THE EARLY NEXT YEAR. SO THE CITY AND THE DSTRICT HAVE BEEN WORKING TOGETHER OVER THE PAST BASICALLY, YEAR LOOKING AT WHAT WE CAN DO, AND HOW WE CAN HELP THIS PROJECT MOVE FORWARD. WE HAVE MET WITH MULTIPLE DEVELOPERS WITH THE SITE TO FIND OUT IF THERE IS A WAY TO DEVELOP THAT SITE AS INTENDED PER THE AGREEMENT.

IN ADDITION, WE HAD THE FIRES THAT HAPPENED AND HAD A BIG IMPACT IN THIS AREA. AND IT DID CHANGE HOW THAT SITE WAS VIEWED AND THE DEVELOP ABILITY OF THAT SITE IN TERMS OF COSTS. AS THE COUNCIL IS WELL AWARE THERE IS A NUMBER OF LOTS THAT ARE BEING REBUILT. THIS SITE DOES NOT HAVE ANY INFRASTRUCTURE TO I, DOES NOT HAVE ANY WATER OR SEWER, THE TENTATIVE MAP THAT WAS APPROVED HAS SINCE EXPIRED SO THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE REDONE AS WELL. SO A LOT OF WORK TO HAVE TO GO TO DEVELOP THE SITE.

SO A LOT OF THINGS THAT TE CITY DID, WAS LOOK AT WHAT OPTIONS, WHAT DO WE WANT TO PUT INTO AMENDED M.O. U IF THE TOWN SIL WANTS TO EXTEND THIS TO GET AS MUCH FLEXIBILITY AS POSSIBLE. THE SANTA ROSA DISTRICTS' EMPLOYEES. SO WE CAME UP WITH THREE MAIN OPTIONS, WITH THE COUPLE OF SUPE SETS. ONE WAS EXTEND THE TERMS AND THE EXISTING TERMS AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT EACH ONE OF THESE ONE BY ONE. ESSENTIALLY, IT MEANS TO DEVELOP THAT SITE AS ORIGINAL INTENDED. SECOND OPTION WAS, IF THIS DISTRICT FOUND THAT THEY COULDN'T DO ANYTHING WITH TAT PROPERTY, THEY COULD REVERT THAT BACK TO THE CITY. THIRD OPTION, THE DISTRICT CAN SELL THE SITE AND USE THE PROCEEDS FOR A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT OPSING. ONE IS TO BUILD HOUSING ON ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT OR PARTNER WITH ANOTHER DEVELOPER THAT IS BUILDING NEAR THE TRANSIT AREA TO TRY TO LEVERAGE THE FUNDS TO GO FURTHER. AND THEN A NEW OPTION WAS CREATING A RESOLVING FUND ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR DISTRICT EMPLOYEES S THAT THE MONEY WOULD CONTINUE TO PROVIDE BENEFIT OVER THE LIFE OF THAT FUND. SO WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH EACH ONE REAL QUICK.

AND AGAIN THE INTENT IS TO HAVE A DISCUSSION AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL TO HEAR IF YOU COUNCIL IF WOULD YOU LIKE TO INCLUDE THESE OR IF THERE ARE ONES THAT YOU SPECIFICALLY WANT REMOVED. HAVE TAT CONVERSATION AND THEN WE'LL BRING THAT BACK AT THE JOINT MEETING. SO WALKING THROUGH THE ITEMS. THE FIRST ONE THAT WE TALKED ABOUT WAS THE EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING TERMS. WHICH AGAIN, THAT EXISTING TERMS REALLY SOLIDIFIED THE DISTRICT AND THE CITY TOWARDS UTILIZING THE SITE WHA. THAT MEANS I THE DISTRICT WILL NEED TO ESTABLISH A SUBDIVISION MAP IN THE SITE. THE ORIGINAL MAP IS EXPIRED. AND TE DEVELOPER TO DEVELOP THAT SITE. SO WE HAVE LANGUAGE IN THE EXISTING AGREEMENT ABOUT TIMELINE AND WHEN THE NOTICE WOULD HAVE TO BE SENT TO THE CITY TO MAKE SURE THAT PROGRESS WAS MADE. SO THIS IS DEVELOPING THE SITE, GIVING MORE TIME AND ALLOWING THAT TO HAPPEN. THE SECOND OPTION, AGAIN IF THE DISTRICT DECIDED THAT THEY DID NOT WANT TO DO ANYTHING WITH THAT SITE OR THEY RAN INTO SOME ISSUES WITH THE PETITION DEVELOPING, IT COULD TRANSFER BACK TO THE CITY FOR LOW TO MODERATE INCOME HOUSING ON THE SITE SO.

THAT'S THE THOUGHT. AND THEN THE CITY COULD BUILTED ON THE SITE OR POTENTIALLY SELL THE SITE FOR DOING ANOTHER, CREATING HOUSING. OPTION THREE, IS HAS TWO PARTS TO IT. THE FIRST PRT IS SELLING THE SITE. AND THEN USING THOSE PROCEEDS AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, EITHER PARTNERSHIP OR DEVELOPMENT ON THE PROPERTY. CREATING HUSING ON ANOTHER PROPERTY OR, POTENTIALLY CREATING A DOWNTOWN PROPERTY. AND OPTION 3B WOULD BE TO SELL THE PROPERTY AND USE THE FUNDS AND ESTABLISH A PAYMENT ASSISTANT PROGRAM. THE THOUGHT WOULD BE A REVOLVING FUND TO ALLOW FOR ON GOING PAYMENT TO GET INTO HOME OWNERSHIP.

THIS WOULD ALLOW THE DISTRICT TO LEVERAGE ADDITIONAL GRANT FUNDS TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE FUND TO GO MAKE THE FUNDING GO FURTHER OF WHAT THE SALE PRICE OF THE HOME OR THE PROPERTY WOULD DO. ONE O THE THINGS THAT WE FOUND WHEN WE START TODAY TALK ABOUT THIS OPTION AS PART OF THE M.O. U, THE COUNCIL HAS THE ABILITY TO PUT IN SOME PROVISIONS OR BOUNDARIES ON A PROGRAM LIKE THIS, A LOAN PROGRAM.

AND THE BOUNDARIES WAS ELIGIBILITY THRESHOLD. SO DOES THE COUNCIL WANT TO PROVIDE SOME GUIDANCE IN TERMS OF WHO IS ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN A LOAN PROGRAM SUCH AS THIS. SO WE HAVE A COUPLE OF OPTION THAT'S WE THREW OUT. ONE IS DON'T PROVIDE A THRESHOLD LET THE DISTRICT COME OUT WITH THAT PROGRAM. OR WE SET SOME, SOME THRESHOLDS SO LOW TO MODERATE THRESHOLDS. 150MAI OR LOOK AT WHAT TWO TEACHERS MAKE ON A CERTAIN AT A CERTAIN SENIORITY IN THE SCHOOL DISTRICT SO. WE TOOK THE THREE OPTIONS AND THE DISTRICT RAN SOME ANALYSIS. AND THERE IS A LETTER ATTACHED TO THE PACKET THAT DOES REVIEW OF THE DIFFERENT HOUSES TO SHOET IMPACT TO GIVE SOME SENSE OF SCALE, IN TERMS OF WHO WOULD BE EFFECTED IF SOME OF THESE WERE PICKED. WE DON'T HAVE ANY DATA, THAT WOULD BE FORMED. THE PROGRAM WOULD HAVE TO BE FORMED BY THE DISTRICT.

THE TRADITIONAL LOW TO MODERATE, 80-120. THERE IS ANTICIPATION OF 182 EMPLOYEES WOULD BE ELIGIBLE. 150MAI, LOOK LIKE 148 AND THEN THE OTHER APPROACH, WHICH AGAIN WAS LOOKING AT WHAT A TYPICAL TWO-TEACHER HOUSEHOLD, I BELIEVE THAT IS HAS A TEN-YEAR EXPERIENCE WOULD MAKE. AND THAT OPENS UP THE DOOR A LITTLE BIT MORE TO A BROWDER SUB SET OF EMPLOYEES. SO AGAIN, THERE IS AN ATTACHMENT TO THIS. THERE IS MORE DETAIL IN THE LETTER AND THE DISTRICT IS HERE. AND WE WILL BE WILLING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. WE HAVE DISTRICT STAFF AND PRESIDENT IN THE AUDIENCE AS WELL. >> SO THAT GETS US TO THE DISCUSSION POINTS. SO THE BIG QUESTION IS DO WE WANT TO EXTEND THE M.O. U. IF THE CITY COUNCIL WANTS TO DO THAT, THEN THERE IS THE QUESTION ABOUT WHAT OPTIONS WE WANT TO INCLUDE IN THE MOU, DO WE WANT A VERY SPECIFIC OPTIONS AS WE MOVE FORWARD.

AND THE LAST QUESTION IS HOW LONG DO WE WANT THAT TERM TO BE TO ALLOW THOSE OPTION TO SEE HAPPEN? THOSE ARE THE THREE MAIN QUESTIONS. PUT THE SLIDE UP HERE JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ADDRESS ALL THE ITEMS. THESES ARE THE ITEMS THAT WE JUST WENT THROUGH. EXTENDED TERMS. A LOUT TRANSFER, ALLOW THE DISTRICT TO SELL THE SITE, TO CREATE HOUSING OFF SITE. OR ASSISTANCE PROGRAM F.THAT'S AN OPTION THAT THE COUNCIL IS INTERESTED IN, DO YOU WANT TO HAVE AN INCOME THRESHOLD? IF YOU DON'T MIND, WOULD I LIKE TO GET SOME FEEDBACK ON THE OPTIONS AND IF WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD ON EXTENDING THIS AGREEMENT. >> GREAT. BEFORE WE GET FEEDBACK, LET'S SEE IF THERE IS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PRESENTATION? MR. VICE MAYOR? >> OKAY, MR. MAYOR. SO WITH MR. TWO, THAT WOULD BE A REGULAR RFP PROCESS ONCE THE CITY TAKES ONLY THE? >> TRANSFER BACK TO THE CITY, WE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH A SURPLUS PROCESS. >> THANK YOU. >> MS. COMBS? >> THANK YOU. I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, DO WE HAVE ACCESS TO HAZARD MITIGATION DOLLARS TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY SO WE DON'T HAVE PEOPLE SLEEPING IN A HIGH FIRE HAZARD AREA.

>> AT THIS TIME, NO. WE DON'T HAVE THOSE FUNDS. >> DO WE ANTICIPATE IN THE FUTURE APPLYING FOR FUNDS FOR PURCHASE AND PROPERTY? >> THE STATE HS NOT RELEASED A PROGRAM THAT WOULD AFFORD US THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT. >> OKAY. >> CAN WE LEGALLY CREATE SOMETHING ELSE ON THAT SITE. SUCH AS RV PARKING? UNDER THE CONCEPT OF OWNERSHIP, CAN PUT CAN WE USE THAT FOR SOME OF OUR HOMELESS FOLKS? >> THERE ARE NO IMPROVEMENTS. SO IMPROVEMENTS WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE. AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE COST WOULD BE. >> I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF IT'S AN AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OR INCOME HOUSE LEVELS.

>> I'M SORRY, I DON'T THINK I UNDERSTAND THAT QUESTION. >> I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, THE AGREEMENT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT THE SITE BE HELD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SCHOOL LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING. AND I'M TRYING TO ASK, EXACTLY WHAT CONSTRUCTION MEANS IN THIS CASE. >> I SEE. I SEE. SO I THINK WHAT WE'RE SHOWING HERE I THAT THE COUNCIL HAS GUIDANCE ON HOW THAT PROPERTY – IS USED. HERE IS OPTION THAT'S WE CAME UP WITH. IF IT'S ADDITIONAL OPTIONS OF INTEREST THAT YOU WANT TO INCLUDE IN THIS, WE CAN DO THAT. >> IF WE WERE INTERESTED IN USING PERCENTAGES OF UNITS BASED ON INCOME LEVEL, THAT AN OPTION? IT LOOKED AS IF THE VOICES WE HAD INVOLVED THIS LEVEL OR THIS LEVEL OR THIS LEVEL? IF WE WANTED SPECIFY PERCENTAGES, BASED UPON THE PERCENTAGE OF DISTRICT OF PERSONS WHO NEEDED HOUSING IN THOSE LEVELS.

>> FOR SPECIFICALLY FOR THE DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. >> NO, SPECIFICALLY FOR THE UNITS. LIKE COULD WE SPECIFY TEN OF THE UNITS OR FOR MODERATE INCOME? 20 OF THE UNITS ARE FOR LOW INCOME AND 12 UNITS OR SOME PERCENTAGES OF THE UNITS ARE MORE WORK FORCE HOUSING LEVEL LIKE UP TO 150% AMI. >> THAT WOULD FALL INTO OPTION NUMBER 1 WHICH IS CONSTRUCTION, EXTENDING THE EXISTING TERMS WHAF THE AFFORDABILITY IS. SO IF THERE IS INTEREST IN CHANGING, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD LOOK TO ADJUST FOR THE REVISION IF UNITS ARE BUILT, HERE'S THE EXPECTATION OF HOW THE UNITS ARE BUILT. >> I THOUGHT IT MAY ALSO VOLVE OPTION 3B. >> 3B WOULD BE MORE TOWARDS WHO IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE DOWN PAYMENT. >> LET'S ANSWER THAT PIECE ALSO, WHICH IS CAN WE DO IT AS A PERCENTAGE OR D WE HAVE TO GO ALL OR NOTHING. >> A COUPLE OF OPTIONS. RIGHT NOW THE DISTRICT IS NOT SET ON ANY OF THESE. THEY NEED TO GO THROUGH A PUBLIC PROCESS TO DETERMINE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. IF A DOWN PAYMENT IS SOMETHING THE PROGRAM IS INTERESTED IN.

THEY WOULD HAVE TO CREATE A PROGRAM TO TRY TO ADDRESS WHAT THE NEED S.WE CAN PROVIDE THAT GUIDANCE OR COME WUP THAT PROGRAM AND PRESENT THAT TO THE COUNCIL. >> I SEE HOW THE PROCESS S THANK YOU. >> THIS QUESTION, THIS QUESTION IS FOR OUR CITY ATTORNEY. THERE ANY IMPEDIMENT TO US TRANSFERRING THE PROPERTY TO THE SCHOOL BOARD AND WITH THE REQUEST THAT THEY USE IT FOR HOUSING AND LETTING THEM FIGURE IT OUT? >> THE CURRENT CURRENT AGREEMENT, THE PROPERTY IS IN THE HANDS OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.

AND UNDER THAT AGREEMENT, THEY CAN DEVELOP FOR EITHER SCHOOL FACILITY OR LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLD. ARE YOU, IS YOUR QUESTION. >> MY QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH, YOU KNOW, IS IT POSSIBLE FOR THE CITY TO TO NO LONGER BE A PARTY TO THIS M.O. U AND SAY, TO THIS SCHOOL BOARD, YOU GUYS ARE ELECTED OFFICIALS AND ADULTS, AND GO FORTH AND FIGURE THIS OUT. AND SO THAT WAY IT DOES NOT CONTINUE TO REVERT BACK TO THE CITY AND WE DON'T CONTINUE TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND USE YOUR CREATIVITY AND ABILITIES TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN AND LEAVE US TO MANAGE SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE MORE TYPICAL OF A CITY.

>> THIS AGREEMENT WAS A CONTINUE OF THE SUB VISION OF THAT PARTICULAR PORTION OF FOUNTAIN GROVE. AND THESE CONDITIONS, YOU KNOW, AGAIN ARE PART OF THAT ORIGINAL APPROVAL. IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE ASKING IF WE CAN SIMPLY RELIEF OF THEM ALL THE OBLIGATION SXZ HAND THEM THE PROPERTY T.WOULD BE OUR RECOMMENDATION THAT, THAT, TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT ORIGINAL APPROVAL AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT THIS PROPERTY OR THE PROCEEDS FROM THE PROPERTY BE USED FOR HOUSING, YOU KNOW SOME SORT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND/OR FOR SCHOOL PURPOSES. OPTIONS ALL DO THAT THROUGH ONE MECHANISM OR ANOTHER. WE'VE BEEN WORKING CLOSELY WITH SCHOOL STAFF IN DEVELOPING THESE. SO THERE HAS NOT BEEN A REQUEST THAT WE SIMPLY RELEAVE THEM OF THAT OBLIGATION. WOULD YU HAVE TO DO SOME FINDINGS IN ORDER TO UNDO.

IT'S OUR RECOMMENDATION THAT IT STAY IN THE GENERAL THEME OF THE ORIGINAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. >> OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. GIVEN THAT, YOU KNOW, THE 3 A AND 3B AND AL THE CONDITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED, DOES DO THOSE CONDITIONS PUT ANY RESPONSIBILITY ON THE CITY IN TERMS OF ENFORCEMENT? DO WE HAVE TO SIGN OFF ON A CONTRACT? OR THAT SORT OF THING IF THE SCHOOL IS SUCCESSFUL IN THOSE OPTIONS. >> WE'LL BE SIGNING AN M.O. U WITH THE CITY AND THE DISCUSSION SOUTH SIDE, WE HAVE A PRELIMINARY DRAFT. DO HAVE SOME TRIGGERS IN THE PROCESS WHERE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WOULD BE MAKING SOME DECISIONS WITHIN CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME AND, IF THEY, FAIL TO DO THAT, THE PROPERTY WOULD AGAIN BUT THAT'S ALL STILL SUBJECT TO NEGOTIATION.

>> LAST QUESTION. >> SURE LET'S TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE RECESS. >> I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE AMY RICARD WITH CLASS 36 AND TAKE THISING OPPORTUNITY TO SIT WITH THE COUNCIL TO PREPARE FOR THEIR GOVERNMENT DAY. WELCOME AMY. >> JUST CLARIFYING YOU'RE A CLASS WHAT? >> I WAS CLASS 13, THIS IS NOT, IT'S TREBLE. TLE TIMES THAT. >> MS. FLEMING YOU HAD THE FLOOR BEFORE. >> SO I WANTED TO FOLLOW-UP IF THE CITY PUTS ALL THE CONTINUES ON THE SCHOOL BOARD, DO WE HAVE THE CAPACITY TO MONITOR THAT? YOU MENTIONED THERE WERE SEVERAL TRIGGERING EVENTS THAT WILL EFFECT OUR PARTICIPATION AND WANTED TO MAKE SURE TO DEAL WITH DETAILS CONDITIONS OF SALE. >> AND I'LL ANSWER THAT ONE QUICKLY AND I'LL GO BACK TO YOUR PRIOR QUESTION REGARDING THE, THE TRIGGERING EFFECTS ARE NOT COMPLICATED AND I THINK WE DO HAVE CAPACITY TO ADDRESS THOSE SHOULD THOSE OCCUR. BUT GOING BACK TO THE, MORE GENERAL CONCEPT OF RELEASES THE PROPERTY FROM THESE RESTRICTIONS AT ALL AND ALLOWING THE DISTRICT TO PROCEED ON UNINCOME BEHRED BY THE WHOLE AGREEMENT.

THE HOEDING AGREEMENT DID ALSO VOLVE THE DEVELOPER AND ORIGINAL HOLDING AGREEMENT PROVIDES THAT F THE DISTRICT, FAILS TO PERFORM, THE PROPERTY CAN REVERT BACK TO THE CITY. IF THE CITY THEN FAILS TO PERFORM, THE PROPERTY CAN THEN REVERT BACK TO THE DEVELOPER AND BE CLEAR OF ANY O THESE OBLIGATIONS. THAT WAS AGAIN, BACK IN 1988. WE WOULD HAVE TO TRACK DOWN WHERE THE DEVELOPER OR SUCCESSOR IS. BUT IT DOES PUT A CLOUD ON ANY PROPOSAL TO SIMPLY WALK AWAY FROM THE HOLDING AGREEMENT. >> HOW WOULD WE MEASURE A FAILURE. >> IF THE ORIGINAL PLAN HOLDING AGREEMENT HAD DEADLINES BY WHICH THE DISTRICT WAS TO EITHER BUILD SCHOOL FACILITY OR HOUSING, THOSE DEADLINES HAVE BEEN EXTENDED BY THE SERIES OF MOUs THAT DIRECTOR GWYNN MENTIONED EARLIER. THE TIMING, THE LINE LINE HAS BEEN EXTENDED. AND WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HOW IS SOME OTHER OPTIONS MAINTAIN THE SPIRIT OF THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT AND THE MOUs NA FOLLOWED.

>> MR. TIBBETTS. >> THAT WAS HELPFUL. MY QUESTION WAS GOING TO BE AROUND THE HISTORY AND YOU HELPED EXPLAIN WHAT OUR OBLIGATIONS ARE, SO THIS DOES NOT REVERT FROM THE DEVELOPER FROM THAT AGREEMENT. HOW DO THE PROPERTY ACTUALLY COME ABOUT? DID IT COME INTO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S POSSESSION? I'M TRYING TO GET TO THE ROOT OF THE HISTORY BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO SHAPE SOME OF MY COMMENTS, GOING INTO THE COMMENT PERIOD. I THINK IT'S FANTASTIC THAT WE'RE WORKING TOGETHER WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND GETTING TO KIND OF FIGURING OUT WHAT THE PATH IS. BUT I DON'T WANT TO OVER STEP OUR GROUNDS AS FAR AS, WHAT RIGHTS AND CLAIMS DO WE HAVE TO THIS PROPERTY. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THIS WAS A SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTY. >> THIS IS A SHORT VERSION BUT IT WAS BETWEEN THE CITY AND A CITY DEVELOPER. THAT WAS TO BE HELD. AND THEN IT WAS NEGOTIATED. IT WAS A NEGOTIATION PETER FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT T TAKE THAT ON AND THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT LATER ON, I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S HERE. BUT IN THE HISTORY, THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT WHERE IT DID GET TRANSFERRED TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

>> AND I CAN CLARIFY THAT, THE ORIGINAL 1988 AGREEMENT, DID INCLUDE BOTH THE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AND THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA. AND I DID PROVIDE FOR TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT UPON RECORDATION OF THE MAP. >> AND MY SECOND OR FINAL QUESTION WAS FOR THE SUPERINTENDENT OR THE BOARD PRESIDENT WHA. IS YOUR PREFERRED USE OF THIS GOING FORWARD? I WANT TO MAKE SURE W ASK YOU THIS QUESTION. ?O. WE HAVE PRESIDENT UP ON TOP. >> HI, I WAS PLANNING ON DOING THIS IN PUBLIC COMMENT BUT I CAN GIVE YOU MY COMMENTS NOW. FIRST OF ALL, MR. MAYOR, AND COUNCILMEMBERS THANK YOU FOR HAVING US HERE AND FOR ENGAGING THIS CONVERSATION. AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT YOUR STAFF HAS DONE WITH OUR STAFF TO COME TO A GOOD RESOLUTION TO HIGHER THE BEST PROPERTY THAT SERVES OUR DISTRICT THAT SERVES OUR CITY BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE DO, IS SERVE THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY.

WE, YOU KNOW THIS PROPERTY IS HARD FOR US TO DEVELOP. IT WAS EXPENSIVE FOR TO US DEVELOP AFTER THE FIRES AND NOW IT'S MORE EXPENSIVE AFTER THE FIRES. BUT WE HAVE THE NEED TO MAKE HOUSING EASIER AND MORE ACCESSIBLE TO OUR STAFF. WE HAVE A TEACHER SHORTAGE AND A HIRING CRISIS, WE HAVE A LIMITED PIE AS YOU KNOW THAT WE GET FROM THE STATE TO PAY EMPLOYEES AND WE HAVE EPENSIVE HOUSE ANDING HOUSING THAT IS NOT SUPER AVAILABLE TO OUR COMMUNITY. THERE ARE OTHER WAYS AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR STAFF'S CREATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING AROUND THIS AND TALK TO GO US AND SOME OF THE WAYS WAS TO EITHER SELL THE PROPERTY AND USE THAT MONEY IN ORDER TO PIGGY BACK ON ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT.

AND THE SCHOOL BOARD WOULD HAVE TO DISCUSS THAT. AND WE DID A SURVEY AND SAID WHAT WOULD BE THE MOST HELPFUL FOR YOU WITH RESPECT FOR HOUSING. AND 60% SAID DOWN PAYMENT. IF IT TOOK YOU 25 YEARS TO GET YOU AND YOU DIDN'T GET TO SAVE A LOT BECAUSE IT'S EXPENSIVE TO LIVE HERE. SO THEY SAID DOWN PAYMENT. THE BEST THING IS TO DO ONE OF THE THINGS, SELL THE PROPERTY AND USE THAT MONEY TO GET ON TO THE ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT OR SELL THE PROPERTY AND USE THAT TO CREATE A DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE MONEY T.WOULD BE A REVOLVING FUND. THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD ASK THIS COUNCIL FOR, IS TO GIVE THE DISTRICT THE MOST FLEXIBILITY TO SERVE OUR STAFF SO THEY CAN BETTER SERVE OUR COMMUNITY.

THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, COUNCILMEMBER TIBBETTS. >> THANK YOU. ONE MORE FOLLOW-UP QUESTION AND WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT THIS OUTSIDE OF CLOSED SESSION. WHAT WAS THE MOST RESENT APPRAISED VALUE. >> I DON'T HAVE THAT NUMBER. I DON'T THINK THERE WAS AN APPRAISAL EVEN BEFORE. WE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. >> IF I MAY, I DID MISS SPEAK A LITTLE EARLIER.

AT THE RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP DID COME TO THE CITY AND IT WAS A COUPLE OF YEARS LATE THAER IT WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE DISTRICT IN ACCORDANCE TO THE TERMS OF THE HLDING AGREEMENT THAT WAS RECORDED IN 1988. >> OKAY. THANKS. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL. ALL RIGHT, MR. McGWYNN, I KNOW THERE ARE OTHER SLIDES BUT I'M INTERESTED IN TAKING PUBLIC COMMENTS. >> I CAN FINISH THE SLIDES REAL QUICK IF THAT'S OKAY. THE OTHER IMPORTANT PIECE OF THIS IS THE TIME OF THE MOU.

THIS IS THE SITUATION WHERE HOW MUCH TIME DOES THE DISTRICT HAVE IN TERMS OF NOTIFYING US WHAT DIRECTION THEY'RE GOING OR SOME OF THE TRIGGER THRESHOLD. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'VE HAD. THE CURRENT ONE IS 3 YEARS AND WE'RE, WE'VE LOOKED AT 3, 4, 5 YEARS IN TERMS OF WHAT IS POSSIBLE. WE WANT TO SAY SOMETHING HAPPEN. THE DISTRICT WANTS TO SEE SOMETHING HAPPEN AND MOVE FORWARD ON THAT SITE. WE'RE ALSO HERE AND WE DON'T WANT TO KEEP COMING BACK TO COUNCIL. SO THE FINAL SLIDE HERE, REALLY WAS TO JUST LET YOU AND THE PUBLIC KNOW WHAT THE NEXT STEPS ARE.

OUR NEXT GOAL IS TO RECEIVE FEEDBACK FROM YOU AND THE PUBLIC. GET SOME GUIDANCE ON WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE. WE WILL TAKE THAT FEEDBACK AND CRAFT AND MODIFY TO GET SOME DOCUMENT IN PLACE THAT HAS SOME INPUT THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN US. AND THE INTENTION IS TO BRING THAT BACK T THE JOINT COUNCIL AGREEMENT ON OCTOBER 14th AND WE WOULD TAKE ACTION THERE ON THAT NIGHT WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD AND THE CITY COUNCIL TO GET THIS PROJECT MOVING. >> GREAT, THANK YOU FOR THAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. COUPLE OF CARDS. GEORGE UBERTI FOLLOWED BY ANNE SEALY. >> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBERS. I THINK WHAT IS VERY CLEAR HERE IS THAT VERY CLEARLY WHAT WE NEED IN SONOMA COUNTY, MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. CLEARLY. AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS NT PROFITABLE, IF IT WAS PROFITABLE IT T NOT BE PROFITABLE. PARTICULAR IF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IS GOING TO PAY THEM LOW INCOME WAGES. IF WE'RE GOING TO PAY THEM SOMETHING THAT THEY CANNOT AFFORD, WE NEED TO PAY THEM THAT, WE HAVE THAT RESPONSIBILITY WHA. IS INCREDIBLY IS THAT THESE THREE OPTIONS ARE A VERY FUN WAY OF WHAT OUR OPTION RIGHT SIDE.

THE FIRST ONE IS TO EXTEND THE TERMS. IT'S SAYING THAT BETWEEN 1988 AND THE PRESENT, THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING HAS BEEN EXTENDED 30 TIMES. THAT'S 30 YEARS. DOING SOMETHING WITH NO RESULTS. I COUNT FOUR BULLET POINTS, ONE IS TO ISSUE A REQUEST TO OBTAIN A DEVELOPER BUT WE JUST HEARD CITY STAFF SAY THAT A DEVELOPER WAS PART OF THE INITIAL HOLDING AGREEMENT IN 1988. RIGHT, SO WHAT IS DOES THAT BRING US DOWN TO THREE? ACTIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN. OVER THE LAST 30 YEARS, THAT'S ONE ACTION A DECK KAID. DECADE. NOW THIS SAYS THAT THE DISTRICT HAS ACTED IN GOOD FAITH. I DON'T THINK ONE ACTION EVERY TEN YEARS IS GOOD FAITH. I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT WHAT WE HAVE DONE REAL THINGS. WE CANNOT HAVE DONE NOTHING FOR 30 YEARS. SHOW ME WHAT HAPPENED? A REQUEST FOR PROPOSE AM? TWO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR SOMETHING THAT WE ALREADY HAD. THIS IS NONSENSE.

NOW I THINK WHAT WE CAN DO RIGHT IN AN OPTION THAT WE CANNOT EXPLORED IS TAKING A REAL LOOK. WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE WHO WORK FOR THE CITY HAVE A PLACE TO LIVE SXN JUST A PLACE TO LIVE BUT TO RAISE THEMSELVES OUT OF A SOCIAL POSITION WHERE THEY'RE REQUIRED TO LIVE IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING. LET'S GET A PLAN TOGETHER ALONG THOSE LINES. WE NEED TO BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT THAT'S A COMPONENT. WE NEED SOCIAL MOBILITY FOR LOW INCOME PEOPLE. NOT JUST TRYING TO DO SOMETHING THAT RESULTS IN NOTHING AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO SELL IT TO SOMEBODY THAT IS GOING TO TURN A PROFIT.

WHAT IS AN OPTION IS TO FULFILL OUR RESPONSIBILITIES. GET A MEANINGFUL M.O. U. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> ANNE SEALY, FOLLOWED BY DUANE DEWIT. >> ANNE SEALY SPEAKING FOR CONCERNS CITIZENS FOR SANTA ROSA. THE BOTTOM LINE ON YOUR DECISION TODAY, IS THIS PROPERTY MUST NOT BE LOST FOR LOW AND/OR MODERATE INCOME HOUSING. ANY OF YOU LONG TERMERS THERE ON THE COUNCIL AND STAFF, KNOW HOW DIFFICULT IT'S BEEN FOR US TO ADDRESS PLACING AFFORDABLE HOUSING ALL AROUND THE CITY. AND THE LOSS OF THIS PARCEL WOULD BE A TRAGEDY. SO, PLEASE KEEP THAT IN MIND WHATEVER OPTION YOU CHOOSE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, DYANE DUITY? >> HELLO I'M DYANE DEWIT I'M PART OF THE ADVOCACY GROUP. IT WAS FORMED FOUR YEARS BECAUSE WE HAVE LACK OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING. I REMEMBER IN THE 90s WHEN THIS CAME OUT, IT WAS IMPORTANT TO HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOT USE THE TERM LOW INCOME ANYMORE THA. BROTHERS PEOPLE. THEY DON'T WANT TO HEAR THAT. THEY WANT TO HEAR HOUSING THAT IS PERHAPS, OF MODEST MEANS FOR PEOPLE OF MODEST MEANS. SOMETHING THAT IS MORE TEM PO RAT SO THEY DON'T FEEL BY SOMETHING SOMEBODY WHO MAY NOT BE IN THE SAME SOCIAL EXTRATA. THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IS THE PEOPLE WHO SHOULD BE DECIDING THIS WITHOUT LOSING THAT PROPERTY. THAT IS AN ASSET THAT THEY HAVE. AND IF IT GOES BACK TO ANYBODY ELSE, THE HOUSING WILL NEVER BE BUILT. I CAN TELL YOU RIGHT NOW FROM WATCHING OVER 30 YEARS. AND I BRING IT TO A POINT WITH BELLEVUE RANCH, 1994, 95, 96, THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO PUT IN 64 MULTI FAMILY UNITS AND BROKERED A DEAL WITH THE CITY SAYING YES, THIS IS HOW WE'LL GET IT DONE IF YOU GIVE US THE APPROVAL. THE CITY GAVE THEM THE APPROVAL AND LO AND BEHOLD, THEY COULD NOT PENCIL IT OUT. SO GUESS WHO BUILT THE HOUSING? THE TAXPAYERS AND IT WAS BUILT BY BURBANK HOUSING.

AND EVERYBODY APPLAUDS BUT IT WAS THE TAXPAYER'S THAT PAID FOR IT. AND THEN THERE WERE OLD ON THE OPEN MARKET AND THOSE PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO MAKE PROFIT WHEN THEY RESOLD THEM. SO THE MAX PAIRS DID NOT GET A RETURN ON THE INVESTMENT. THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IS NOT IN BUSINESS TO MAKE A PROIFT. BUT THEY ARE IN BUSINESS TO EDUCATE ALL OF THESE KIDS THAT KEEP WANDERING IN AND MAKING SURE THAT TEY HAVE A PLACE TO LIVE HERE IN SANTA ROSA IN THE FUTURE. SO I THINK THE BEST WAY TO HANDLE THIS IS TO LOOK AT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND SAY LIKE MS. FEMING SAID, YOU HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE AND THE SKILLS AND TALENT, NOW STEP ON UP AND GIVE US THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR THE CONSTRUCTORS AND SCHOOL EMPLOYEES AND SOME INTERN SXZ SOME TEACHERS IN TRAINING. PEOPLE IN SONOMA STATE. HE, MAYBE A REALLY GOOD SENIOR IN HIGH SCHOOL. SOMEBODY THAT MAY HAVE TO BE OUT OF THEIR HOUSE.

LET THEM BE OUT IN THE HILL IN FOUNTAIN GROVE. THEY CAN SEE WHAT THE FUTURE MAY HOLD HAVING A NICE PLACE UP IN THE HILL. ANY WAI, YOU GET THE MAJOR DRIFT. SCHOOL DISTRICT, IT'S ON YOU. THANK YOU. >> TANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER CARDS ON THE ITEM. JENNY, YOU SAID WHAT YOU WANTED TO SAY RIGHT? GREAT. BACK TO COUNCIL ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS BASED ON THAT FEEDBACK? MR. SAWYER WOULD YOU LIKE TO GIVE YOUR FEEDBACK TO STAFF. >> I'M LOOKING FOR THE FLEXIBILITY AS WELL. BUT I'M ALSO LOOKING FOR KIND OF THREE YEARS IS PROBABLY, I KNOW THERE IS BEEN ENOUGH TIME. I KNOW THERE IS ALWAYS SOMETHING NEW ON YOUR PLATE. THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS HAVE LOTS OF CHALLENGES SO ALL OF A SUDDEN, THE THREE YEARS ARE GONE. WOULD I LIKE THIS TO COME TO FRUITION. I WOULD LIKE THIS TO BE THE LAST EXTENSION. BINGE, OFFERING AS MUCH AS AS MANY POSSIBILITIES AS MUCH FLEXIBILITY AS NECESSARY FOR YOU WHAT YOU FEEL IS BEST FOR THE DISTRICT. >> MS. COMBS? >> MY ANSWER IS NONE OF THE ABOVE.

I CONTINUE TO SAY ABOUT THE HIGH FIRE DISTRICT THAT WE SHOULD NOT ADD SLEEPING FACILITIES INTO THE HIGH FIRE AREA. AND I APPRECIATE THAT WE VERY MUCH NEED HOUSING AND WE VERY MUCH NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THAT SAID, IF THERE IS ANY MECHANISM THAT WE CAN USE TO TRANSFER THE PROPERTY DIRECTLY TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WITH CONDITIONS, I THINK THAT WE SHOULD MAKE LET THEM MAKE THE DECISION ABOUT HOW THEY CAN ON THE SITE AND THAT, WE SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED IN THE CONVERSATION ONCE WE'VE GIVEN THEM THE HOUSING FOR TEACH TEZER. I APPRECIATE WE NEED TEACHER HOUSING. I'M DISAPPOINTED THAT WE DO NOT HAVE HAZARD MITIGATION MONEY SO WE CAN BUY PROPERTY SO THAT, WE CAN ELIMINATE THE PROPERTY FROM HOUSING ABILITY AND PUT THEIR HOUSING IN A MUCH SAFER PLACE FOR TEACHERS.

THANK YOU. >> MS. FLEMING. >> GO AHEAD. >> I'M GOING TO JUMP IN. I WANTED TO EXPRESS MY DEEP SUPPORT FOR WHAT THE DISTRICT REQUESTED AND THAT'S OPTION 2 OR 3. I THINK IF WE GO FORWARD AND FOIX ON THE TO OPTIONS BOTH THROUGH AN MOU, EXPRESSING THAT I WANT TO STAY WITH THE DISTRICT IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THIS. I THINK THAT'S THE BEST PATHWAY FOR IT. I UNDERSTAND IT MIGHT BE EASIER TO SAY, HEY, LET'S WALK AAY AND HAND IT TO THEM. BUT THE REASON, WHY I'M REALLY CONCERNED IS I THINK THERE IS A REAL UNDERLYING OPPORTUNITY THAT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IS TAPPED INTO AND THAT'S THE CONCEPT OF DOING SILENT SECOND MORTGAGE TO HELP PEOPLE BUILD EQUITY IN THE HOME AND THIS CAME ABOUT DURING THE HOUSING BOND CONVERSATIONS THAT WE WERE HAVING.

BUT TO CONSTRUCT OUR SKIN IN THE CITY FOR A NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS BETWEEN $120,000 AND $150,000 PER UNIT. AND THEN YOU GET A UNIT. BUT WHEN YOU DO THE SILENCE ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS. THE COST TO THE CITY IS CLOSER TO 50 TO 80,000 TO GET SOMEBODY INTO A HOME AND NOT JUST INTO A HOME BUT INTO A TRUE POWER OR A TRUE EMPOWERED POSITION WHERE THEY'RE NOW BUILDING EQUITY AND A STAKE IN PHYSICAL PROPERTY. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SOCIAL EQUITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE, THAT'S THE REAL, I THINK KEY THAT THE CITY HAS TO DRIVE FOR AND IF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IS LEADING US ON THAT, WE NEED TO JOIN THEM ON THAT. IF WE PUT THE PROCEEDS ON THIS PROPERTY TO HELP ACHIEVE THAT GOAL, WE NEED TO WORK WITH THEM. GOD NOSE WITH ALL OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ANTI, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE GENTRIFICATION.

AND WE NEED TO HAVE GENERAL AT THIS TRICKATION MYTHOLOGIOLOGIST TO COMBAT THAT. AND I THINK THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO DO THAT AND THE BEST BANG FOR OUR DOLLARS. I HOPE THIS COUNCIL CN EMBRACE THAT AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT CAN EMBRACE THAT AND WE CAN WORK IN PARTNERSHIP TO WORK TOGETHER IN THE NEXT YEAR. >> MS. FLEMING. >> THANK YOU. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE THREE THINGS YOU WANT TODAY KNOW ABOUT. TIME FRAME, OPTIONS AND THERE WAS A THIRD ONE. CAN YOU REITERATE. >> I THINK THE THIRD ONE WAS IF THERE IS A INTEREST IN DOWN PAYMENT PROGRAM, ARE THERE THRESHOLD THAT WE WANT TO INCLUDE OR LEAVE IT UP TO THE DISTRICT TO COME UP WITH A PROGRAM. >> I WOULD LIKE TO EMPOWER THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN CRAFTING WHAT WILL COME BACK BEFORE ALL OF US IN TWO WEEKS TIME. I'M NOT A FAN OF OPTIONS ONE OR TWO. I WOULD LIKE THIS TO BE SOMETHING THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD HANDLES.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO NOT SEE THIS AGAIN IF POSSIBLE. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO EXTEND THE TIME FRAME FOR FIVE YEARS. ONE IS TO GIVE THE SCHOOL AS MUCH TIME TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT. AND ALSO TO SAVE STAFF TIME, I THINK THAT EXTENDING THE TIME FRAME WILL GIVE EVERYBODY A CHANCE OF SUCCESS HERE. AND I DO ECHO WHAT COUNCILMEMBER TIBBETTS SAYS AROUND THE DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE AND THE SECOND. SILENT SECOND. I JUST WANT TO BE REALLY CLEAR THAT THE FINAL QUESTION AROUND, THE LIMITS, I WOULD AGAIN DIFFER TO THE SCHOOL BOARD, THIS IS SOMETHING TO BE FOR THEM TO USE TO SUPPORT THEIR TEACHERS.

AND IN THE SPITER OF IT, WE EXPECT THEM TO CARRY THAT OUT. AND I CANNOT SEE ANY REASON WHY THEY WOULDN'T WANT TO. >> I WANT TO ADD DAVID THAT I FORGOT TO GIVE YOU DIRECTION ON THE THRESHOLD. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I WANT TO WORK ON THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. THE NEXT STEP IS WE HEAR WHAT THE SCHOOL BOARD WANTS. IF IT'S OPTION TWO, LET'S DISCUSS 2 OR 3. I WANT TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION ABOUT INCOME THRESHOLD LIMITS.

MAYBE NOT PERTAINING BY THEIR STAFF. IF IT'S INTO SOMETHING LARGER, I WANT TO BE ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN THE CONVERSATIONS. >> WEN YOU SAY OPTION TWO AND THREE. DO YOU MEAN OPTION TWO AND THREE AND B? >> YES, SIR. >> GO AHEAD. FOLLOWING ON WHAT MR. TIBBETTS SAID. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD WOULD BE ABLE TO USE THIS FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN HOUSING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES? >> THE WAY THE AGREEMENT IS FOR THE ELEMENT. IF IT WAS SOMETHING OTHER THAN THIS, THE COUNCIL WOULD HAVE COME BACK TO COUNCIL TO GET DIRECTION. >> MR. — ~>> I WAS JOKING THAT WHEN THE SCHOOL BOARD STARTED WORKING ON THIS I WAS NINE YEARS OLD AND I DON'T THINK IT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE WORK ONING THEIR HANDS. BUT BECAUSE IT'S A DIFFICULT DEVELOPMENT TO WORK ON.

NORMALLY MY INCLINATION WOULD BE TO GO WITH OPTION TWO AND TRY TO ASSIST THEM IN THAT. BUT I DO THINK PROVIEEDING THE FLEXIBILITY THAT OPTION 3 IS IN THE BEST INTEREST FOR EVERYONE. IT'S NOT JUST A SCHOOL BOARD PROBLEM TO NOT HAVE TEACHERS ABLE TO LIVE IN THE COMMUNITY. IT'S ALSO A COMMUNITY PROBLEM AS WELL. AND IF GIVING THEM THAT FLEXIBILITY TO DETERMINE FOR THEMSELVES HOW THEY'RE GOING TO USE THE FUNDS. ENDS YOU UP SEEING SOME FORM OF UNITS COME TO FRUITION. I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT THA. AS IT COMES TO THE INCOME QUESTION ON SUB SECTION B ON THREE. I KNOW THAT THE FUNDING THAT IS COMING TO THEM AND THE WAGES THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO EMPLOY THEIR EMPLOYEES.

IS TIED TO WHAT THE STATES ARE DOING. I'LL NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION WHEN WE GO TO THE JOINT MEETING ON WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. WHAT I WOULD HATE TO DO IS TIE THEIR HANDS-ON THE HOUSING WHERE THE STATE THEN REACCOUNTS AND HOPEFULLY THE STATE REACCOUNTS WHERE WE BECOME INELIGIBILITY BECAUSE THEY MAKE TOO MUCH MONEY. I DON'T WANT TO HIGH THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS'S HANDS UNTIL I HAVE MORE INFORMATION. >> CAN I DO DO A FOLLOW-UP ON THE LENGTH OF THE AGREEMENT. >> I WOULD SAY, LESS THAN THE 30 YEARS THAT IT'S BEEN SO FAR. BUT HOPEFULLY, IF YOU'RE PROPOSING A THREE-YEAR AND THEY THINK THAT'S REASONABLE THAT SEEMS FINE FOR ME. >> I DIDN'T HEAR YOUR COMMENT TO MR. SAWYER, BUT I THOUGHT WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO LIE WHEN WE START THIS DISCUSSION.

SO FOR ME, IT WOULD BE OPTION 3B. AND I'M NOT REALLY INTERESTED IN THRESHOLD. I APPRECIATE THE REACH OUT THAT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT DID TO ITS EMPLOYEES TO FIND OUT WHAT IS THAT NEED. AND I'M COMFORTABLE THERE TO CONTINUE THAT PROCESS. IF I SAID THRESHOLD, WOULD BE ARBITRARY WITH THE DATA DRIVE. WE NEED THE HOUSING, FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES. SO WHATEVER THAT MAKES NA WORK. AND I DO THINK THREE YEARS SHOULD BE AN OFFICIAL TIMELINE TO GET THIS THING DONE. >> SO WITH THAT, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DID YOU GET THE INFORMATION THAT YOU NEEDED IT.

>> I THINK WE GOT INFORMATION THAT WE NEEDED. WE'LL WORK WITH THE DISTRICT AND BRING BACK ON ITEM ON THE 14th FOR YOU. AND JUST TO LET THE COUNCIL KNOW, THE DISTRICT IS GOING TO HAVE A PUBLIC MEETING ON THIS TOPIC ON OCTOBER 9th TO DISCUSS THIS PRIOR TO THE JOINT MEETING. >> AND FOR THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW, IT'S AN OPEN INVITATION, IN THIS CHAMBER OCTOBER 9. >> AND WHAT TME DOES THE MEETING START? AT 6:00 O'CLOCK IN THIS KHAIM BEXER SCHOOL BOARD MEETING. WE WILL NOW TRANSITION TO OUR REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. DO YOU NEED SET UP TIME FOR ITEM 7? >> WE'LL GO OUT OF ORDER SO, LET'S START FIRST WITH ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE ROLL CALL. MADAM CITY CLERK. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT ALL COUNCILMEMBERS ARE PRESENT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF COUNCILMEMBER OLIVARES. >> MR. MAYOR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO INTRODUCE YOUR GUEST. FROM OUR ESTEEMED PROGRAM, THAT WAS HAVING GAFT AFFAIRS, FOR LSR.

MY GUEST IS MELISSA WITH THE CHOPS TEAM CLUB. AND SHE WILL BE SITTING BACK HERE FOR THE ENTIRE OF THE MEETING AS WELL. UNTIL WHAT? 9:00 O'CLOCK WHEN WE THINK WE'LL BE DONE? >> CONSCIOUSLY OPTIMISTIC. WE'RE GOING TO GO OUT OF ORDER HERE. ARE WE RADY TO ROLL ON ITEM 7? >> ITEM 7.1, FIRE AND REBUILDUP DATE. I'M GOING TO HAVE ADRIANE INTRODUCE HER TWO COLLEAGUES FOR THIS UPDATE. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, WITH ME IS PAULO AND PAULA SISTER ANT FIRE MARSHAL AND DAN MORENSIC BUILT FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. >> WE'RE EXCITE TODAY INTRODUCE TWO THINGS. ONE IS PUBLIC RELEASE OF OUR EVACUATION PLAN, PHASE ONE OF OUR EVACUATION PLANNING.

WE'LL GET TO WHAT PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2 IS. FOLLOWING THE TUBBS WE LEARNED A LOT FROM WHAT DID AND DID NOT WORK THAT NIGHT. THERE IS BEEN A LOST IMPROVEMENTS TO OUR SYSTEM AND OUR ABILITY TO PROVIDE EARLY DETECTION AND ALERTS TO OUR COMMUNITY. WITH THAT, IT'S BEEN OUR GOAL TO INCREASE OUR PUBLIC AWARENESS ON EVACUATIONS LOCALLY.

WE SAW MOST RECENTLY THE COUNTY ROLL OUT, EVACUATION CRISIS. AND THEY'RE WORKING ON ANOTHER ONE. ORIGINALLY WE LOOKED AT THAT AS A POTENTIAL CONCEPT TO FOCUS ON AN INDIVIDUAL NEIGHBORHOOD. WE DECIDED THAT WE WULD TAKE A DIFFERENT APPROACH AND ROLL OUT EVACUATION PLANNING AND EDUCATION AS WELL AS COMPREHENSIVE CHECKLIST FOR THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY OF SANTA ROSA. THERE IS BEEN A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF WORK THAT HAS GONE INTO THIS PROGRAM. FROM BOTH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, FIRE DEPARTMENT, CITY MANAGER OFFICE AND GIS SUPPORT FROM IT. IT'S BEEN, PRETTY IMPRESSIVE PROJECT. IT'S REALLY GOOD TO SEE AL THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS COME TOGETHER WITH THE INTENTION OF REALLY PROVIDING A GOOD EVACUATION PROGRAM FOR OUR COMMUNITY. SO PHASE 1, ULTIMATELY WILL BE THE RELEASE, THE PUBLIC RELEASE WHICH IS WHAT OCCURED TDAY OF THE EVACUATION MAPPING AND CHECKLIST. PHASE 2 WILL BE AN EARLY 2020 ACTUAL EXERCISES FOR OUR COMMUNITY. >> ALL RIGHT, SO NOW WE'RE GOOD THANK YOU. JUST ONE SECOND TO PULL UP THE WEBSITE. BUT BUILDING OFF THE PROCESS THAT PAUL JUST DESCRIBED, STAFF HAVE PUT TOGETHER AN EVACUATION TOOL KIT HA HAS A NUMBER OF RESOURCES THAT ARE TABLE FOR RESIDENTS TO HELP THEM BETTER PREPARE IN THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY EVACUATION.

ALL THE RESOURCES HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE ON A NEW PUBLIC WEBSITE. WHICH WILL HOPEFULLY LOAD IN JUST A MOMENT. THE URL IS SR CITY.ORG/KNOWYOURWAYSOUT. WE'RE HAVING IT ISSUES, ONE MOMENT PLEASE. AND WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR THE WEBSITE TO LOAD, THSZ DAY ONE TO PUSH ALL OF THIS INFORMATION TO OUR COMMUNITY. WE HAVE RELEASED A PRESS RELEASE THIS MORNING ANNOUNCING THE CAM PAIP. WE PUT IT IN OUR CITY WIDE NEWSLETTER WHICH GOES TO OVER 60,000 RESIDENTS. ADDITIONALLY WE DID VISIT WITH A CUP MANY OAKMONT RESIDENT TO SEE SHARE THE INFORMATION AND TOOLS THAT ARE AVAILABLE AND CONTINUE TO MEET WITH RESIDENTS AND PUSH THIS INFORMATION THROUGH ALL OF OUR CHANNELS. >> FOR OUR RESIDENTS WATCHING AT HOME, THE WEBSITE WORKS BUT WE'RE JUST HAVING A TOUGH TIME GETTING ON THE SCREEN.

IT WILL ALLOW THE RESIDENT TO SEE PHYSICALLY GO IN AND MAP OUT THEIR LOCATIONS. WE LOOKED AT THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE EVACUATION SITES. ORIGINALLY WE LOOKED AT AT THE ACTUAL AREA WITHIN THE WILD AND URBAN INTERFACE. SO WE BROKE THOSE AREAS INTO SPECIFIC, ZONES. NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH EVACUATION ZONES. THERE ARE AREAS THAT WE HELPED OUT WITH THE MAPPING. SO ULTIMATELY A RESIDENT WILL BE ABLE TO CLICK ON THEIR SPECIFIC ZONE.

THEY WILL GET A PRINTABLE PDF THAT WILL SHOW THE WAYS OUT THAT WE RECOMMEND BASED ON THEIR EVALUATION AS WELL AS THEIR CHECKLIST. WE FOCUSED ON THE WILD INTERFACE AND THE AREAS IMMEDIATELY SURROUNDED SOME INTERFACES. WE ENDED UP WITH 25 GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS. AND ANYTHING THAT WAS LEFT OVER WAS INCLUDED IN A LARGER GEOGRAPHICAL ZONE TAT SHOWED THE MAJOR TRAVEL ROUTES THAT WOULD BE UED DURING A ACTUAL EVACUATION. >> HELP HAS ARRIVED. >> ALL RIGHT, SO WHEN YOU GET TO THE LANDING PAGE. YOU CAN ACCESS THE RESOURCE SXZ BUTTON ON THE TOP. WE HAVE PREPAREDNESS AND APPRECIATELY ASKED QUESTIONS ON EVACUATIONS. AND THEN THE SEARCHABLE MAP ITSELF, YOU CAN TYPE IN YOUR ADDRESS TO LOCATE YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD AREA OR YOU CAN CLICK INTO THE MAP AND THAT WILL BRING UP A LINK TO YOUR EVACUATION PLANNING AREA FOR YOUR SPECIFIC NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH SHOWS ALL THE POTENTIAL GROUPS OUT OF YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THIS IS A PRINTABLE DOCUMENT. SO THERE IS A TOTAL OF 29 PRINT AL MAPS ORGY GRAPH CAL LOCATIONS. SO LEVEL A LOT OF EFFORT WENT INTO THIS AND THANK YOU TO OUR IT, GIA STAFF THAT WERE INVOLVED AS WELL AS PUBLIC SAFETY AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING.

AND FINAL LEON THE EVACUATION ALERTING TOOLS AREAS, WE DO HAVE PUBLIC EDUCATION TO INFORM RESIDENTS ON ALL THE WAYS THAT WE WOULD MOTEL FIE THEM IN AN EVENT OF EVACUATIONS AND WITH THAT I'LL LET PAUL ADD A COUPLE OF WORDS. >> SO ONE THING THAT I HEARD, IS PEOPLE NOT KNOWING THE NEED TO EVACUATE. LIKE WE TALKED IN PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEETINGS, OUR ABILITY TO DETECT FIRES EARLIER, HAS GOTTEN BETTER. BACK IN 2017, THAT WE DO NOW. THAT INCLUDES THE EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM. THE EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM, SO CO ALERT AND OUR RADIO STATIONS. WE'RE REALLY EXCITED NOW TO OFFICIALLY O NOUNS THE NEW TOOL IN OUR TOOLBOX WHICH IS THE HILO SIGH RENS. >> THE HILO SIGH RENS IS A TOOL. WE HAVE ADDED THEM TO OUR PATROL VEHICLES THAT HAVE ACCESS TO THE HILO SIREN. THEY PRODUCE A DIFFERENT PITCH THAN OUR NORMAL SIRENS AND WE'RE USING THAT AS A TOOL FOR EVACUATIONS. AND THE INTERNAL TRAINING FOR EMPLOYEES ON THE USE OF HILO SIRENS.

AS WELL AN AS EDUCATIONAL PIECE. WITH THAT, I'M NOW GOING TO GET UP AND I'M GOING T WALK OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND WE'LL ACTIVATE THE HILO SIRENS WE HAVE A PATROL CAR AND SUV WE HAVE EQUIPPED THE VEHICLES WITH THE SIREN AS WELL. >> THAT CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION, ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT PRESENTATION. TELL ME YOU'RE NT SWEATING WHEN YOU OPEN THE DOOR. >> USUALLY IT WAS FIRE DEPARTMENT, AND THIS TIME IT WAS IT, SO YES, I WAS WORRIED SOMETHING WAS NOT WORK. >> THANK YOU FOR THIS PRESENTATION. I KNOW THE HOURS OF WORK THAT WENT INTO THAT. WE'LL JUST KEEP TALKING UNTIL WE HEAR T.I REALLY APPRECIATE THE EFFORT. AND I THINK YOUR WHOLE TEAM IS ON THE CUTTING EDGE AND IT'S GOING TO HELP OUR COMMUNITY. I THINK OUR COMMUNITY IS READY TO FIGURE OUT.

THEY NEED TO BE PART OF THE PLAN. THIS INFORMATION ACCENTUATES EVERYBODY PLAN. COUNCIL AY QUESTIONS ON THE PRESENTATION? MR. TIBBETTS. >> I HAVE A ON YOUR PUBLIC EDUCATION CAMPAIGN. WHAT MEANS ARE YOU DOING? >> STEP ONE WAS GTTING EVERYTHING LIVE TODAY AND MAKING THE BIG ANNOUNCEMENT THROUGH OUR NEWSLETTER AND TO THE PRESS. BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A WATER BILL INSERT WITH THE EVACUATION CHECKLIST LETTING THE PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT THE EVACUATION AND A WAY TO REACH RESIDENTS AS WELL. >> THANKS.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OR COMMENTS? MR. VICE MAYOR? >> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. A HUGE THANK YOU. I KNOW RIGHT AFTER THE FIRE, WE TALKED ABOUT COMMUNITY SIREN AND HORNS AND I KNOW WE'LL TALK MORE ABOUT THAT. BUT ONE OF THE CONCERNS IS HOW DO PEOPLE KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS AND HOW DO THEY KNOW WHERE TO GO? I DO NOTICE ON THE CHECKLIST, WHICH IS REALLY GOOD.

THERE IS A RECOMMENDATION ABOUT NOT TAKING SHORTCUTS BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S GOING TO BE BLOCKED. IS IT THE INTENT THAT BY PROVIDING THE SOLID EVACUATION SITES, THAT WE CAN BEGIN TO PLAN OUR RESPONSE AROUND IT AS WELL? IF WE KNOW MORE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE ON THE STREET, WE CAN PT MORE RESOURCES TOWARDS AND TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT TOSE ARE PROPER EVACUATIONS ROUTES? >> YES, ONE OF THE COMMON QUESTION IS WHAT IS OUR ACTUAL DESIGNATED ROUTE. THERE IS MULTIPLE WAYS OUT. AND UNTIL WE HAVE THE CONDITION, W DON'T KNOW WHAT WAY WE WILL TAKE. BUT WE WANT PEOPLE TO BECOME FAMILIAR WITH ALL THE DIFFERENT ROUTES. WE ROLLED THIS OUT SHORTLY BEFORE WE CAME HERE TO OAKMONT RESIDENTS KNOWING THAT IS ONE OF THE HOT TOPIC AS WELL AS THE FEAR OF KNOWING WHEN TO EVACUATE AND TYING INTO YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION, THE SIREN ISSUE. WE GOT THROUGH THAT CONVERSATION SPECIFICALLY AROUND THIS EVACUATION PLANNING WITH THE WAY WE WOULD UTILIZE THOSE ROUTES ARE FOW OF TRAFFIC, COORDINATING WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT, ALL THE WAY TO THE HILO SIRENS AND HAD APPLAUSE FROM THAT GROUP THERE.

IT'S EFFECTIVELY ROLLING OUT REALLY WELL AND DOING WHAT WE WANT IT TO DO. >> AND COUNCILMEMBER, VICE MAYOR, YES. THE WORK THAT WILL NOW, YOU ACTUALLY BE ENTERTAINING A ITEM LATE THEY ARE IDEA WHICH IS ABOUT UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITY WORK. BUT THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. THIS BECOMES A FRAMEWORK UNDER WHICH WE CAN HAVE OTHER CONVERSATIONS ABOUT, WHERE WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE AREAS AE CLEAR OF POTENTIAL HAZARDS? AND GET INTO THE CONVERSATION ABOUT VERY DIRECTED WITH OUR PARTNERS ABOUT WHERE THEY MIGHT NEED TO UNDERGROUND OOH TIMENT OR BUILD OTHER TYPES OF RESILIENCY.

>> I'M SURE THE PUBLIC WILL SEE THAT OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS AS WE MOVE THAT BALL FORWARD AS WELL. THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OR COMMENTS? THANK YOU. MR. McGWYNN DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER ITEMS ON THIS ITEM? >> NO, JUST A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF THANKS TO THE TEAM. THINK SPENT A LOT OF HOURS WORKING ON THIS. >> I AGREE. ALL RIGHT, LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 6 PRO KLI MAZESING. THE FIRST ONE IS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH. MS. COMBS, CAN YOU HANDLE THIS ITEM. >> I'M LOOKING FOR MADELINE McCONNOR OR JESSICA, ARE YOU COMING ON DOWN? GOOD COME ON DOWN. AND I'LL READ THE PROCLAMATION. SO WHERE AS THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE EFFECTS. BASED ON THE SYSTEMIC USE OF EMOTIONAL, PHYSICAL, SEXUAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC CONTROL OR ABUSE. AND WHERE AS THE YWCA IS A COMMUNITY BASE NOT FOR PROFIT AFFILIATION, WHY WCA EMBODIES ITS MISSION TO EMPOWER EDUCATE AND ADVOCATE FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS AND THEIR CHILDREN WHO FIND THEY ARE UNSAFE IN THEIR OWN HOMES.

YWCA OPERATES OUR COMMUNITY ONLY SAFE HOUSE SHELTER. THE ONLY 24/7 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HOTLINE. THE ONLY THERAPY PRESCHOOL SERVING ONE OF OUR MOST VULNERABLE POPULATIONS. AND WHERE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS A SERIOUS CRIME TAT EFFECTS PEOPLE OF ALL RACIST, SECTIONS AND AGES AND SEXUAL ORIENT AND INCOME LEVELS. STOPPING THE CYCLE OF VICIOUS CRIMINAL ASSAULT IN THE HOME REQUIRES ANCHORED NATURED EFFORT AND AGENCY THAT'S PROVIDE SERVICE TO SEE VICTIM PRIMARILY RELIANT ON THE STRONG RESULT OF SURVIVORS. WHERE AS ONLY AN INFORMED COMMUNITY EFFORT WILL PUT AN END TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. MEMBERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO PARTICIPATE IN YWCA EVENTS AND PROGRAMS TO ELIMINATE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN SONOMA COUNTY THROUGH AWARENESS AND EMPOWERMENT. THERE FOR BE IT RESOLVED THAT TOM MAYOR, THE MAYOR DOES HERE BY PRO! OCTOBER 19, AS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH. [APPLAUSE] >> THANK YOU.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, I'M MADELINE KEEGAN. , WE'RE SO HAPPY THAT YOU WOULD KICKOFF THE FIRST WEEK OF OCTOBER, FOR VOLUNTARY THESER AT YWCA. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PROCLAMATION. WE'RE GRATEFUL TO BE HERE AGAIN. AND I WANT TODAY GIVE OUR PROFESSIONAL AND GRATEFUL SINCERE THANKS FOR YOUR FINANCIAL SUPPORT. IN THE PAST YEAR, YOU HAVE HELPED US EXPAND BY FIVE BEDS AND THAT'S SIGNIFICANT, THANK YOU. MEMBERS OF OUR TEAM ARE HERE TODAY. AND I WANT TO PAUSE, I WANT TO HAVE THEM STAND UP. THEY'RE A SHY GROUP BUT THEY'RE RIGHT ABOUT THERE. [APPLAUSE] THEY ARE THE REAL HEROES OF YWCA AND RECENTLY THEY VOTED US THE BEST PLACE TO WORK. WE'RE ALSO SO GRATEFUL, ONE FLT THINGS THAT YOU SAID IN THE PROCLAMATION IS THE COORDINATION OF EFFORT, SAOER HAPPY THAT THEY WOULD BE HERE. CHIEF RAY AND EVERYONE AT THE SANTA ROSA POLICE DEPARTMENT OUR HEARTFELT THANKS. I UNDERSTAND THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH YOU ALMOST DAILY THIS PAST WEEK AND GRATEFUL FOR YOUR PARTNERSHIP.

SO A BIG SHOUT OUT. YOU KNOW, REGRETABLY EARLIER THIS YEAR, LAST YEAR IN FACT, OUR COMMUNITY EXPERIENCED LOSS OF LIFE OF A WIFE IN THE HANDS OF HER HUSBAND WAS SHOT HERE IN THE SHOPPING CENTER HERE IN SANTA ROSA AND THAT WAS FOLLOWED BY THE ACCUSED TAKING HIS OWN LIFE ONLY A BLOCK AWAY. WE KNOW OUR COMMUNITY SUFFERS FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND WE ARE HERE TO HELP AT THE CRISIS HOTLINE. I WANTED YOU TO KNOW THAT IN THE PAST YEAR OR SO, YWCA HAS BEEN ENGAGED TO PROVIDING HOUSING SOLUTIONS AND WE CURRENTLY OWN AND MANAGE TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND DUPLEX AND WORKING HARD TO HOUSE FAMILIES AS THEY COME OUT OF OUR SHERLT.

FUNDING EARMARKED FOR THE COMMUNITY SOLE DOMESTIC PROVIDER HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO US BY HUD AND NOW ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN RAPID HOUSING HERE IN SONOMA COUNTY. WE'VE BEEN HERE SINCE 1975 AND WE'RE GOING TO BE HERE AS LONG AS YOU NEED US TO KEEP SANTA ROSA FAMILIES SAFE FROM HARM. I WANT YOU TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO AWARENESS CALENDAR. I KNOW YOU HAVE SOME IMPORTANT AGENDAS TONIGHT. WE PARTNERED WITH A GROUP CALLED MOVES, MINIMIZING OCCURRENCES OF VIOLENCE NEVER DAY SOCIETY FOR THEIR DAY OF NON SILENCE LATER THIS MONTH. AND WE'RE THRILLED TO HAVE OUR FRIENDS AT TREASURE HOUSE WITH PROCEEDS COMING BACK TO US. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION TO MY COMMENT SXZ OF CURSE TO YOUR PROCLAMATION. AND LET'S FORWARD TO ANOTHER SUCCESSFUL YEAR TOGETHER. THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> OUR NEXT PROCLAMATION IS FOR ACTIVE AGING WEEK. MR. TIBBETTS YOU HAVE THIS ITEM. >> WE HAVE MS. McBRIDE COME ON DOWN. WHERE AS COUNCIL OF AGING WOULD LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE OLDER DAY OF OLDER PERSONS OCTOBER 1, 2019.

WHERE IT'S RECOGNIZED OCTOBER 1 THROUGH 7. WHERE AS MNDAY OCTOBER 7 IS RECOGNIZES ACTIVE AGING TOGETHER DAY AND WHERE AS, ACTIVE AGING WEEK IS RECOGNIZED NATIONWIDE TO CELEBRATE POSITIVE AGING AND WELL WEALTH PARTICIPATION TO SHARE ALL THE ACTIVE AGING INCOMPASS AND SPIRITUAL PROFESSIONAL AND CIVIC ACTIVITIES. WHERE AS TO COMMEMORATE, THERE WILL BE A 30-MINUTE WALK THROUGH DOWNTOWN IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY A RALLY AND COURT HOUSE SQUARE FOR THE COMMUNITY TO SUPPORT ALL PERSONS AGE INING SONOMA COUNTY. BE IT VERY INVOLVED THAT MAYOR SCHEWEDHELM AND ENTIRE CITY COUNCIL DOES PROCLAIM THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 1, THROUGH 7, 2019 AS ACTIVE AGING WEEK. [APPLAUSE] >> THANK YOU MAYOR SCHEWEDHELM, COUNCILMEMBERS TIBBETTS, THE REST OF THE COUNCIL. ON BEHALF OF COUNCIL ON AGING AND THE 130,000 SENIORS HERE IN SONOMA COUNTY, THANK YOU FOR RECOGNIZING THIS WEEK. OF THE 130,000 SENIORS THE VAS MAJORITY ARE HEALTHY, ACTIVE, VOLUNTEERING HERE IN THE COMMUNITY AND BASICALLY SUPPORTING OUR COMMUNITY IN SO MANY OTHER WAYS. SO IT'S GREAT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT CONTRIBUTION.

WE HOPE THAT YOU WILL COME OUT AND WALK WITH US ON MONDAY MORNING, LEAVING FROM THE PLAZA AND ENDING IN COURT HOUSE SQUARE AND WE WILL CELEBRATE THE 41% POPULATION, REPRESENTED BY 50-YEAR-OLDS AND MORE. I THINK A FIE OF YOU JOINED ME IN THAT CATEGORY. THANK YOU FOR THAT RECOGNITION. SONOMA COUNTY IS A AGE FRIENDLY COMMUNITY. AND THIS RECOGNITION, ALSO DEMONSTRATE SANTA ROSA'S BELIEF IN HAVING AN AGE FRIENDLY CITY AS WELL. SO THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE] >> WERE IS OUR IT GUY? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WAIRKTS THERE IS ONE MORE PROCLAMATION.

FIRE PREVENTION WEEK. MR. SAWYER, YOU HAVE THIS ITEM? >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. MR. LOWTHOL, ASSISTANT FIRE MARSHAL AND GROUP. THANKS FOR TAKING THE TIME TO BE HERE THIS AFTERNOON. I'LL READ THE PROCLAMATION. WHERE AS THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA ZEN SHOEINGER TO SAFETY AND SECURITY O THOSE LIVING AND VISITING SANTA ROSA. WHERE FIRE IS A SAFETY CONCERN BOTH LOCALLY AND NATIONALLY WHERE AS THE HOME IS THE LOCATION WHERE PEOPLE AT THE GREATEST RISK OF FIRE. AND WHERE AS HOUSE FIRES, KILLED 230 PEOPLE IN UNITED STATES IN 2017 ACCORDING TO THE FIRE PROTECTION. AND FIRE DEPARTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES RESPONDED TO 3057 HOUSE FIRES. AND WHERE DEATHS FOUR OUT OF FIVE OCCUR AT HOME EACH YEAR. AND RESIDENTS MAY HAVE LESS THAN 2 MINUTES TO ESCAPE TO SAFETY.

WHERE AS SANTA ROSA RESIDENTS WHO HAVE PLANNED AND PRACTICED A HOME ESCAPE PLAN ARE MORE PREPARED AND WILL THEREFORE BE MORE LIKELY TO SURVIVE A FIRE. WHERE AS ALL RESIDENTS OF SANTA ROSA SHOULD PRACTICE DITCH ESCAPE ROUTES. WHERE THE COMMUNITY HAS BEEN RESPONSIVE TO PUBLIC EDUCATION MEASURES AND TAKING ACTION TO INCREASE BY OUR SAFETY ESPECIALLY IN THEIR HOMES. WHERE AS THE 2019, FIRE PREVENTION WEEK THEME, WHICH READS NOT EVERY HERO WEARS A CAPE, PLAN AND PRACTICE YOUR ESCAPE.

EFFECTIVELY SERVES THAT AS A REMINDER THAT WE ALL NEED TO TAKE PERSONAL STEPS TO INCREASE OUR SAFETY FROM FIRE. NOW THEREFORE BE RESOLVED THAT MAYOR SCHEWEDHELM ON BAF OF THE ENTIRE CITY COUNCIL UGE EVERYBODY TO BE AWARE OF THEIR SOUNDINGS AND LOOK FOR A WAY OUT. RESPOND WHEN THE SMOKE ALARM SOUNDS BY EXITING THE BUILDING IMMEDIATELY AND TO SUPPORT THE MANY PUBLIC ACTIVITIES AND EFFORTS OF SANTA RSA FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES DURING FIRE PREVENTION WEEK.

AND HERE B PROCLAIM, FIRE PREVENTION WEEK SIGNED BY THE MAYOR ON THIS DATE. [APPLAUSE] >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MAYOR, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL FOR RECOGNIZING THIS PROCLAMATION. FOR US AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. THE THEME HAS A LITTLE HUMOR TO IT, BUT THE MESSAGE IS IMPORTANT AS WELL. WE FOCUS INTO THE COMMUNITY WITH THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, TO DRIVE THAT MESSAGE HOME AT THAT LEVEL AND WE KNOW THAT IS GOING TO HAVE A RIPPLE EFFECTS TO THE FAMILIES. FOR US, IT'S A VERY FUN TIME TONE GAUGE OUR YOUNGER MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY THROUGH ASSEMBLY THAT WE PERFORM DURING THIS NEXT WEEK. SO FROM THE Ph THROUGH THE 11th WE'LL BE VISITING 11 DIFFERENT SCHOOLS AND WE'LL CONDUCT 21 DIVA SEM BLEEDS. –DIFFERENT ASSEMBLIES. WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO BUILD IN THE COMMUNITY IS SAFETY AND AWARENESS AND IF YOU BEGIN IN YOUR HOME AND SHARE THAT MESSAGE THAT GETS PASSED ON.

FOR U, WE'RE EXCITED TO HAVE THIS READ IN THE COMMUNITY AND HAVE IT SHARED WITH YOU AS WELL. WE THANK YOU AND GREATLY APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. [APPLAUSE] >> TONY WHERE IS THE STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER? >> WOULD LIKE TO START. MS. FLEMING? >> I HAD THE PLEASURE OF ATTENDING THE HISPANIC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MIXER THAT WAS PUT HERE IN CITY HALL ORGANIZED BY RAFAEL FHERRERA. AND ALSO THE GREAT USE OF OUR SPACE HERE, OUR COURTYARD TRANSFORMED INTO A REALLY CHARMING SPACE. AND I THINK WE SOMETIMES TAKE FOR GRANTED THAT CAN BE A GREAT PLACE TO ENTERTAIN AND SPEND TIME TOGETHER. SHORT OF A GETTING A PICTURE UP FOR YOU GUYS. I WANT TO HOLD THIS UP TDAY, WE MADE CONTACT WITH SPACE JUST A COUPLE OF BLOCKS AWAY. IT WAS FANTASTIC. THE SONOMA LIBRARIES ENTERED INTO A PROCESS IN BEING AWARD AN AM MATURE RADIO ON THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION. WHICH MEANT THAT TEN STUDENTS GOT TO ASK MULTIPLE QUESTIONS. AND WE WERE UP NEXT TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS AND YOU GOT TO SEE THIS SPACE STATION JUST FLOAT OUT OF RANGE AND HEAR THE SHHH, BUT AT ANY RATE, IT WAS A FANTASTIC OPPORTUNITY.

YOU CAN SEE HOW MUCH CARE AND THOUGHT THE STUDENTS PUT INTO THE QUESTIONS. VERY BASIC POTTY HUMOR QUESTIONS. THE STUDENTS HAVE TO BE COMMENDED AS OUR SONOMA PUBLIC LIBRARY. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT REPORT. ANY OTHER REPORTS. GO AHEAD MR. TIBBETTS. >> I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION RELATED TO GENERATORS. MR. MGWYNN AT THE NEXT WIRE AND RECOVERY UPDATE, CAN WE INCLUDE WHAT WE'RE DOING VIA GENERATORS. I'M GETTING A LOST QUESTIONS IN THE COMMUNITY ABOUT THAT? >> I'LL PROBABLY NEED SOME MORE SPEFLZ BUT I'LL FOLLOW-UP ABOUT THAT QUESTION BUT ABSOLUTELY. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> I HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS TO REPORT OUT. ON WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 25, WE HAD A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE. THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECEIVED INFORMATION ON THE PARTNERSHIP ANALYSIS AND WE PROVIDED FEEDBACK TO THE CONSULTANT ON THAT. ADDITIONALLY ON THURSDAY, WE HAD A HOME SONOMA STRATEGIC SESSION.

WE HEARD ABOUT WHAT THE PROCESS WOULD BE AND HOW THEY WOULD BE GATHERING FEEDBACK TO HOPEFULLY, PROVIDE BACK TO LEADERSHIP COUNCIL FOR A MORE EFFICIENT AND INEFFECTIVE TEAM. I ALSO ATTENDED THE SEPTEMBER 26, MIXER. IT WAS A WONDERFUL USE OF COURTYARD. I NEVER HAVE SEEN IT LIKE THAT BEFORE. I DID APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS OF RAFAEL INCLUDING OUR ATTORNEY WHO APPEARED THERE. WITH THAT, WE'LL GO TO ITEM 10.2.1. THIS IS DIRECTION TO THE COUNCIL REGARDING INTEREST TO THE FOLLOWING VACANCIES. BASICALLY, I THINK THERE IS ONE POFMGTS NORTH BAY POSITION OF EXECUTIVE BEEDER, TERM EXPIRES TWO YEARS FROM THE APPOINTMENT.

WE HAD A LETTER RECEIVED FROM SHOES AR AND SHE WOULD DO THAT LETTER ON SEPTEMBER 250th AND RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE CITY OF PAT NNLD R–PATLOMA. >> LEAGUE OF REPRESENTATIVE IS A REPRESENTATIVE BODY OF MANY OF THE CITIES WHO GET TOGETHER AND TALK ABOUT ISSUES OF CONCERNS THAT WE'RE ALL SEEING, SHARING IDEAS AND MOVING ON THAT. WE DO HAVE AN NORTH BAY DIVISION THAT HAS EVERY CITY IN THE COUNTY THAT HAS REPRESENTATIVE WITH T.I WILL MAKE A MOTION FOR COUNCILMEMBER HELY TO FILL OUT THAT POSITION. FOR A TWO-YEAR TERM. >> I'LL SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. >> ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? YOUR VOTES PLEASE. AND THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. MS. COMBS. >> TELL MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, WE HAVE A THREE-PART PROCESS FOR HANDLING ITEMS THAT ARE NOT TYPICALLY ON THE AGENDA. LAST WEEK I REQUESTED THAT WE AGENDIZE ITEM OF COUNCIL POT SEE 23 WHICH IS HOW TO FILL COUNCIL VACANCIES. IN THIS MEETING, WE VOTE WHETHER TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION IN THE NEXT MAOELTING–MEETING OR THE MEETING AFTER THAT.

SO I'M ASKING THAT REHAVE A FULL DISCUSSION FOR KILLING COUNCIL VACANCIES. PART OF MY REASONING IS, IN ASKING FOR THIS, TO COME UP NOW IS THAT, WE NOW HAVE A NUMBER OF MEMBERS WHO ARE IN DISTRICTS. AND OUR CURRENT POLICY REQUIRES THAT THE SEAT ACTUALLY BE VACANT. AND THAT PREVENTS THE PERSON WHO IS FROM THAT DISTRICT FROM VOTING ON THEIR REPLACEMENT. WHICH MANS THAT A DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE IS SELECTED BY NOBODY WHO LIVES IN THEIR DISTRICT.

THE REASON I'M ASKING FOR IT NOW THOUGH, IS THAT, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT I WILL BE VACATING MY SEAT. AND BECAUSE OF THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A VOICE TO IN THE VOTE FOR WHO REPLACES ME SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE I HAVE A STRONG BASE AND I WOULD LIKE THE SEAT TO CONTINUE TO REPRESENT THAT SPECIFIC BASE AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A VOTE IN THAT. I ALSO THINK IT'S A PROBLEM FOR THE COUNCIL THAT THE SAT BE VACANT AND AND THAT LEAVES A GAP IN HAVING A FULL COUNCIL. SO I THINK FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS IT MAKES SENSE FOR US TO HAVE A CONVERSATION REGARDING CHANGING THE POLICY FOR FILLING COUNCIL VACANCIES. ANY QUESTIONS? DUANE DEWIT.

THAT'S A CONVERSATION WE NEED TO HAVE WITH THE COMMUNITY. SO LET THE COMMUNITY PARTICIPATE IN THIS ALSO. I DO BELIEVE IN THE PAST MS. COMBS WAS ONE OF THE HIGHEST VOTE GETERS AT TIMES. AND I THINK IT'S IPORTANT TO HAVE HER BASE REPRESENTED SHOULD BE ALSO RESPECTED BY THE SITTING COUNCIL MEMBERS. I DON'T KNOW, HOW IT WOULD EFFECT MY DISTRICT, BUT IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR THE FUTURE AS YOU SET THIS PRESIDENT. THAT YOU ALLOW THE LEADING PERSON IF THEY DON'T DIE, THAT THEY GET TO PICK WHO REPLACES THEM.

AND IF SOMEBODY DOES DIE IN OFFICE OR HAS TO LEAVE MALFEASANCE. MAYBE WE CAN GET AN ELECTION SO THAT THE DISTRICT GETS THEIR PERSON REELECTED INSTEAD OF SOMETHING WHO COMES FROM THE GOOD OL' BOY SECTOR THAT WE'VE HAD BEFORE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT. >> MS. COMBS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE MAKE A MOTION SO WE CAN HAVE DISCUSSION. >> THANK YOU, I MOVE THAT WE AGENDIZE THAT SOMETIME WITHIN THE NEXT TWO COUNCIL MEETINGS. AND I HOPE YOU CONSIDER HAVING THAT CONVERSATION. THANK YOU. >> ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS? >> MR. VICE MAYOR? >> THANK YOU, MR. VICE MAYOR. >> FOR ME, IT'S BEEN AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION. I'VE BEEN LOBBIED PRETTY HARD BY A NUMBER OF FOLKS ON IT, WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD MAKE THE CHANGES. I DO THINK THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE A NUMBER OF ELECTION CHANGES WHEN WE'RE IN DISTRICTS.

I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT AT LARGE MAYOR. AND A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE VACANCIES BUT ALSO ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT CAB MEMBERS AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS SHOULD COME FROM A DISTRICT AS WELL. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION HOLISTICKLY. AND I WILL TELL YOU BY WAY OF BACKGROUND. ONE OF THE FIRST HOL SEE AREAS THAT I WORKED ON WHEN I WAS IN SACRAMENTO, WAS ON ELECTION REFORM. IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS VERY INTERESTED TO ME. I'VE HAD THIS INTEREST THAT YOU DON'T MAKE–IN TRYING TO FORCE THE OUTCOME THAT YOU WANT.

AND THAT'S WHERE I STRUGGLE A LITTLE BIT. COUNCILMEMBER COMBS YOU HAVE BEEN A GREAT COLLEAGUE, AND I HOPE YOU DON'T LEAVE AND I HOPE PERSPECTIVE IS VALUABLE. BUT FOR SOMEBODY TO ANNOUNCE THAT THEY'RE LEAVING BUT AND BACKING OUT IF THEY DON'T LIKE THE PERSON COMING IN. I'M NOT WILLING TO PUT IT IN FRONT OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE COMING IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS, EVEN OUR INCLUSIONARY EVEN OUR RENTAL PROGRAM CONVERSATION. SOIL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION TONIGHT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS TONIGHT. MR.

SAWYER. >> LIKE THE VICE MAYOR, WE DO HAVE A ROBUST EXPERIENCE WITH THE COMMUNITY COMING FORWARD. LOTS OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE APPLY, THEY'RE INTERVIEWED. AND IT IS A COMBINED DECISION BY THE ENTIRE COUNCIL AS OPPOSE TODAY ANY ONE COUNCIL MEMBER. BECAUSE OF THE VARIOUS CHANGES THAT ARE COMING ON THE HORIZON, THAT THERE WILL BE A NUMBER OF CONVERSATIONS ABOUT HOW TO RESPOND TO THE NEW DISTRICT ELECTION MODEL. AND I'M NOT INTERESTED IN THIS TIME AT CHANGING THIS PARTICULAR POLICY WHICH ALSO MIRRORS STATE LAW. >> ANY OTHER COMMENT. MR.

TIBBETTS. >> THIS IS A REQUEST FOR YOU COUNCILMEMBER COMBS, I JUST HEARD JOHN BRING UP A INTERESTING POINT. THEY HAVE THAT PROCESS AND THAT PROCESS HAS WORKED IN THE PAST. THE TERM YOU USED COUNCILMEMBER SAWYER IS FULL BODY. WHILE I SUPPORT THAT, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME PROCESS THAT YOU HAVE IN MIND. >> I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT I APPOINT MY REPLACEMENT. I'M SUGGESTING THAT I TAKE PART IN THE CONVERSATION. >> SO YOU WOULD BE ONE OF 7. >> I WOULD STIBL ONE OF SEVEN AND QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE HAD SUCCESS IN OUR PAST APPOINTMENTS? BUT BECAUSE SOMETIMES IT HS SWAYED THE COUNCIL ONE WAY OR THE OTHER SIGNIFICANTLY. >> WELL THANKS, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WHERE THIS COULD GO. AND I APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION. >> MS. FLEMING. >> YEAH, THE ISSUE AROUND DISTRICTS IS OF SIGNIFICANT IN THAT IS OUR FIRST STOP GAP TOWARDS MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. WHILE I APPRECIATE THE VICE MAYOR'S COMMENTS ABOUT NEEDING TO APPRECIATE TO APPROACH THIS HOLISTICKLY.

I DON'T THINK THAT WE CAN WAIT TO DO THESE. TO THAT END, I'VE APPOINTED TO MY BOARDS AND MY COMMISSION IN HOPES THAT IF WE DON'T GET TO IT IN TIME, BECAUSE THINGS COME UP THAT WE DON'T OVERLOOK THE OPPORTUNITIES TO INCREASE. IN THE LAST TEN YEARS, THE LAST FEMALE MAYOR WE HAD WAS, LET'S SEE, IN 2012, THEY LEFT OFFICE. SO IT'S BEEN 7 YEARS. IF YOU LOOK ON THE BOARD, IT'S ALMOST ALL WHITE MEN.

IN SONOMA COUNTY, THERE IS NEVER BEEN AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN WOMEN IN. THIS PROCESS DOES NOT WORK. AND IF WE WANT TO PRETEND THAT IT DOES, WE'RE FOOLING OURSELVES. IN THE LAST TEN YEARS, I'M NOT SURE THAT WE'VE HAD ONE FEMALE VICE MAYOR, I MEAN. COUNCILMEMBERS COMBS HAS BEEN ONE OF THE HIGHEST VOTE GETERS BUT NEVER BEEN PIRMENTED TO BE VICE MAYOR. I'M NOT WLLING TO BE PARTY TO THAT. [APPLAUSE] >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? >> MY OLY COMMENT, I WOULD DISAGREE.

IN MY RESENT MEMORY WE'VE HAD OUR PROCESS HAS BEEN IN PLACE AND TWO VERY EFFECTIVE COUNCIL PERSONS. AND ALSO THIS POSITION IF YOU WERE TO VACANT IS AT LARGE IT'S NOT DISTRICT. I AGREE THAT ONCE WE BECOME ALL DISTRICTS AFTER NOVEMBER OF 2020, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'LL DISCUSS. AND RIGHT NOW GIVEN THE PRIORITY, I DON'T WANT TO SEE ANYTHING WANT BE DROPPED. I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. YOUR VOTES PLEASE. AND THAT MOTION FAILS, 3 AYES 3 NOS WITH MYSELF AND VICE MAYOR ROGERS AND MR. SAWYER VOTING NO. >> THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION. THIS WEEK BUT NOT NEXT WEEK. >> OKAY, APPROVAL OF MINUTES? WE HAVE MNUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 10th ANY ADJUSTMENTS TO THOSE FROM ANYONE? SEEING NONE, WE WILL ACCEPT THOSE.

MR. McGWYNN CONSENT CALENDAR? >> YES, 12.1 RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL AGREEMENT FOR INVESTMENT ADVISES WITH PMM ANAGEMENT. ITEM 12.2, CONTRACT DESIGN FOR AUTO SYSTEM. ITEM 12.3 RESOLUTION THE AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CLASSIFICATION AND SALARY PLAN CREATING CLASSIFICATION OF STORM WATER AND RECLASSIFYING ENGINEER POSITION FOR STORM WATERS AND CREEKS MANAGER. ITEM 12.4. ORDINANCE ADOPTION, SECOND READING. SONOMA HIGHWAY, ALSO IDENTIFIED AS A PARCELLS NUMBER, 032-010-023 AND 032-00005 RESPECTIVELY TO THE CG GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT, FILE NUMBER PRJ18-050. ITEM 12.5 ORDINANCE ADOPTION, SECOND READING. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA AMENDING THE CITY CODE ADDING A NEW CHAPTER, 10-16 HOUSING ANTI DISCRIMINATION CODE. >> THANK YOU, COUNCIL ANY QUESTIONS? I DO HAVE A QUESTION ON ITEM 12.2. THE AUDIO VISUAL SYSTEM. GO AHEAD? >> CAN YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF. >> FRANCO KENNY I.T.

>> IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR THIS IMPROVEMENT ARE THE PET FUNDS? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THOSE ARE? >> YES, THEY COME FROM THE TABLE SUBSCRIBER FRAN XHIEZ FEES AND THEY'RE GIVEN TO GOVERNMENT MEETING SPACES, BROADCASTING OUR MEETINGS AND SUCH. >> I ATTEND A LOT OF MEETINGS AT THE UFO AND THAT FIRST SCREEN THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME VISUAL CHALLENGES.

AND I'M WONDERING WOULD A FIX TO THAT, SCREEN BE INCLUDED IN THIS UPGRADE? >> YES, THE GREENS ARE GOING TO BE REPLACED AND PROJECTORS ARE GOING TO BE IN PLACE. WE'RE MOVING FROM 6,000, TO 8,000 NIMS. >> THANK YOU. THAT WAS THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? OKAY. WE HAVE ONE CARD ON THIS ITEM. MR. DYANE DEWIT. >> HELLO I'M SWAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR 12.5.

I YOU WOULD BE HELPING VETERANS. THE RAINS ARE ALMOST HERE. WITH THE RAINS COMING, I'M ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT 12.3 AND I WOULD ASK WHAT YOU WOULD EXPLAIN BETTER WHAT THE MANAGER MIGHT BE DOING. IN 2004, THERE WAS A CONCEPT PLAN THAT WAS DONE WITH THE NEIGHBORS IN ROSE LAND. WE TALKED ABOUT IT FOR YEARS AND FINAL LEA PROVED IN 2007 AND WE SAW NOTHING GO FORWARD.

WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF THIS WOULD BE THE PERSON THAT WE CAN WORK WITH TO GET THE CONCEPT PLAN PUT INTO SOME SORT OF ACTION. IT WAS 100,000 PLAN THAT WAS PAID FOR BY THE TAXPAYERS. WE NEED TO HELP YOU FIND THE FUNDS THAT WILL GET ACTIONS UNDERTAKEN. THE COMMUNITY CAN DO THAT. WE'VE BEEN TALKING TO THE WATER AGENCY. WE'VE TALKED TO THE LAGUNA FOUNDATION AND THERE ARE FUNDS AVAILABLE WE JUST NEED TO GIVE US ONE EMPLOYEE WHO WILL BE THAT PERSON. I'M HOPING IT'S GOING TO BE THE STORM WATER AND CREEKS MANAGER.

AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, IF THERE IS AY MONEY LEFT OVER FROM 12.2 PUT THAT MONEY INTO PUTTING BAKT PROJECTOR SO THAT THE AUDIENCE CAN HAVE EVIDENCE THAT EVERYBODY SEES AT THE SAME TIME. THAT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AT ITS BEST. INSTEAD YOU'VE TAKEN IT OUT AND YEARS TO REPAIR AND YOU'RE NOT PUTTING IT BACK IN APPARENTLY. TAKE THAT TIME. IT WOULD NOT TAKE A LOT OF EXTRA MONEY TO GET THE OVERHEAD PROJECTOR BACK IN HERE. YOU CAN GET IT GOING FM I THINK IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT IS ABOUT, HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH THE COMMUNITY, PLEASE DO THAT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. >> THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT MR. ROGERS, YOU HAVE THIS ITEM.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I'M GOING TO TAKE THIS IN TWO MOTIONS OUT OF RESPECT FOR COUNCILMEMBER SAWYER. I'LL DO 12.1 THROUGH 1.4 AND WAIVE FURTHER READING OF THE TEXT. YOU VOTED NO ON IT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. >> I'M CONCERNED BECAUSE WE ONLY HAVE FOUR PEOPLE HERE. DO WE NEED FOUR VOTES FOR PASSING THIS ITEM OR IS THE MAJORITY SUFFICIENT? >> LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE ANOTHER COUNCIL MEMBER. >> I'M DELAYING THAT WE GET ANOTHER COUNCILMEMBER. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND FOR 12.1 AND 12.4.

YOUR VOTES PLEASE. >> AND THAT PSSES WITH 5 YES VOTES. >> AND MOVE 12.5 AND WAIVE FURTHER READING OF THE TEXT. >> DO I HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT? >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON 12.5. YOUR VOTES PLEASE. >> MODERN TECHOLOGY, WE'RE WORKING THROUGH IT. >> MAYBE WE SHOULD USE SOME PEG FUNDS ON THIS. AND THAT PASSES WITH 4 AYES. >> WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE RECESS BEFORE WE TAKE PUBLIC. WE'LL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT AND MOVE ON TO 14.1. ACCORDING TO THE PARK STANDARD THIS WOULD BE THE GENERAL PLAN. THE TOTAL CAN INCLUDE FIVE YERZ OF PARKLAND AND ONE CREDIT FOR OPEN SPACE. AFTER THIS WAS PUT INTO PLACE. DIFFERENT FOLKS CAME FORWARD AND SAID, THAT'S TOO MUCH. AND WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS WE'RE GOING TO MAKE IT SO WE'LL XOUNT SCHOOL YARDS, PLAZA AND CEMENT AREAS OPEN SPACE ALSO.

ESSENTIALLY, TAKING AWAY A BIT OF SOCIAL EQUITY FOR THE SOUTHWEST AND SOUTH PARK ALSO. BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HVE ENOUGH GREEN SPACE ALREADY. AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, YOU JUST TURNED INTO A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE STATE AND YOU ASKED THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS TO HELP YOU BECAUSE MY AREA OF ROSELAND ONLY HAS LESS THAN ONE ACRE OF PARK FOR 1,000 RESIDENTS. SO WE'RE GOING TO DEEP DEFICIT FOR THOSE SOCIAL AMENITIES THAT WE NEED FOR TRUE SOCIAL HE QUIT. –EQUITY AND WE WILL NOT GET THEM UNLESS YOU MAKE THE DECISION TO SEE WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY ON WHAT WE HAVE.

WHERE WE CAN CALL OUT THE SPOTS ALONG THE CORRIDOR WHERE THERE IS STILL A CHANCE FOR NATURE TO EXIST. ACTUALLY WHAT WE HEAR IS WHEN THE CITY OR THE COUNTY TALKS ABOUT PARK DEVELOPMENT, THEY'RE INTERESTED IN SPENDING MONEY TO PUT DOWN HARD ESCAPE, TO KILL THE NATURE THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE OUR CHILDREN SEE. WE'RE IN A DID I WILL HE MAXER ROSELAND I THE MOST POLLUTED AREA IN THE COUNTY. THE ROSELAND BROWN FIELD AREA HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE CITY YET EVEN THOUGH THE COUNTY WENT AND GOT A GRANT FOR 39 2000 FROM THE UAACA. THE COUNTY AND THE GOVERNMENT HAVE NOT BEEN WORKING TOGETHER ON IT. SO I'M ASKING TO YOU GET READY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND SOCIAL EQUITY IN THE NEXT GENERAL PLAN.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, CATH LIN MILLER FOLLOWED BY PAT MITCHELL. >> CAN EVERYBODY HEAR ME? I'M A LITTLE BIT SERVICE, I DON'T DO THIS SORT OF THING. BUT THE REASON, I'M HERE BY THE WAY I DO SUPPORT THE $15 DOLLAR AN HOUR PAY INCREASE. HI TO THROW THAT IN TL. I'M A NEW CITIZEN TO SANTA ROSA, EVEN THOUGH I LIVED IN THE COUNTY FOR A LONG TIME.

AND WHEN I MVED HERE I WANTED TO BE AN INFORMED CITIZEN AND EDUCATED VOTER. I REACHED OUT TO MY COUNCILMEMBER. AND I WAS NOT ABLE TO CONNECT AND I'M FEELING A LITTLE FRUSTRATED AND ISOLATED: I REALIZE, I'M NOT WEALTHY OR POLITICALLY CONNECTED OR POWERFUL, BUT I WOULD LIKE ONE HOUR OF TIME TO ASK MY QUESTIONS AND LEARN HIS VIEWS. SO I'M HOPING THAT MY COUNCILMEMBER CAN RESPOND TO MY REQUEST TO MEET. AND ALSO ANOTHER COUNCILMEMBER WHO REPRESENTS SMART TRAIN, I HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT BEFORE THAT COMES UP FOR A VOTE AS WELL. SO THAT'S WHY I'M HERE. I TRIED MY APPROACH, IT DIDN'T WORK. SO I'M HERE TONIGHT TRYING A NEW APPROACH. THANK YOU. PAT MITCHELL. >> OKAY, LET'S BEGIN. MY PROBLEM SEEMS TRIVIAL IN THE FACE OF ALL OF THESE ENORMOUS ISSUES THAT YOU'RE FACED WITH TODAY. SO I ALMOST FEEL LIKE I SHOULD APOLOGIZE FOR BEING HERE. BUT I HANDED THESE OUT. HOPEFULLY YOU HAVE A COPY OF THIS.

THIS IS 4090 WALKER AVENUE WHICH THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA OWNS THAT PROPERTY. AND THERE ARE DAMAGING LEANING TREES TLAENTING MY HOME. THERE ARE FIRE HAZARDS, THEY'RE A RAIL DANGER. THE NAIK HOUSE IS SHADED. THAT'S MY HOUSE IN FALL, ALL FALL AND ALL WINTER. EVEN AT 4:00 IN THE AFTERNOON AND IN THE MORNING. AND THERE IS A PICTURE ON THE OTHER PAGE OF THAT. IN THE THIS COST US HOMEOWNERS MY HUSBAND AND I, HIGH GAS BILLS TO HEAT OUR HOUSE.

THESE TREES NEED TO COME DOWN. THEY'RE ROTTEN AND DANGEROUS. IF THERE WAS A FIRE, WE WOULD HAVE NO CHANCE, THEY'RE NEXT TO US. THIS IS MY FOURTH REQUEST. MY FIRST TWO REQUEST WERE TOO EMPLOYEES OF SANTA ROSA SFAOE. MY LAST REQUEST WAS TO YOU, THE COUNCIL. AND NOW THIS IS THE FOURTH REQUEST, I'M ASKING AGAIN, THAT YOU ELIMINATE THESE TREES THAT ARE A FIRE HAZARD AND A DANGEROUS TO ME AND MY FAMILY. >> THOSE ARE ALL THE CARDS THAT WE HAVE FOR 13. WE'RE NOW GOING TO MOVE TO ITEM 15.1. >> EXCUSE ME. SGH. AHEAD THOMAS. >> I WAS GOING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING AT THE END BUT, WELL THERE WAS NO ONE HERE.

BUT I WOULD PREFER TO ADDRESS IT AT THAT TIME. BUT IN AND OUT CHAMBER IS FULL. MAYBE THIS IS A BENEFIT. SO A FEW WEEKS AGO, THE COUNCIL WAS LOOKING AT AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THAT WAS CONVERSION OF HOUSING, EXISTING HOUSING WITH A TAX CREDIT FINANCING. AND AFFORDABLE CONTRACTOR OWNED THE HUSE AND WANTED REFINANCE THAT HOUSING. SO I WANT TO POINT OUT, THIS IS REALLY REALLY COSTLY. IT'S NOT COSTLY TO US. THERE WAS NO COSTS TO THE CITY, BUT THE COSTS IS WITH THE TAX CREDIT. SO IN THE FINANCING, THE DEVELOPER, THE OWNER STOOD HERE AND SAID THEY WANTED TO GET THE MOST RETURN FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT WAS POSSIBLE. MEANING THAT THEY REFINANCED THE MOST THAT WAS POSSIBLE ON THE HOUSING. IT WAS 88 MILLION DOLLARS AND THE TOTAL EXPECTED VALUATION 22 MILLION DOLLARS PROBABLY WOULD BE THE EQUITY PORTION OF THAT, WHICH WOULD BE THE TAX CREDIT FINANCING. SO THE 22 MILLION DOLLARS, 9% TAX CREDIT WOULD BE ABOUT 2 MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR IN TAX THAT WOULD NOT GO.

SO THEY WOULD SHELTER, THAT WOULD BE THE TAX CREDIT AND IT GOES IMMEDIATELY TO THEIR TAXES. THAT DOES NOT GO IN FOR 55 YEARS, THAT'S 110 MILLION DOLLARS. IT'S VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD. 110 MILLION DOLLARS DOES NOT GO TO A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR THAT 22 MILLION DOLLARS OF FINANCING OVER 5 TIMES AS MUCH AS WHAT WAS FINANCED. SO IT MAKES IT VERY EXPENSIVE. IT DOES SHELTER INCOME THAT 110 MILLION DOLLARS OF TAX WOULD SHELTER OVER A BILLION DOLLARS OF INCOME. SO IT'S EXTREMELY FRUSTRATING. THAT'S AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. IT'S NOT AT THE STATE LEVEL. BUT THE POINT S IS THAT KIND OF FINANCE. IT'S A WRONG WAY TO FINANCE. EXISTING HOUSING IS ALREADY AFFORDABLE.

WE NEED TO USE THOSE CREDITS VERY DILIGENTLY. YES, MAYBE THE HOUSING AFFORDABLE HOUSING CNTRACTOR OR OWNER WOULD THEN INVEST IN OTHER HOUSING. THEY MAY NOT DO IT HERE. SO THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT HERE. THEY'RE JUST MAKING OUR HOUSING MORE COSTLY. RIGHT, SO THAT'S GOING TO BE THE ACTUAL PRICE AND SALE PRICE. THAT IF WE FINANCE THAT. AND CN POTENTIALLY MAKE OUR HOUSING MORE EXPENSIVE AND NOT BENEFIT US. IT'S CRITICALLY IMPORTANT THAT YOU ACT ON THOSE THINGS THAT ARE LOCAL AND PRODUCE HOUSING FOR US, NOT NECESSARILY REFINANCING SOMEBODY ELSE'S HOUSING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU. ALRIGHTY. MOVING TO PUBLIC HEARINGS. ITEM 15.1. >> 15.1, PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE, ADDING CHAPTER TO THE SANTA ROSA CITY CODE TO ESTABLISH MINIMUM WAGES TO BE PAID BY EMPLOYERS.

ECONOMIC MANAGER PRESENTING. >> TIS WOULD THE $15 MINIMUM WAGE TIMELINE FOR 2 TWOS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES AND 18 MONTHS FOR LARGE BUSINESS. BYWAY TO BACKGROUND AND TO RECAP WHAT WAS PRESENTED I THE JULY STUDY SESSION. SB3 WAS SIGNED INTO LAW IN 2016 SETTING THE STAGE TO RAISE THE STATEMENT MINIMUM WAGE B SET AMOUNTS EACH YEAR OVER THE COURSE OF SIX YEARS FOR LARGE BUSINESSES AND SEVEN YEARS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES STARTING IN 2017. COME 20 23, UNDER THIS FORMULA BOTH LARGE AND SMALL BUSINESSES WILL BE AT $15 PLUS CPIW. FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE LABOR CODE, I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE STATE DEFINES A SMALL BUSINESS FOR 25 OR FEWER EMPLOYEES. THE SPLIT IN TERMS OF SIZE OF BUSINESS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE VAS MAJORITY OF INPUT WE RECEIVED BOTH FROM SURVEY CONDUCTED WITH THE HELP OF ME FRO CHAMBER AS WELL AS MEETINGS WE'VE HAD FOR VARIOUS BUSINESS GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS.

SO AT SOME POINT IN 2018, I BELIEVE NORTH HAVE A JUSTICE AND NORTH BAY COUNCIL BEGAN WORKING WITH CITIES PARTICULARLY IN THE NORTH BAY, PROPOSING LOCAL ORDINANCE TO SEE EXPEDITE THE STATE TIMELINE. IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR, DURING COUNCIL'S GOAL SETH SESSION, ADDRESSING A LOCAL MINIMUM WAGE MAINTENANCE WAS SET AS A TIER TWO PRIORITY THAT WOULD BE ADDRESSED AND PUT ON THE DOCKET AS RESOURCED WOULD PERMIT IT. AS MENTIONED THE STUDY SESSION WAS HELD ON JULY 27, WHICH THE NORTH BAY JOB PROPOSAL THAT YOU SEE ON TE RIGHT OF THE SCREEN WAS INTRODUCED. RECOMMENDING THE TIERED IMPLEMENTATION START INING JANUARY 2020 OF AN EXPEDITED TIMELINE. THEN IN 2021, SMALL BUSINESSES WOULD MATCH LARGE BUSINESSES AT $15 PER HOUR PLUS CPI USING UNLIKE THE STATE THE BAY AREA CPI INDEX. TO GET A BETTER REPRESENTATION, CONTAINED A LABOR ANALYSIS. WHAT W LEARNED THEN WAS THAT OF THE COUNTY STUDIED AND THAT WAS, SONOMA, MARIN NAPA AND SOLANO, ONLY 36% OF UNTIL THING BAY WORKERS WULD BE EFFECTED BY THE EXPEDITED TIMELINE. IT'S ESTIMATED THAT SANTA ROSA PORTION OF THE EFFECTED WORK FORCE IS ABOUT 13% OR AROUND 25 TO 30,000 WORKERS.

THOSE WORKERS WOULD THEN SEE AN AVERAGE INCREASE IN EARNINGS OF ALMOST 16%. NEXT, POPULAR TO POPULAR BELIEVE OLDER WORKERS WITH AT LEAST SOME COLLEGE EDUCATION ARE MAKING LESS 15. THIS MEANS THAT THE BUSINESSES WILL BE MOST EFFECTED ARE RETAIL RESTAURANTS AND HEALTHCARE SERVICES. THE STUDY POINTED OUT THAT IN ORDER TO OFFSET THE COST OF BUSINESS THE MOST COMMON RESPONSE TO INCREASE BY BUSINESSES IS TO INCREASE PRICES ON GOODS AND SERVICES AND/OR TO REDUCE STAFF OR AND/OR REDUCE SERVICES.

THAT SAID, THE STUDY FOUND THAT BY 2% PRICE INCREASED ONLY BY – 1%. FOR RETAIL AND GENERAL ECONOMY, THEY FOUND NA THERE WERE MINIMUM COST AND PRICE INCREASES. WHILE IN STUDY IS NOT SPECIFIC TO SANTA ROSA ALONE, THE DATA AND RESEARCH RESOURCES IN THE DATA WERE PULLED FROM MANY DIFFERENT AREAS AND AVAILABLE FOR FURTHER REVIEW. WE HAVE PUT THE STUDY ON OUR WEBSITE AS OUR CITY HA WORKS/MINIMUM WAGE. AND THE SOURCES INCLUDED AND THOSE ARE SMFT SOURCES THAT I LOOKED AT WHEN STUDYING THIS ISSUE ARE THE LABOR OF STATISTIC MIKE CO DATA AREAS AS WELL AS OTHER STUDIES AS AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW AND FEDERAL REVIEW AND GENERAL HUMAN RESOURCE SXZ ECONOMIC GENERAL, MANY MORE WERE SOURCED FOR THAT.

AT THE END OF THE JULY, STUDY SESSION, DIRECTION WAS GIVEN TO MOVE FORWARD WITH AN EXPEDITED MINIMUM WAGE ORDINANCE USING THE BAY AREA, CPIW. ALSO HAD DESIGN TO REMAIN CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE LABOR CODE, AND LASTLY BASED ON QUESTIONS ASKED. I DID DIG DEEPER INTO THE ENFORCEMENT AS WELL AS DATA THAT STAFF CAN EASILY TRACK AND USE THAT COULD PROVIDE INDICATIONS OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE. BECAUSE WE KNEW WHERE LABOR STANDS ON THE ISSUE, I SPENT MOST OF MY EFFORTS POST STUDY SESSION REACHING OT AND ENGAGING AS BROAD AND INCLUSIVE SPECTRUM OF BUSINESS AS I COULD BETWEEN JULY AND TO BE HONEST WITH YOU UNTIL YESTERDAY. IN ADDITION TO THE DOZEN OR SO BUSINESSES GROUP MEETINGS THAT I ATTENDED AND PRESENTED TO AND GOT FEEDBACK FROM, THE DRAFT ORDINANCE WAS DISCUSSED BY ECONOMIC SUBCOMMITTEE AND THE DOWNTOWN ACTION ORGANIZATION BOARD MEETING. AND FURTHERMORE, WE CREATED A POLICY DOCUMENT, I THINK YOU'VE SEEN THIS. THAT HAS A NMBER OF POLICIES BUT WE TRY TO HIGHLIGHT THE FACT THAT MINIMUM WAGE IS COMING UP AS A DISCUSSION.

AND WE, MADE THIS AVAILABLE TO A BROWDER SPECTRUM OF STAKEHOLDERS IN THE COMMUNITY. ALL THE POLICIES HAVE A SPECIFIC ZEB SITE OR CONTACT INFORMATION LIST AVAILABLE. ALSO IN COLLABORATION WITH THE SANTA ROSA METRO CHAMBER WE DEVELOPED A SURVEY THAT THE CHAMBER WAS VERY PROACTIVE TO SEND OUT AS WELL AS SHARING WITH GROUPS T SEND OUT TO THEIR CONSTITUENCE. THAT SURVEY WAS OPENED FOR ALMOST TWO MONTHS AND PRO VOTED THROUGHOUT AND RECEIVED ABOUT 100 RESPONSES. LASTLY, ON ENGAGEMENT, WE THE CITY WERE RELENTLESS IN ENCOURAGING FOLKS TO WEIGH IN EITHER BY WRITING OR SHOWING UP TO COUNCIL AND BY LAST COUNT, WE RECEIVED 49 WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCES THUS FAR AND, I HAVE TO SAY AS A STAFF PERSON WHO HAS WORKED IN GOVERNMENT FOR A WHILE,–FOR PEOPLE TO COME PARTICIPATE.

SO GTTING INTO THE MEAT OF THE ORDINANCE OR A LITTLE BIT MORE INTO IT. WOULD I LIKE TO START WITH KEY POINTS ON THE STATE CODE THAT THE CITY WILL CONTINUE TO ADHERE TO. I CALL THIS OUT, BECAUSE IN MOST OF THE MEETINGS, I HAD, THERE WERE QUESTIONS ABOUT CHANGING THINGS LOCALLY THAT WERE UNDER THE STATE PER VIEW. SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IN THE CASE OF LABOR AND WAGES, IF THERE ARE CONFLICTS BETWEEN STATE AND LOCAL MINIMUM POLICY.

THE POLICY THAT IS MST BENEFICIAL TO THE EMPLOYEE IS THE RULE THAT MUST BE FOLLOWED. THAT SAID, IT'S REALLY ONLY THE CONDENSE TIMELINE TOWARDS THE $15 MINIMUM WAGE AND SPECIFIC COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT THAT THE SANTA ROSA ORDINANCE A DRESZ. SO TE STATE ALREADY CLEARLY LIST, THE REQUIREMENTS. THE SANTA ROSA ORDINANCE STAYS CONSISTENT WITH THOSE. FOR EXAMPLE, AS LISTED IN THE SLIDE, LEARNERS ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE NEW TO AN OCCUPATION FOR WHICH THEY HAVE NO PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE THEY CAN, THEY CAN BE OF ANY AGE. THEY CAN BE PAID AT 85% OF MINIMUM WAGE UP TO $25 HOUR. THOSE WHO HIRE DISABLED WORKERS ARE EXEMPTS. AND WHAT DOES NOT NEED SPECIAL APPROVAL ARE EXEMPTIONS FOR IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBERS. THERE ARE MANY QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS RAISED FOR RESTAURANT TOURS IN PARTICULAR FOR TIP CREDITS. AND I WOULD LIKE TO BE CLEAR ON THIS. THIS IS A STATE LEVEL ISSUE.

IN STAT STATE CDE PRO I OBJECT ITS ANY WAGE REDUCTIONS KNOWN AS THE TIP CREDIT FOR TIPPED EMPLOYEES IN CALIFORNIA. AND THE QUESTION O HEALTHCARE OF THE MEETINGS AND WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY COMMENTS AND WE DID NOT ADDRESS THAT AT ALL IN THE ORDINANCE. SO BECAUSE COUNCIL ASKED US TO CONSIDER REGIONAL EFFORTS, THIS CHARTS SHOW WHAT OTHER PAST ORDINANCES HAVE DONE. I HAVE TO POINT OUT THAT I MADE AN ERROR IN THE SLIDE, THEREFORE AN ERROR IN THE STAFF REPORT, I FAILED TO INSERT UNDER THE CITY SANTA ROSA COLUMN WHICH IS THE ORANGISH COLUMN UP THERE, IFAILED TO INSERT THAT OF COURSE WE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE STATE MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE HAPPENING ON JANUARY 1, 2020.

SO THE $13 FOR LARGE AND $12 FOR SMALL SHOULD BE IN THE COLUMN RIGHT ABOVE THE CIRCLE PORTION UP THERE. SO LET'S SEE, SO IF YOU APROVE THE ORDINANCE IS, MINIMUM WAGE WOULD RISE FROM A BASE OF $13 FOR LARGE AND $12 FOR SMALL. SO GETTING BACK TO THE OTHER CITIES, SONOMA WHICH CAME OUT OF THE GATE FIRST, AND THE NOVATO THE MOST RESENT CITY TO PASS AN ORDINANCE ARE TO STATE CODE AND JUSTICE PROPOSAL IN THAT WHERE SONOMA EXPEDITES THEIR TIMELINE FOR 2021. AND AT THIS POINT, THEY DO NOT SINK LARGE AND SMALL TO A SINGLE RATE, SO THAT'S THE FIRST THING. AND THEN THE SECOND IS THAT SONOMA CITY COUNCIL DECIDE TODAY RAISE BY A DOLLAR PER YEAR, THE MINIMUM WAGE BY SIZE CLASSIFICATION UNTIL 2023 WHEN SMALL BUSINESSES WILL BE AT $16 AND LARGE AT $17 AT WHICH TIME THEY WILL REVISIT THE ISSUE AND DECIDE ON CPI AND THEY CAN ADDRESS THE PARITY ISSUE. NOVATO ON THE OTHER HAND IMPLEMENTED A THIRD TIER TO THEIR SMALL BUSINESS TO THE SIZE OF THE BUSINESSES, SO THAT SMALL BSINESSES REMAIN 25 OR LESS EMPLOYEES, LARGE IS NOW 26-99 AND TE CATEGORY THEY ADDED IS VERY LARGE WHICH IS 100 EMPLOYEES OR MORE.

FURTHERMORE EACH TIER REACHES $15 A YEAR. WHEN THEY REACH $15 PER HOUR A YEAR APART STARTING IN 2020 VERY LARGE BUSINESS, SO, THEY DO NOT REACH PARITY WITH BECAUSE WITH EACH YEAR, THE BAY AREA CPIW IS ADDED TO THE WAGE CALCULATION SO. AT THIS POINT IT SEEMS AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THEY WILL GO FORWARD WITH THREE DIFFERENT RATES. MOST SIGNIFICANT IS PETALUMA. ALL THEY THEY WILL BE IMPLEMENTING THEIR ORDINANCE STARTING IN JANUARY FIRST, 2020. WHERE AS FOR US, AS NOTED, WE WILL HAVE WAITED TO IMPLEMENT OURS OR PROPOSE TO IMPLEMENT OURS STARTING IN JULY FIRST.

SO DUE TO FEEDBACK WE RECEIVED AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF TE ANGST AGAINST THE COST, WE START JULY FIRST, 2020. ALLOWING FOR 9 MONTHS OF PREPARATION. STARTING JULY 1, 2020, MINIMUM WAGE FOR SMALL BUSINESS WOULD THEN RISE DPZ 14% FROM 12 AN HOUR TO $14 HOUR AND LARGE BUSINESS FROM $12 TO $15. SIKTS MONTHS LATER, BOTH SMALL AND LARGE WILL BE AT $15 AN HOUR PLUS BAY AREA CPIW. ANOTHER THING TO NOTE, LIKE TE STATE, SANTA ROSA ORDINANCE DOES PROPOSE A CPI CAP AT 3.5%. OF COURSE THE STATE USES UACPIW. THIS WAS DONE AS ANOTHER CONCESSION TO HELP WITH THE BUDGET PLANNING. AND THE ORIGINAL NORTH BAY JOBS WITH JUSTICE MODEL ORDINANCE DOES NOT PROPOSE A CPI CAP. HOWEVER WE DISCUSSED THIS WITH THEM AND IMPLEMENTATION DELAY. JUST, TO SEE IF THEY HAD ANY ISSUE WITH IT. AT TIMES THEY DID NOT. SO IT BECAME A TALKING POINT FOR US AS WE'VE BEEN REACHING OUT TO BUSINESSES IN THE COMMUNITY.

SO, ABOUT THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX. SO DURING THIS STUDY SESSION AND TO A SMALLER DEGREE DURING COMMUNITY, QUESTIONS ABOUT VARIOUS PRICE INDEX THAT CAN BE USED. IT'S A MEASURE OF AVERAGE CHANGEOVER TIME IN THE PRICES PAID BY URBAN CONSUMERS FOYER FOR A MARKET BASKET OF CONSUMER GOODS. AND INDEXES ARE AVAILABLE FOR BOTH U.S. AND VARIOUS GEOGRAPHIC AREAS. SO FIRSTLY, IT'S GOOD TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CPIU VERSUS CPIW. IT'S A MORE GENERAL INDEX THAT TRACKS RETAIL PRICE A RELATES ALL CONSUMERS. IT'S A SUB SET OF THE CPIU AS THEY AFFECT URBAN HOURLY WAGE EARN SXGZ CLERICAL WORKERS. SECONDLY, I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN UCPI. WHEN I SAY BAY AREA ACCORDING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, THAT MEANS SAN FRANCISCO, OAKLAND AND HAYWARD. IT'S OF COURSE DIFFERENT THAN THE AVERAGE PRICES WITHIN SPECIFIC GEOGRAPHIC AREAS. SO YOU CAN SEE THIS DIFFERENCE IN THIS CHART WHERE OUR REGION HAS A HIGH COST OF LIVING, SO THIS IS REFLECTED ON THE AVERAGE COSTS OF SERVICES BETWEEN 2009 AND 2018.

OH BEFORE I GO BACK, I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THERE IS AN ATTACHMENT THAT SHOWS A MORE COMPREHENSIVE LOOK BETWEEN 2001 AND 2018. AND I POINT THIS OUT WHY I DON'T HAVE IT ON THIS SCREEN, I DO WANT T POINT OUT THAT THERE ARE ONLY TWO YEARS ON THAT ATTACHMENT WHEN THE BAY AREA CPIW WAS HIRED AND THOSE WERE IN 2001 AND 2018. SO ONCE AGAIN, IN LISTENING TO THE BROWDER COMMUNITY, AND WITH THE SUPPORT AT THE TIME OF LABOR, WE ADDED INTO THE SANTA ROSA ORDINANCE A CPIW CAP OF 4%.

SO THE ADJUSTMENT IS ALWAYS THE LESSER OF 3.5. SO, JUST TO ROUNDUP THE DISCUSSION, EXAMPLES OF POLICIES THAT USE VARIES CPIs. SOCIAL SECURITY USES THE USC PIW AND THEN OF ALL THE REGIONAL ORDINANCE THAT'S I'VE REVIEWED, THEY USE THE BAY AREA, CPIW. AND THE LAST THING I WNT TO POINT OUT IN THE ORDINANCE, UNDER SECTION 1045.030 BEGINNING IN OCTOBER, BEGINNING IN OCTOBER 2020 AND THEN ANNUALLY THEREFORE. THE CITY WOULD PUBLICIZE THE CPIW AND ADJUSTED MINIMUM WAGE EFFECTED FOR THE NEXT YEAR. SO WE WOULD BEGIN IN OCTOBER WHEN WE WOULD NOTIFY BUSINESSES. ENFORCEMENT WAS IDENTIFIED AS A CONCERN BEFORE AND DURING THE STUDY SESSION. IN DOING SOME DIGGING, I WAS VERY PLEASED TO SUMBLE ACROSS AND READ 2618, A B970 WHICH CAME INTO LAW IN 2016. THIS AMENDED THE LABOR CODE TONE FORCE LOCAL LABOR LAWS AND ISSUE CITATIONS WHEN DEEMED NECESSARY.

SO IT TAKES A LOT OF BURDEN OFF OF US AS TE SOLE ENFORCEMENT ARM FOR A LOCAL MINIMUM WAGE AND WE CAN NOW PARTNER WITH THE STATE ON THIS. SO WHILE THIS CODIFIES THE STATE RULE, STATES RULE LOCAL POLICY, TO HAVE AN EFFECTIVE MINIMUM WAGE ORDINANCE, THE CITY SHOULD ALSO PLAN TO DO ITS PART AND, SO IN SPEAKING WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS WHO HAVE HAD MORE EXPERIENCE AND HIGHER MINIMUM WAGES FOR LONGER, WE KNOW THAT, THE BULK OF THE ISSUES THAT COME BEFORE THEM, ARE IN FACT, DIRECTED TO THIS STATE. AND THEN, TOSE CTIES THAT WE TALKED TO, EITHER HAVE A DEFINE PROGRAM OR THEY CONTRACT FOR SERVICES WITH A SPECIALIZED VENDOR WHO CAN PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO ADDRESS LABOR ISSUES. OUR RECOMMENDATION IS A COMBINATION OF ALL OF THESE OPTIONS. WHAT IS EITHER REFERRED TO THIS STATE EITHER AUTOMATICALLY OR STAFF. WHICH WE UNDERSTAND IT'S THE MAJORITY OF THE COMPLAINTS. EITHER BY WORKING WITH THE BUSINESS OR BY IF WE NEED TO BRING IN A COMPLIANCE CONSULTANT THAT WE CAN CONTRACT WITH AND WE LIKELY WOULD NOT DO THAT UNTIL THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR.

THESE NEXT FEW SLIDES ARE REALLY JUST EXAMPLES OF TYPE OF DATA OR DATA SOURCES THAT WE CAN TRACK THAT CAN HELP INDICATE THE INFLUENCE OF MINIMUM WAGE ORDINANCE OVERTIME. THE QUESTION OF TRACKING AND MATCHESED CAME UP DURING THE STUDY SESSION AND SORT OF COMMISSIONING PERIODIC STUDIES. I BELIEVE THESE SHOULD SUFFICIENT AS GENERAL INDICATORS. SO I'M GOING TO WAGE THROUGH THEM. THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS PUTS OUT A SANTA ROSA AREA ECONOMIC SUMMARY WHICH IS WHERE THESE GRAPHS COME FROM. BUT NE ALSO GIVE US AN OCCUPATIONAL EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES OVERVIEW WHICH IS ATTACHMENT 7 IN YOUR AGENDA PACKET. UNFORTUNATELY, WE DON'T HAVE THE MEANS TO RESTRIBLGT TRACKING TO SANTA ROSA SPECIFICALLY. SO I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE STATED THAT YOU SEE ON THE SLIDES IS PROVIDED EITHER BIT METROPOLITAN AREA OR BY COUNTY OR WESTERN REGION AS A WHOLE. SO SMFT CHARTS WOULD BE HELPFUL. FOR EXAMPLE OUR EMPLOYMENT RATES AVERAGE WEEKLY RATES AS TRACKED BY COUNTY. AND GRAPH BY CATEGORY WHICH IS TRACK OF THE REST OF THE REGION ACTUALLY. AND OVER THE YEAR CHANGES AND TELLING PRICES RECEIVED BY PRODUCERS. BUT THAT'S NATIONWIDE.

LASTLY, I THINK OTHER INDICATORS THAT WILL HELP TRACK AND THEY DON'T HAVE THE THEM ON THE SLIDE BUT JUST TO POINT OUT. LICENSE CHILDCARE SLOTS AND AVERAGE FEES. WE NOTED IN REVIEWING THIS, THAT IT'S A GOOD INDICATOR THAT, LICENSE CHILDCARE THE BULK OF THEIR COSTS ARE RELATED TO LABOR. AND THEN ALSO THE NUMBER OF SANTA ROSA TAX CERTIFICATE WHICH WE ALREADY TRACK YEAR OVER YEAR. SO, FINALLY GETTING TO THE SURVEY THAT WAS DISTRIBUTED FAIRLY WIDELY BY THE SANTA ROSA METRO CHAMBER, WHAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR AGENDA PACKET IS AN EARLIER POLL SHOWING 69 RESPONSES. IN TOTAL RECEIVED 93 RESPONSE SXZ WERE KIND ENOUGH TO SHARE THE DATA WITH US.

I'VE ONLY SELECT AID FEW OF THE RESULTS ON THIS SLIDE. BUT IT'S AN INTERESTING READ AND THE COMMENTS, ARE INTERESTING AND GENERALLY IT'S A VERY GOOD DOCUMENT TO REVIEW AND, SEE. SO 55% OF THE RESPONDENTS REPRESENTATIVE CORPORATIONS. WE ALSO RECEIVED RESPONSE FRZ NONPROFIT, LLCs PARTNERSHIPS AND A COUPLE OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES. SUPPORT FOR AND AGAINST THE MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE WAS, TRULY EVENLY SPLIT WITH JUST ONE VOTE SEPARATING, I GETS THEY'RE A VOTE, SEPARATING THE TWO OF THEM. OTHER THINGS TO NOTE. MOST EPLOYEES OF THE RESPOND ENTERS GET PAID ABOVE MINIMUM WAGE. THERE WAS 66% WHO SAY THEY PAY THEIR EMPLOYEE ABOVE MINIMUM WAGE WITH ONLY 34% PAID ABOVE CURRENT WAGE.

62% OF THE EMPLOYEES IF I'M READ ITING CORRECTLY, HOLD PART-TIME POSITION APPROXIMATES. 99% OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS TARGET COMPENSATION ABOVE MARKET RATE. THOUGH THE SURVEY DID NOT DEFINE WHAT IS MARKET RATE BY INDUSTRY SECTOR. IN REACTION TO WHAT THE IMPACT MAY BE ON STAFF IN BENEFITS, NEARLY 60% SAID THAT THERE WOULD BE NO IMPACT. BUT WHEN I CAME TO REDUBSINGS AND STAFF, 48% SAID THAT THEY EXPECTED SOME REDUCTION AND STAFF HOURS HOURS WHERE AS 39% SAID THERE WOULD BE NO CHANGE ON A POS NOTE, 17% INDICATED THAT THIS MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE WOULD PROVIDE STAFF A BETTER QUALITY OF LIFE OR STABILITY. WHILE THE SURVEY WAS HELPFUL IN GAINING GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY SENTIMENT, REGARDING THE EXPEDITING OF THE MINIMUM WAGE, I WILL SAY THAT THE MORE IN DEPTH DISCUSSION WITH BUSINESS GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS WAS MOST HELPFUL IN UNDERSTANDING HOW WE CAN HELP MITIGATE SMFT IDENTIFIED ISSUES WITHIN THE ORDINANCE.

SO LASTLY, I WOULD LIKE TO SPEND A MOMENT ON COMPACTION. WHEN AT THE GET TOO CLOSE OR OVERTAKE SALARIES WITH MORE RESPONSIBILITY. THIS ISSUE WAS BROUGHT UP MOST DIRECTLY AND MOST RECENTLY WITH MEETINGS THAT I HAD WITH RESTAURANT TOURS WHO PAY, THE EXAMPLE, THEY GAVE ME THEIR FRIENDS WHO AE TIPPED EMPLOYEES AT OR CLOSER TO MINIMUM WAGE WHERE MOST BACK UP HOUSE EMPLOYEES EARN MORE. SO, AN'S' WAY TO EXPLAIN THIS AS IT RELATES TO THE CITY, I PRESENTED SOME INFORMATION THAT COMPACTION FOR THE CITY IS NOT AN ISSUE. WHILE THIS RMAINS TRUE FOR THE PERMANENT EMPLOYEES. WE DID FIND THAT WE HVE COMEPACTION WITH REC AND PARK. AND THE NUMBER THAT WE, PRESENTED DID NOT FACTOR INTO COMPACTION AS I JUST DEFINED IT. AND TAKING THAT INTO CONSIDERATION, WE ESTIMATE FOR THE CITY, COMPACTION WOULD BE CLOSE TO 350,000. STARTING IN 2020-21. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION SO IT'S RECOMMENDED THAT THE COUNCIL INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER TO THE SANTA ROSA CITY CODE TO ESTABLISHMENT MINIMUM WAGES TO BE PAID BY EMPLOYERS. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT PRESENTATION. I WANT TO COMPLIMENT YOU AND YOUR STAFF FOR GETTING ALL THAT FEEDBACK AND REACHING OUT.

IT'S OBVIOUS, WHATEVER DECISION WE MAKE, WE WILL NOT STRUGGLE WITH THE LACK OF INFORMATION. SOY APPRECIATE ALL OF THOSE OUT REACH EFFORTS. MR. TIBBETTS? >> THANK YOU MR. MAYOR. I WANT TO ECHO WHAT THE MAYOR SAID THIS WAS BEEN AN INCREDIBLE JOB THAT YOU'VE DONE TO GO OUT AND GET INFORMATION AND INCORPORATING ALL THE PERSPECTIVES AD I APPRECIATE THAT.

I HAVE A QUESTION, AS I WAS MEETING WITH A GRAOUFP STUDENTS YESTERDAY AND HE ASKED ME TO ASK THIS SO I'M ASKING FOR HIS BEHALF. FOR EMPLOYEES WORKING IN THE BACK OF THE TABLE, WHAT RECOURSE WOULD THEY HAVE IN THIS ENVIRONMENT TO KIND OF EARN THE MINIMUM WAGE? AND THAT'S A TOUGH ONE, I HAD A HARD TIME ANSWERING. I THOUGHT THAT IMPLICATES A TAX CRIME. >> I WAS GOING TO SAY, A NUMBER ONE IT'S ILLEGAL. BUT ONE OF THE FIRST THING IS THAT THE STATE CODE STATES THAT IMMIGRATION STATUS IS NOT A CONSIDERATION IN THE RIGHTS TO BE PAID MINIMUM WAGE. SO THAT'S, THAT'S NUMBER ONE. ANYBODY REGARDLESS OF IMMIGRATION STATUS AND THAT THE WAY TE CODE STATES IT, YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSE TO ASK THAT. ANYBODY REGARDLESS OF IMMIGRATION STATUS MY WAGE A COME MRAINT WITH THE STATE. AND THEY SHOULD. >> OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU. I'M HOPING HE'S LISTENING. THANK YOU, MAYOR. >> MS. FLEMING? >> THANK YOU. AND I WANT TO ECHO THAT I CANNOT APPRECIATE ENOUGH HOW MUCH WORK WENT INTO WHAT YOUR WORK WITH OUR LOCAL BUSINESSES AND OUR LABOR COMMUNITY HERE.

I DO HAVE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ORDINANCE ITSELF. I'M CURIOUS TO KNOW, UNDER A B970. WHAT ENFORCEMENT CAPACITIES DOES THE STATE HAVE THAT ARE THE STATEN FORCEMENT CAPACITIES LIMITED TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH WE SETFORTH OUR FINDS OR OUR PUNISHMENTS? >> NO, I MEAN. BASICALLY, IT, A B970 INVESTIGATE AND UPON A REQUEST FROM THE LOCAL ENTITY TO ENFORCE LOCAL LAWS REGARDING OVERTIME HOURS AND MINIMUM WAGE PROVISION SXZ TO ISSUE CITATION SXZ PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS EXCEPT UNLESS WE'VE ALREADY DONE SO.

SO THEY HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS TO ENFORCE OUR LOCAL REQUIREMENT PLUS THOSE DICTATED BY THE STATE. >> DO THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO REVOKE BUSINESS TAX LICENSE? >> YES, AND THAT'S IN THE ORDINANCE. >> OKAY. I'M WONDERING, WHY COLLECTIVE BAR GING UNITS WERE EXEMPTED? >> THAT WAS TAKEN FROM THE NORTH BAY JOB JUSTICE MODEL ORDINANCE AND WE SEPTEMBER IT IN. >> DO YOU HAVE A SENSE OF WHO THE WORKERS ARE THAT ARE MOST EFFECTED BY WHO ARE UNION MEMBERS WHO ARE MAKING LESS THAN PROPOSED MINIMUM WAGE? >> I DON'T HAVE THAT. BUT I DON'T ANTICIPATE, YOU WOULD HAVE TO, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE TOLD AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE AGREEING TO IN ORDER TO ACCEPT LESS THAN MINIMUM WAGE. >> MY SENSE IS THAT IT'S HOTEL WORKERS AND WOMEN OF COLOR CLEANING ROOMS THAT ARE GOING TO BARGAIN FOR BERT CONDITIONS TO AVOID SEXUAL ASSAULT.

AND BY HAVING THIS IN THERE, WE'RE MAKE ITING HARDER FOR THEM TO BE SAFE AND EARN A LIVING WAGE. I'M WONDERING WHY, WE CAPPED AT IT AT 3.5 OF CPIW WHEN IT GOES ABOVE 3.5, IT'S A GOODYEAR FOR EVERYBODY. ADDITIONALLY WE HAVE RENT STABILIZATION BILL COMING DOWN FROM THE STATE. THAT IS GOING TO BE SIGNED IF IT HAS NOT BEEN SIGNED ALREADY. THAT TUZ NOT CAP AT 5% INCREASE PER YEAR PLUS 3.5CPI. MY CONCERN EMBEDDED IN THAT, IS THAT IF WE HAVE A FEW YEARS, WE'RE GOING TO BE OUT OF SYNCH WITH PETALUMA. >> WELL 3.5% CAP WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS RECOMMENDED OR, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO SAY THIS, IT WAS IN RECOGNITION OF SOME DEGREE OF CERTAINTY THAT IT COULD PROVIDE TWO BUSINESSES IN PLANNING FOR THEIR BUDGETS. SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE CORE REASONS THAT WE, THAT WE WENT WITH THAT. >> SO STICK WITHING THAT, IF I'M AN BUSINESS OWNER AND I WANT TO BE ABLE TO PLAN, LET'S SAY IT'S OCTOBER NOW AND NOT IN THIS KIND OF YEAR WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS ORDINANCE BUT IN A COUPLE OF YEARS FROM NOW.

AND I WANT TO KNOW WHEN I'M DOING MY PRO QUARTER OUT OR SIX MONTHS OUT. HOW WOULD I BE ABLE TO TRACK WHAT THE CPI IS? SO I CAN HAVE MY PREDICTABILITY. ?FM RIGHT. SO THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTIC. FOR ONE THING, YOU HAVE TO BE A SAVVY BUSINESS PERSON. I DON'T THINK MANY PEOPLE PAY THAT MUCH ATTENTION TO. BUT, THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, PROVIDES OR KEEPS RUNNING A TALLY AND IT'S AVAILABLE AAIN FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO OAKLAND HAYWARD REGION. SO YOU CAN LOOK AT THE AVERAGES AS THEY'RE GAINING THROUGH THE I THINK, THEY RELEASED THE FIGURES EVERY OTHER MONTH. SO YOU CAN BEGIN TO GET A GOOD INDICATOR OF WHAT THE YEAR-END PERCENTAGE WILL BE. >> SO IT'S EASY TO PREDICT EARLY ON. >> WELL IT'S EASY TO BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PERCENTAGE WOULD BE. >> OR THE DATA AVAILABLE. >> RIGHT, DATA VAINLS. >> THANK YOU. >> MR. COMBS DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION. OKAY. >> THANK YOU. I HAVE APPRECIATED THE LEARNING CURVE HERE.

AND THE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION MATERIALS THAT YOU'VE PROVIDED HAS BEEN OUTSTANDING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU. >> IT CONCERNS ME TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM PETALUMA. WHAT WERE THEIR REASONS WHY WE WOULD NOT COINCIDE WITH WHAT SURROUNDING INDIVIDUALS IN THE COUNTY ARE DOING? I JUST WONDER WHAT, HOW DO WE JUSTIFY MAKING IT THAT CONFUSING FOR BUSINESSES THAT MAY HAVE LIKE A SITE IN PETALUMA AND A SITE HERE. >> WELL THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US AND THE PETALUMA IS THE POTENTIAL CAP TO CPI. OTHERWISE, THERE IS NO CONSISTENT EITHER WITH SONOMA. BUT THERE IS WITH THAT CPI CAP. THAT IS THEY USE CPIW. IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE. SO THE DIRECTION I RECEIVED IS FIND CONSISTENT WITH SB3 AND CONSISTENCY WITH OUR REGIONAL CITIES, THE OTHER CTIES AND THUS FAR WE'RE MOST CONSISTENT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THAT 3.5% CAP WITH PETALUMA.

>> AND HELP ME, BECAUSE I MAY HAVE MISREAD, IS THE SMALL BUSINESS TMING DFFERENT BETWEEN US AND PETALUMA ALSO? >> NO, THAT IS CONSISTENT. SO SANTA ROSA AND PETALUMA AND THE CITY OF SONOMA RECOGNIZE THE STATE LABOR OF CODE DEFINITION OF SMALL AND LARGE BUSINESS. >> OKAY. I WILL JUST SAY, IT CONCERNS ME THAT RENT CAN GO UP, CPI PLUS 5% BUT THAT WAGES ARE LIMITED TO UNDER TO THE LESSER OF CPI OR 3% WHICH IS NOT THE SAME AS ADDING. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN INCREASE BETWEEN RENT AND WAGES. IT DOES NOT SEEM TO ME, TO BE APPROPRIATE TO PUT OUR LOW INCOME WORKERS IN SUCH A VICE. >> THANK YOU. >> MR. VICE MAYOR. >> THANK YOU MR. MAYOR. I WANT TO PIGGY BACK ON COUNCILMEMBER TIBBETTS QUESTION A LITTLE BIT.

AND FIRST IF YOU CAN GO BACK TO THE SOON, I THINK IT WAS POINT OUT ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO, COUNCILMEMBER MULLIN PASSED LEGISLATION TO MAKE IT ILLEGAL–BASED ON THEIR STATUS. WHERE YOU AND I HAVE HAD CONVERSATION MULTIPLE ABOUT WAGE THEFT AT THE LOCAL LEVEL SXUNDSING THAT IS AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT IN MAKING SURE THAT EVERYBODY IS PLAYING ON THE SAME PLAYING FIELD. IT'S NOT ALWAYS THE WAGE THAT WE NEED TO STEP IN. DOES THIS ORDINANCE AND THE TOOLS THAT WE NEED ALSO ALLOW US TO TALK ABOUT OVERTIME? FOR EXAMPLE, TRYING TO NOT PAY OVERTIME IN ORDER TO GET UNDER THE PER HOUR, WAGE THAT WE'RE PUTTING IN PLACE HERE. >> YS. >> OKAY. >> AND THEN THE OTHER TYPES OF COMPLAINTS, PEOPLE CAN STILL COME TO YOU AND GET THAT ASSISTANCE AS WELL.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> WE ALSO TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE RAMP UP TO 2020. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU MENTIONED IS THAT THE CITY WOULD BE LOOKING AT WAY TO SEE ASSIST BUSINESSES THAT ARE LEGITIMATELY ON THAT MARGIN. CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THAT THOSE BUSINESSES. >> YES, AND I'M FINDING MORE YOU KNOW, AS QUICKLY AS I CAN, BUT THE MOST COMMON ONES ARE LOOKING AT THE BASE LEVEL AT THE BUSINESS PLAN. AND BUSINESS CONDITIONS AND SO WE WORK WITH THE SBD SMALL BUSINESS CORPORATION WHICH IS A STATE AGENCY AS WELL AS OUR PARTNERS WITH THE ECONOMIC BOARD. WE'RE WORK WITHING HISPANIC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. WE TALKED TO A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE ABOUT WHAT OPPORTUNITIES EXIST TO REACH OUT TO BUSINESSES WHO NEED ASSISTANCE WITH BUSINESS PLANS BUT ALSO WE'RE LOOKING AT MICRO RHONE POSSIBILITIES. SO I'VE JUST LEARNED OF A NEW ONE, WHICH I'M TOTALLY BLANK ON BUT IT'S A NATIONAL ORGANIZATION THAT HELPS WITH MICRO LOANS. WE ALSO V GOSH I CANNOT REMEMBER ANY OF THEM. I THINK IT'S WORKING CAPITOL. MANAGE THE ECONOMIC BOARD. AND FOM THE COUNTY, SO WE'RE AND THEN OF COURSE SBDC HAS A NUMBER OF POSSIBILITIES ON OUR WEBSITE AS SR CITY.ORG/BUSINESS.

WE ALSO HAVE A NUMBER OF LOAN PROGRAMS AND LENDING RERESOURCES. SO WE'RE TRYING TO BE MORE AGGRESSIVE OR PLANNING ON BEING MORE PROACTIVE ON WHAT THE RESOURCE RIGHT SIDE AND HOW TO GET PEOPLE USING OUR PARTNER COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. MR. SAWYER? >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I'M CURIOUS ABOUT A COUPLE OF THINGS. WAS THERE ANY CONVERSATION GIVEN TO THE IMPACT ON YOUNG WORKERS LIKE, THAT ARE IN SCHOOL 16 YEARS OLD, AND HOW THIS, IF YOU'VE GOT TWO INDIVIDUALS APPLYING FOR A INDIVIDUAL ONE IS 16 UNSKILLED PERHAPS FIRST JOB THEN AN 18-YEAR-OLD WHO MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE EXPERIENCE. I ASSUME AT 18 THEY MAY HAVE SOME EXPERIENCE. I WOULD THINK THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE A TENDENCY TO HIRE THE OLDER WORKER AND TO HIRE THE MORE EXPERIENCES ONE BECAUSE THE ONLY ADVANTAGE TO BE FOR THE EMPLOYER TO PAY LESS TO AN 16-YEAR-OLD UNSKILLED.

HAS ANY THOUGHT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO CRVE OUT THE AGE GRAOU. I AM CONCERNED TO WHAT MAY HAPPEN TO THEIR FIRST JOBS. >> I CAN LOOK I UP QUICKLY IF I HAVE IT. THERE WAS THE UC BERKELEY SENATE FOR LABOR, DID ADDRESS THAT TO A DEGREE IN THEIR PRESENTATION. AND I THINK IT WAS SOMETHING LIKE 96% ARE ACTUALLY 20 AND POF AND THE MAJORITY IS 30 AND ABOVE. SO IT'S A SMALL SEGMENT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHO ARE, YOU KNOW, 16 TO 20. I, ACTUALLY DID SOME RESEARCH ON SOME OF THE STUDIES AND I CAN LOOK QUICKLY AND GET BACK TO YOU ON THIS. I HAVE SITED SOME SOURCES THAT DID TALK ABOUT WHAT THOSE IMPACTS MIGHT BE. AND AGAIN THEY'RE MINIMUM. BUT, YEAH. THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR YOU. >> THANK YOU. AND I ALSO AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES, I REALLY APPRECIATE THIS AMAZING AMOUNT OF RESEARCH THAT YOU'VE DONE TO HELP GUIDE US IN OUR DECISION HERE TODAY.

ONE OTHER QUESTION, ITCH. THE GOVERNOR OR IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF SB3, THEY DID ADD A CLAUSE THAT ALLOWED THE GOVERNOR TO PAUSE THE INCREASES IF THERE WAS A MAJOR DOWN TURN IN THE ECONOMY. WAS THERE ANY THOUGHT GIVEN TO THAT IF ANYBODY SEVERE WERE TO HAPPEN IN ORDER TO MITIGATE >> NOT FOR THIS ORDINANCE. IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, THE GOVERNOR HAS THE ABILITY TO USE THAT OFF-RAMP TWICE. IF THERE IS I THINK WHAT WE HAD DISCUSSED DURING THE STUDY SESSION, IF THERE IS A NEGATIVE CPI IS THAT THERE WOULD BE NO CHANGE. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD. I COULDN'T FIND IT IN THE ORDINANCE ABOUT THIRD PARTY COMPLAINTS, WOULD WE ACCEPT THOSE. HOW WOULD WE INVESTIGATE THOSE. >> I DID LOOK THAT UP. AND ANYBODY HS THE ABILITY TO MAKE A COMPLAINT AND THEY WOULD GO TO THE STATE. >> SAID WITH CONFIDENCE, THANK YOU. >> I WAS TRYING TO LOOK AT MY NOTES REAL QUICK. >> GREAT, THANK YOU.

OKAY. THOSE ARE ALL THE QUESTIONS. WE HAVE PLENTY OF TOWARDS. YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES OF OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE YOUR VIEWS WITH THE COUNCIL. DON'T FEEL LIKE YOU HAVE TO USE ALL TWO MINUTES. YOU CAN ALSO JUST ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT PREVIOUS SPEAKERS HAVE SAID. FIRST UP IS DUANE FOLLOWED BY DANIEL PABLO. DID DUANE LEAVE? WOW, ALL RIGHT. DANIEL PABLO FOLLOWED BY VALERIE MAHAN. THERE YOU GO. DAN. >> I'M DANIEL PABLO AND I SERVE ON THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES. AND I SERVE AS A STUDENT VOICE. BUT BEFOREHAND, I WOULD LIKE TO APOLOGIZE TO THE CITY COUNCIL. I KNOW I'M A LITTLE SHORT, SOY KNOW SOME OF YOU CAN'T SEE ME.

BUT THE FIGHT FOR 15 IS AN ISSUE THAT I'VE BEEN FIGHTING FOR A YEAR FOR. AND I WOULD LIKE TO. THANK YOU. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK JACK TIBBETTS ESPECIALLY FOR JOINING OUR STUDENT GOVERNMENT MEETING AT 3:00 P.M. YESTERDAY, LISTENING AND ASKING QUESTIONS AND HEARING THE STUDENT PERSPECTIVE AT THE JUNIOR COLLEGE AS WELL. I WOULD LIKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR VOTING PROCESS TO ACTUALLY APPROVE THIS. I KNOW A LOST STUDENTS AND FRIENDS WHO FIRSTHANDEDLY GO THROUGH HOMELESSNESS AND JUST WORKING AT STARBUCKS O ANY OTHER PLACE, 12 DOLLARS IS BARELY ENOUGH FOR A LOST THESE STUDENTS TO MAKE FOR THEIR SIDE, SOME GAS FIOR THEIR CAR GOING T CLASS AND FEEDING THEMSELVES EVERY DAY IN SCHOOL. SO THIS WOULD BE GREAT IF WE CAN PASS THE FIGHT FOR 15. THIS WOULD BE A SLIPPERY SLOPE. SANTA ROSA IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST CITIES IN SONOMA COUNTY. THE SEE OF SANOMA PASSED IT FIRST. AND IF WE PASS, IT GOING TO BE THE CHAIN OF COMMANDS.

AND WEIBEL THE ONES TO ACTUALLY FIGHT THAT ON. I'LL RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD TO APPROVE THIS. THANK YOU FOR THE TIME. >> THANK YOU. VALERIE FOLLOWED BY SUSAN LEMONT. >> GOOD EVENING, MR. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. I'M A RESIDENT OF SANTA ROSA. I WOULD LIKE TO READ A LETTER INTO THE RECORD. FROM OUR CHAIR, PAT SAFO, DISTRICT ATORNEYER MAYOR SCHEWEDHELM AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL SSONOMA PARTY IS WRITING TO SPORE THE NRTH BAY JOBS FOR JUSTICE PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE TO $15 BY 2020. AN ANNUAL CPI CHANGE EACH YEAR THEREFORE. IN A TIME OF SKYROCKETING COST OF LIVING. WE BELIEVE THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO EVERYTHING TO ADDRESS THIS IMBALANCE BY IMPLEMENTING POLICIES SUCH AS A MINIMUM INCREASE. SONOMA DEMO XRAT I CAN PARTY PASSED A RESOLUTION IN 2014. THE CALIFORNIA STATE DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM, IT INCLUDES DIRECT LANGUAGE SUPPORTING A 15 DOLLAR MINIMUM WAGE. AND A NUMBER OF YOU COUNCIL MEMBERS PLEDGE TO SUPPORT IT WHEN SEEKING THE DEMO CAIKT PARTY ENDORSEMENT.

BY INCREASING THE MINIMUM WAGE, NOT ONLY DO WE GIVE OUR POOREST RESIDENTS SOME MEASURE OF ECONOMIC SECURITY BY PUTTING AN AVERAGE 28900 ANNUALLY IN THEIR POCKETS. AND BERT THEIR HEALTH. LOW WAGE WORKERS HAVE BEEN KNOWN >> THANK YOU. >> SO I DO HAVE BEFORE I GET YELLED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. I DO HAVE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN. WE HVE CECIL FOLLOWED BY DEBBIE DO MONT. >> PRESENT THE GREEN PARTY OF SONOMA COUNTY WITH PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO RAISE THE MIJ WAGE TO 15 AN HOUR BY 2020. THEY BLAOEFSHT PROSPERITY OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA CONDITION CONTINUE TO REST ON THE BASKS POORLY PAID WORKERS. EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT PEOPLE CANNOT LIVE WITH PROSPERITY IF THEY CAN LIVE HERE AT ALL. EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT RENTS HAVE SKYROCKETED WHILE WAGES HAVE NOT KEPT UP. EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT WE'RE IN THE MIDST OF ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS AND IT MAKES NO SENSE FOR WORKERS TO LIVE HOURS FROM THEIR WORK.

EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM KNOWS THAT ECONOMIC INSTABILITY CREATES HEALTH AND EDUCATION AND SO MUCH MORE. EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM KNOWS THAT INCOME AND EQUALITY HAS REACHED LEVELS INHUMANE. OWN BEHALF OF THE LEGAL WOMEN VOTERS AND WE SENT A LETTER TO EACH OF YOU BUT I WOULD LIKE TO READ OUR LETTER INTO THE RECORD. AS YOU'RE AWARE THE CITIES CAN SET THEIR MINIMUM WAGE HIGHER THAN THE STATE. WHICH IS WHAT YOU'RE CONSIDERING. WOMEN VOTERS SUPPORT A LIVING WAGE DSIGNED TO EARN A WAGE UP OR ABOVE THE POVERTY LEVEL. AND I WOULD LIKE TO ADD A COMMENT THAT YOU'RE NOT CARVING OUT TEENAGERS, MANY TIMES THEY ARE ABLE TO HELP FOOD FOOD ON THE TABLE. I'M GLADS YOU'RE COVERING EVERYBODY UNDERNEATH THIS ORDINANCE. THE LEAGUE URGES THE COUNCIL TO TAKE THIS IMPORTANT STEP BY APPROVING THIS ORDINANCE THIS EVENING. THE LEAGUE HAS BEEN CONCERNED WITH THE LACK OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN OUR COMMUNITY. LOW WAGE WORKERS CANNOT MAKE LOW WAGE MEETS.

AS YOU KNOW, SONOMA COUNTY RENTS HAVE INCREASED BY APPROXIMATELY 25% FROM 2000 TO 2016 WHILE THE ANNUAL MEDIAN FOR RENTERS HAVE INCREASED 35%. THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT STEP THAT YOU CAN TAKE TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR RESIDENTS CAN STAY IN OUR COMMUNITY. WE HAVE LOST APPROXIMATELY 3000 OF OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS POST FIRE AND THIS IS AN IMPORTANT STEP TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE CAN STAY AND LIVE AND WORK IN OUR COMMUNITY. IN ADDITION, RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE IS GOOD FOR OUR LOCAL ECONOMY. LOW WAGE WORKERS ARE NOT GOING TO PUT THEIR MONEY INTO THE STOCK MARKET. THEY'RE GOING TO SPEND IT. THEY'RE GOING TO SPEND IT ON LOCAL NECESSITY AND IT WILL BOOST OUR ECONOMY. IT WLL HELP US PROSPER. BOOSTING THE MINIMUM WAGE WILL HELP CUT POVERTY WAGE AND LESS RELIANT ON PUBLIC ASSISTANCE. >> THANK YOU. >> FOLKS, WE HAVE A PRACTICE IF YOU AGREE WITH ONE OF THE SPEAKERS, JUST WAVE YOUR HANDS. HOLD THE APPLAUSE IT DELAYS THE MEETING AND WE'RE GOING TO BE HERE FOR A WHILE. GEORGE UBERTI. >> DO PEOPLE WANT 15, IT LOOKS LIKE IT.

IT LOOKS LIKE IT TO ME. I WANT TO SAY THAT I WAS HE ECSTATIC TO HEAR THAT CPI CONSIDERATION ARE GOING TO BE FACTORED IN TO MINIMUM WAGE AS WE GO FORWARD. WE'RE THINKING REALLY OF WHAT A SUSTAINABLE WAGE IS GOING TO BE LIKE. EVERYBODY ELSE GOES UP, THE WAGE GOES UP WITH IT. $15 AN HOUR WAS NOT SCIENTIFICALLY ARRIVED AT. IT'S ABOUT 10 YEARS AGO, IT WAS JUST A KIND OF IT'S HARD FOR LOW INCOME PEOPLE TO ORGANIZE.

WE PICKED A SNAPPY NUMBER THAT WAS HIGHER THAN WHAT WE WERE GETTING AND STUCK WITH THAT FOR TEN YEARS. SO I'M, I THINK IT'S GREAT. THAT WE'RE CNSIDERING THIS THE CPI AS WE GO FORWARD. BUT LET'S THINK ABOUT THIS $15 THING. IT'S A GOOD WAY TO GET US A ON BOARD FOR THE SAME IDEA. BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S ENOUGH.

MAYBE WE SHOULD TAKE SOME TIME TO REALLY THINK ABOUT WHAT A LIVING WAGE IS FOR THIS COMMUNITY. AND SOMETHING THAT IS J JUST. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A BEAR MINIMUM. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A LIVING WAGE. WE NEED TO AIM HIGHER THAN AN AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE NEED TO REALISTICALLY NEED TO STAY A LIE. I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S OUR GOAL AS WESTERN CIVILIZATION TO PUT THESE PEOPLE ON LIFE SUPPORT AND CALL IT A DAY. IT'S NOT JUST A WAY FOR US TO ORGANIZE WHAT WE'RE ASKING YOU FOR. LET'S THINK OF A WAGE THAT THESE PEOPLE NEED. THAT'S WHAT I HAVE TO ADD TO THIS DISCUSSION. I'M HAPPY TO SEE EVERYBODY HERE. THIS IS WHAT WE WANT. >> THANK YOU. >> SANDY FOLLOWED BY LEE. >> GOOD EVENING. MAYOR. AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. AGGRESS YOU TONIGHT ON BEHALF OF THE SANTA ROSA DEMOCRATIC CLUB. THE LARGEST DEMOCRATIC CLUB IN SANTA ROSA. LAST WEEK YOU RECEIVED ALETTER FROM ME ON BEHALF OF THE ORGANIZATION WHICH DIRECTED ME TO WRITE YOU WITH UNANIMOUS SUPPORT GIVING DIRECTION TO YOU TO RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE IN SANTA ROSA TO $15 AN HOUR IN 2020.

YOU HEARD FROM A LOT OF PEOPLE TONIGHT SO YOU KNOW THE REASONS. AND YOU KNOW COMING TWO O THREE YEARS TO POSTPONE THIS RACE, $15 IS NO LONGER WOERKT THE VALUE THAT IT'S WORTH TODAY. THAT'S NOT REALLY PROGRESS. MORE IS NEEDED NOW. IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU DO WHAT IS RIGHT AD WHAT IS CRITICALLY NEEDED FOR OUR WORKERS IN SANTA ROSA. YOU'VE DONE A GOOD JOB AND IMPORTANT WORK WITH CREATING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND GIVEN THE HOUSING CRISIS. HOWEVER IF THE WORKERS DON'T EARN ENOUGH TO LIVE IN THESE HOMES, THEN A TERRIBLE GAP XHIFT BETWEEN WHAT YOU CREATED AND WHAT IS POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO AFFORD. TONIGHT, YOU CAN MAKE A SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE IN THE LIVES OF WORKERS IN SANTA ROSA, INCREASED WAGES MAKES HOUSING AND OTHER NECESSITIES MORE AFFORDABLE. THE INCREASE GIVES WORKERS AN INCREASE IN SPENDING POWER RIGHT HERE IN THE LOCAL ECONOMY. IT'S A WIN-WIN FOR SANTA ROSA. WE'RE SINCERELY COUNTING ON YOU TO PASS AN ACCELERATED MINIMUM WAGE ORDINANCE TONIGHT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> LEE PIERCE FOLLOWED BY NATALIE, SELERSO. >> GOOD EVENING MR. MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. I'M LEE PIERCE.

RESIDENTS OF DISTRICT 2 COUNCIL SEAT. TYPICALLY AT THE BOTTOM OF THE ECONOMIC SCHEDULE. THERE IS STATISTICS HERE TONIGHT THAT WILL SUPPORT THAT. AND I'LL LEAVE THAT TO THE FOLKS WHO HAVE DONE THAT WORK. I URGE THE COUNCIL TO DO ALL THE GREEN LIGHTS TONIGHT THA. WILL SHOW THAT YOU STUDIED THIS ISSUE. THANK YOU. >> NATALIE FOLLOWED BY SUSAN McDENA. >> GOOD EVENING, MR. MAYOR AND SANTA ROSA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. I'M NATALIE, I'M THE COOWNER OF RUSSIAN BREWING COMPANY AT 725 FOURTH STREET WITH A SECOND LOCATION IN WINDSOR. I WOULD LIKE TO START WITH I SUPPORT A WAGE OF $15. IT MY NOT HAPPEN. WE OPENED WITH 26 EMPLOYEES WITH MINIMUM WAGE WAS 8 DOLLARS. 33 OF THEM 10% OF THESE EMPLOYEES EARN TIPS EITHER DIRECTLY LIKE BARTENDERS OR SERVERS OR INDIRECTLY BY BEING TIPPED OUT. WE HAVE KNOWN THAT MINIMUM WAGE IS NOT A LIVING WAGE IN OUR COMMUNITY AND HAVING TO PAY AT LEAST OUR NEXT POSITION.

MY POINT IS NOBODY IN THE COMPANY EARNS THE CURRENT MINIMUM WAGE. EACH YEAR, CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT OWNERS HAVE BEEN REQUIRED BY STATE LAW TO PROVIDE RAISES. I WOULD RATHER HAVE RAISES TO OUR DISHES AND COOKS. AS MINIMUM WAGE INCREASES YEAR AFTER YEAR, WE MUST RESPOND ACCORDINGLY TO COVER PAY ROLL TAXERS AND WORKMEN'S COMP. EXPERIENCE. AND RAISING OTHER EMPLOYEES RAISES. WE WOULD ALSO NEED TO RAISE MINIMUM WAGE FOR OUR WINDSOR EMPLOY FOR EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK. ABOUT 70 OF OUR EMPLOYEES WILL RECEIVE A $2 AN HOUR PER RAISE INCREASE. I'M IN SUPPORT OF $15 BUT CONSIDER MODIFYING PROPOSED TO KEEP TIP EMPLOYEES AT A STATE MINIMUM WAGE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> SUSAN FOLLOWED BY TOM WOODS. >> YES, GOOD EVENING I'M SUSAN McDONNA. I AM SPEAKING TONIGHT ON BEHALF OF A BUSINESS WOMAN IN SANTA ROSA WHO WAS NOT ABLE TO MAKE IT. SOIL QUOTE HER WORDS. I AM OLIVIA WALTON OWNER OF LIVE FASHION BOUTIQUE.

I'VE HAD MY BOUTIQUE FOR 13 YEARS AND I'M BROAD TO SAY THAT I HAVE AND PAID ABOVE MINIMUM WAGE. EVEN BEING IN RETAIL AND EMPLOYING YOUNG PEOPLE, LONGEVITY ARE GREATER PAY. I ALWAYS START OFF A DOLLAR MORE AND RAISE THEM TO $15 AFTER PROBATION. I CANNOT TO RAISE THEM HIGHER IF TEY PERFORM MORE TASK TZ. MOST ARE HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS AND I HAVE SOME MOVE AWAY FOR COLLEGE AND COME BACK. ALTHOUGH RETAIL IS A TOUGH BASE, I FIND HITTING COMMISSION AND HIGHER PAY HAS PAID OFF FOR MY EMPLOYEES. PLEASE PASS MINIMUM $15 BY 2020 TONIGHT. >> TOM WOODS FOLLOWED BY TOM. >> COUNCIL THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU. I WANT TO TELL YOU HOW PROUD I AM TO B PART OF THIS GROUP LABOR AND SXHAOUNT ORGANIZATIONS. IT'S GREAT TO BE ON THIS SIDE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE MINIMUM WAGE.

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE LIVING WAGE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE MINIMUM WAGE. PEOPLE, THAT ARE EARNING, SO LITTLE, THAT THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO PAY TEIR BILLS WEEK TO WEEK. THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT SAVING, THEY'RE NOT PUTTING MONEY IN THE BANK. THEY'RE NOT TAKING THEIR FAMILIES TO DISNEYLAND, THEY'RE SURVIVING HAND AND MOUTH. WHEN WE TALK MINIMUM WAGE, ALL OF THIS MONEY, EVERY CNT OF I IS GOING TO BE RECYCLED INTO THE COMMUNITY AND LOCAL BUSINESS. THEY'RE NOT LEAVING. THEY'RE NOT TRAVELING.

EVERY PENNY THAT THEY GET GETS SPENT RIGHT BACK TO THE SAME STORES THAT DON'T WANT TO RAISE THEIR MINIMUM WAGE. WE NEED TO PROTECT OUR WORKERS THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> TOM FOLLOWED BY HE CAN RA. –ERIKA. >> I'M TOM AND I'M HAPPY TO SE SO MANY OAK MONTERS HERE. THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT OKAY MONTERS ARE CONCERNED B.I'M CHAIR OF THE OAK MONT CLUB. AND WE SUPPORT RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE. I'LL BE BRIEF BECAUSE YOU HAVE A SPEAKERS. I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH ONE OF THE PRIEST AND HE WAS TALKING ABOUT HIGH COST OF RENT AND LOW COST OF WAGES. AND THE RELATION BETWEEN TWO. AND HOW MANY PA INITIALERS HAVE A HARD TIME MAKING IT TO THE END OF THE MOBSINGER BECAUSE THEIR WAGES DON'T MATCH THE RENT. HOW CAN A YOUNG CUP MANY GET BY WITH A ONE-BEDROOM APARTMENT. SO I ASK TO YOU CONSIDER THAT AND RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> ERIKA FOLLOWED BY MANNY.

>> HI. I'M ERIKA AND I'M A LONG TIME RESIDENT OF THE SANTA ROSA AND I WORK FOR A SMALL NONPROFIT. WE'RE ENCOURAGING A YES VOTE FOR 15.1. AS A VEGAN FOOD JUSTICE PROFIT OUR DWOEL IS TO WORK FOR LOW INCOME NEIGHBORS AND–IT'S A COMPLEX ISSUE AND ONE THAT VARIES FROM COMMUNITY TO COMMUNITY. AND COMMUNITIES EMPHASIZE, WHICH IS WHY WE STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS EFFORT. ALSO ALTHOUGH WE'RE VERY SMALL ORGANIZATION WITH A STAFF OF FOUR, WE FEEL IT'S IMMATERIAL PERATIVE THAT BUSINESSES PAY THEIR BOY HE'S AT LEAST $15 START INING 2020. I HOPE YOU TAKE THE AMOUNT THAT THIS IS EQUALS 28,00 A YEAR.

WITH TAT SALARY IT'S DIFFICULT TO LIVE IN SONOMA COUNTY. IT SHOULD BE PART OF YOUR BUDGET. A SMALL NONPROFIT LIKE OURS, PAYS OUR EMPLOYEES MRE THAN $15 NT BECAUSE IT'S THE RIGHT THING BUT BECAUSE WE KNOW HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO DIFFERENT IN THIS AREA. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> COUNCILMEMBERS, MADDY I'M POLITICAL DIRECTOR WITH NORTH BAY COUNCIL. I'M WITH THE GROUPS THAT DID SOME OF THE STUDIES.

SO I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT. ONE OF MY FAVORITE SAYING IS STUDIES SHOW, AND I'M GOING TO SAY THAT A LOT TO YOU TONIGHT. ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT COMES UP WHEN THIS IS DISCUSSES AND THAT'S ABOUT SMALL BUSINESS BEING EXEMPTED. NONE OF THE 27 CITIES THAT HAVE PASSED BUSINESS ORDER HAVE EXEMPTED ANY BUSINESSES THAT EITHER WENT TO 15 THIS YEAR OR GOING TO 15 JANUARY 2020 THAT INCLUDES SANTA ROSA, HE WILL IS HE RI TO. AND–CERITO, BERKELEY AND EMERIVILLE. OTHER CITIES ONLY L.A. AND SANT CLARA AND FREE MONT GAVE AN EXTRA YEAR FOR SMALL BUSINESS TO PHASE IN. SANTA ROSA, MOST CERTAINLY CAN AND SHOULD PHASE ALL BSINESSES INTO 15 TOGETHER IN 15 MONTHS ON JANUARY 2021. THE SECOND CONCERN IS THAT RESTAURANTS WILL STRUG TOLL KEEP UP. AS WELL AS A SEPARATE STUDY, FOUND THAT ABOVE ALL, BUSINESSES RESTAURANTS ARE ABLE TO OBSERVE MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE THE BEST BECAUSE THEY SPEND THE MOST MONEY AND OTHER BUSINESSES CONSISTENCY REPLACING THEIR STAFF.

AND THE TIPS THAT WAS MENTIONED, CONSIDERING TIPS, AGAINST MINIMUM WAGE OR PART OF THE WAGES AGAINST CALIFORNIA LAW SO THAT JUST CAN'T BE DONE. STUDIES ALSO SHOW THAT SINCE LOW WAGE WORKERS ARE MOST LIKELY TO, AND UNLESS, WORKERS AND SERVE, AT THE RESTAURANTS WANT TO ALSO ENJOY EATING OUT AND STUDIES SHOW THAT THEY DO WHEN THEY GET A RAISE IN THEIR WAGES. THE ONLY. >> OKAY, THAT'S IT. >> OKAY. MARTY FOLLOWED BY JACK BUCKHORN. >> MARTY BENNETT, NORTH BAY JOBS FOR JUSTICE. AND WE HAVE THREE CONSECUTIVE SPEAKERS WHO ARE ALL PRESENTING ON BEHALF OF JESUS GUS MAN MASTERS OF POLL SIGH AND AUTHOR OF STATE OF WORKING SONOMA 2018.

I'M THE FIRST SPEAKER. I COME BEFORE THE COUNCIL TO OFFER OUR ASSESSMENT OF THE RESEARCH AND EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE MINIMUM WAGE AND ITS EFFECT ON THE LOCAL ECONOMY. I BY A DRESSING THE CONCERN THAT IT WILL INCREASE COSTS AND PRICES. THE EVIDENCE WHICH SUGGESTS OTHERWISE. AN ACCOUNTING OF OPERATING EXPENSE APPROXIMATES, WOULD OBVIOUSLY SHOW A RISE IN PAY ROLL COSTS, HOWEVER, WHAT THE COUNTY OFTEN FAILS TO CALCULATE IS THE POSITIVE EFFECT OF INCREASE IN MINIMUM WAGE WHICH IS REDUCTION IN TURNOVER AND SUBSEQUENT NET SAVINGS. WE KNOW FROM INDUSTRY REPORTS THAT EVEN IN A LABOR INFENCE ITCH RESTAURANT INDUSTRY, THAT LABOR COSTS CONSTITUTE ABOUT ONE-THIRD OF THE OPERATING EXPENSES. THE UC BERKELEY LABOR ST, 2018 REPORT ON THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF 15 MINIMUM IN NORTH BAY, ESTIMATES A 7% INCREASE IN PAY ROLL COST DUE TO THE 15 MINIMUM WAGE TAT ACCOUNTS FOR THREE FACTORS.

ONE, THE INCREASE IN WAGES. TWO, CHANGES IN PAY ROLL TAXES, WORKERS COMPENSATION AND THREE, THE NET SAVINGS FROM REDUCED TURNOVER. IT'S THAT LAST FACTOR WHICH AN INCREASING MINIMUM WAGE REDUCING AND HELPS PREVENT THAT CAN BE DIFFICULT TO ACCOUNT FOR BUT IMPAIR CAL RESEARCH HAS SHOWN TIME AND TIME AGAIN CAN GET A SIGNIFICANT NET SAVINGS FOR BUSINESS. >> THANK YOU. MARK, FOLLOWED BY MARA. >> THE POINT HERE IS OBVIOUS, PAY WORKERS AND THEY WILL BE LESS LIKELY TO LEAVE. FOR THE RESTAURANT INDUSTRY THAT IN RESENT YEARS HAS REACHED AN AVERAGE TURNOVER RATE OF MORE THAN 70% THOSE COULD BE SIGNIFICANT SAVINGS ON THE TURNOVER RATE.

A 2014 PAPER BY AARON DUE BEE FOUND THAT NINE MONTHS AFTER A MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE, A TURNOVER KUNZER WITH TEAMS AND RESTAURANT WORKERS. A STUDY BY HEATHER BOSLEY AND SARAH GWYNN IN 2012 PAPER ESTIMATE THAT THE AVERAGE COST OF LOSING AND REPLACING AN EMPLOYEE EARNING BETWEEN 30K AND 40K IS A–EMPLOYEE WHO DEPARTS FOR A BERT PAYING JOB. FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD COST THAT FIRM ABOUT 8400 TO REPLACE. GIVEN THE TIGHT MARKET, AT ABOUT 2.3% UNEMPLOYMENT, TURNOVER AT 10% ALMOST TWICE AS HIGH FOR WORKERS 18 TO 24. REDUCTION OF TURNOVER AS A RESULT OF A MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE CAN MEAN SIGNIFICANT SAVINGS FOR BUSINESS, ESPECIALLY THOSE WITH HIGH TURNOVER RATES AND PERSISTENT JOB VACANCIES.

THE REMAINING OPERATING EXPENSES ARE PASSED OFF TO THE CONSUMER WITH MARGINAL INCREASES IN PRICE. THIS RANGE IN PRICE INCREASES ACTUALLY VERY CONSISTENT WITH THE 2013 STUDY MEASURING THE EFFECTS OF A MINIMUM WAGE ON THE RESTAURANT INDUSTRY IN SANT JOES. IN THE STUDY THEY COLLECTED MENU PRICES FROM INSIDE AND OUTSIDE SAN JOSE. >> THAT DIFFERS BY BUSINESS SIZE. DOING S MAY COMPACT BUSINESSES BY ALLOWING THEM TO PAY LESS WAGES. THAN RATHER THAN HELPS THEM MAKES THEM LESS COMPETITIVE AND ATTRACTING COMPETITIVE EMPLOYEES TO HELP THEM RUN THEIR BUSINESS. IN A TIGHT LABOR MASHLGT OVER THE LONG RUN, WHY WOULD AN EMPLOYEE WORK FOR SOMEBODY THAT OFFERS A LOWER MINIMUM WAGE THAN COMPANY LIKE TARGET THAT OFFERS RAISE INCREASE. BUT THEN MERGE THE WAY TO MATCH THAT OF A LARGER BUSINESS IN THE LONG TERM. THERE IS ROBUST RESEARCH DEMONSTRATING THE NET BENEFITS FOR LOCAL ECONOMY IN PUTTING ADDITIONAL DOLLARS GIVEN THEIR MARGINAL PROPENSITY TO CONSUME. THEY HAVE A HIGH MULTIPLIER FEBRUARYING GIVEN THAT THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE WORKER WILL SPEND THE DOLLAR AND STA TICK CALLY THAT IT'S MORE IMPACTFUL THAN RAISING HIGH INCOME WORKERS.

GIVEN WHAT WE KNOW OF PRICE INCREASE AS A RESULT OF THE MINIMUM WAGE, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT CONSUMERS DISCERN A PRICE INCREASE. FOR GOOD AND RELATIVE PRICE IN TRANSPORTATION TO GO GET THAT BURGER AT ANOTHER NEAR BY CITY. THAT'S IT. >> THANKS. MILES. FOLLOWED BY FELT BEARD. >> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR SCHEWEDHELM I'M MILES, I'M HERE IN A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT CAPACITY TODAY. I'M ON THE BOARD OF SONOMA CONSERVATION IN WINE COUNTRY WHICH HAVE ENDORSED AND SENT LETTERS FOR THE ORDINANCE IN FRONT OF YOU.

WE DON'T IMPLEMENT ANY CAP FOR LANDLORDS BEING ALE TO RAISE RENTS INCLUDING THOSE ANY MOBILE PARK ORDINANCES BUT FOR SOME RASON, WE HAVE A 3.5% CAP ON WAGE INCREASE. THIS IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE LOW ORDINANCE. AND SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD LOOK AT WHEN WE PASS THE FINAL ORDINANCE TONIGHT. IN MY LAST LITTLE BIT OF TIME I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT ENFORCEMENT AND PREDICTION ABILITY WHERE EVER CITY HAS A SAME MINIMUM WAGE IS THAT WE NEED TO BE CONSISTENT IN TERMS OF WHAT WE PASS. PETALUMA DID NOT CAP THEIR CPI, OR DO WE CAP CPI FOR RENT INCREASES. BY PUTTING A CAP IN THE ORDINANCE, WE'RE GOING TO CREATE A MORE DIFFICULT JOB FOR THE STATE AND LOCAL COMMISSIONERS OFFICE TO HELP OUR CITIES IN THE COUNTY ENFORCE THEIR ORDINANCES. WE ASO MAKE IT FOR BUSINESS OWNERS WHO DO BUSINESS [BUZZARD] TO KNOW WHAT TO PAY THEIR WORKERS. >> FOLLOWED BY GABRIEL. >> GOOD EVENING, I'M PHILIP BEARD. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE FRIENDS OF PUBLIC BANKING SANTA ROSA. AND I'M HERE TO REPORT THAT MY ORGANIZATION ENTHUSIASTICKLY ENDORSES RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE TO $15 AN HOUR.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> GABRIEL FOLLOWED BY COLIN WILLIAMSON. >> MY NAME IS GABRIEL, I'M THE SOCIAL DIRECTOR AT THE GREAT AND DAY LABOR CENTER AS WM AS THE MEMBER OF THE NORTH BAY JOBS FOR JUSTICE COMMITTEE. I WANT TO PRESENT TO YOU TONIGHT JUST UNDER 1,000 SIGNATURES. THESE WERE COLLECTED AROUND SANTA ROSA TO SUPPORT THE $15 BY 2020. WE SPENT HOURS HAVING CONVERSATION WZ EVERY DAY SANTA ROSAIANS ALL ACROSS TOWN AS WELL AS THE MINIMUMS OF THE CENTER MOST OF WHOM ARE SANTA ROSA RESIDENTS. AND THERE ARE CONCERNS WITH LOSING VALUABLE RESIDENTS DE TO THE RISING COST OF LIVING. OVERWHELMING PEOPLE GROW THAT $11 AND $12 IS TOO LOW FOR OUR COMMUNITY AND WANT TO SEE $15 AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. SO I ASK THAT YOU ACCEPT OUR 1,000 SIGNATURES BY. >> THANK YOU. COLIN. >> I'M COLIN WILLIAM SON. ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO I OPENED A RESTAURANT HERE IN SANTA ROSA. I'VE BEEN IN THE RESTAURANT BUSINESS MOST OF MY LIFE.

SOY FEEL PRETTY COMFORT, I KNOW HOW TO RUN A BUSINESS AND RESTAURANT AND I KNOW WHAT MY EXPENSES ARE AND HOW I CAN DEAL WITH THOSE EXPENSES. AND I JUST THINK, LIKE NATALIE SAID, I'M NOT AGAINST $15 AN HOUR. I JUST DON'T WANT TO SEE IT RAMPED UP THAT QUICKLY. YOU'VE GOT TO GIVE ME TIME TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO BE ABLE TO ADOPT TO THAT. I THINK THE STUDIES SHOW THAT IT'S ONLY GOING TO BE A 2.1% INCREASE, IT'S GOING TO BE A LOT MORE THAN THAT.

I'M A PRETTY SMALL BUSINESS AND I THINK THAT I'M GOING TO HAVE A HARDER TIME DEALING WITH THIS THAN THE BIGGER GIE,Z THE APPLEBEES, THE McdONALDS, TECHNOLOGY IS GOING TO HELP THEM CUT LABOR. SO I THINK THE LOCAL INDEPENDENT RESTAURANTS ARE THE ONES THAT ARE GOING TO SUFFER. YOU'RE GOING TO SEE MORE AND MORE OF US GO OUT OF BUSINESS. DOWNTOWN SANTA ROSA IS ALREADY LITTERED WITH A LT OF EMPTY STORE FRONT. WASABI JUST CLOSED THEIR DOORS YESTERDAY. I KNOW THAT, WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO DO THE RIGHT THING FOR THE COMMUNITY AND I FEEL LIKE I'VE BEEN TRYING TO DO THAT ALL MY LIFE IN THIS BUSINESS. AND I'VE GOT SOME LONG TERM EMPLOYEES, I'VE GOT SOME PEOPLE THAT REALLY LIKE WORKING FOR ME. AND MOST OF THE PEOPLE THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO HELP, ARE ALREADY MAKE MORE THAN $15 IN MY BUSINESS. THE ONLY ONES THAT AREN'T, ARE THE SERVERS, THE BARTENDERS, THE HOSTS THAT ONES THAT MAKE TIPS.

SO AT ANY TIMES GOING TO REALLY HELP. I THINK IT'S GOING TO HELP IN THE LONG RUN. >> THANK YOU. TONY RAMIREZ, FOLLOWED BY LAURA: >> GOOD EVENING, I'M A FAMILY DOCTOR HERE IN SANTA ROSA, SPEAKING FOR HEALTH PROFESSIONALS. WE'RE HEALTH PROFESSIONAL ADVOCACY. AND WE ARE HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDINANCE. SO ONE OF THE MOST COMMON AND MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION I ASK PATIENTS IS ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT BEING ABLE TO AFFORD MEDICATIONS OR FOOD. HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS DO NOT EXAGGERATE WHEN THEY SAY THAT, FAMILIES ARE MAKING DECISIONS GOING TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM VERSUS WAIT ITING OUT OR BUYING FOOD OR MEDICATIONS. AND TUESDAY MOVING OUT OF POVERTY I AN OBLIGATION OF OURS. AND THIS MINIMUM WAGE ORDINANCE CAN HAVE A MEANINGFUL IMPACT. A $15 PLUS MINIMUM WAGE IS ANTI-DEPRESSANT, IT'S A SLEEP IDENTIFY, IT'S A CONTRACEPTIVE PREVENTING TEENAGE PREGNANCY.

IT SHIELDS CHILDREN FROM DEATH. SHAME EN DUCING, SOME PEOPLE LIVE SO CLOSE TO THE BONE THAT A TRAUMA CAN CAUSE EFFECTS. UCSF VULNERABLE POPULATION WHZ PATIENTS HAVE A BIT MORE MONEY IN THEIR POCKETS, THEY EXERCISE MORE AND TEY CAN SMOKING. PEOPLE START EATING HEALTHIER BETTER. SURE WE'RE DOCTORS AND WE CAN PRESCRIBE, IF WE INCREASE WGES BY EVEN $1 WE WOULD SAVE MORE LIVES. YOU CAN SAVE MORE LIVES AND WE ARE WITH YOU RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE, ARREST IN BROCCOLI BUT PROVIDES SOMETHING LESS TANGIBLE DIGNITY. PLEASE CONSIDER PASSING THIS INCLUDING REMOVING THE CPI. >> THANK YOU. >> LAURA LARCU FOLLOWED BY ISABEL FISHER. >> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL MY NAME IS LAURA. AND I AM HERE REPRESENTING THE FACULTY ALL FACULTY ASSOCIATION WHICH REPRESENTS ALL THE FACULTY OF SANTA ROSA JUNIOR COLLEGE.

WE ARE HERE TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONSIDER APPROVING THE $15 MINIMUM WAGE AN HOUR GIVEN THAT MANY OF OUR STUDENTS WORK FULL-TIME, GO TO SCHOOL FULL-TIME AND HAVE FAMILY RESPONSIBILITIES. IT IS DIFFICULT FR THEM TO FOCUS ON THEIR CLASSES WHEN THEY HAVE TO WORK FULL-TIME AND THEY ARE MAKING ONLY $23,000 A YEAR. THAT IS BEFORE TAXES MAKING ONLY $12 AN HOUR. WE KNOW THAT THE MAJORITY OF OUR PEOPLE WHO ARE MAKING $12 AN HOUR ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE POOR AND WHO ARE PEOPLE OF COLOR. POVERTY WE CAN FIND HERE IN SONOMA COUNTY AND SANTA ROSA IS THE LARGEST CITY IN THE COUNTY. WE CANNOT ARGUE THAT THE MINIMUM WAGE O $15 WOULD BRING HARM TO PEOPLE WHO OWN BUSINESS.

BECAUSE HOW CAN A PERSON WHO MAKES $12 AN HOUR CAN PAY RENT OF MORE THAN $2000 A MONTH. THAT IS ONLY A VERY SMALL APARTMENT. PLUS THEY HAVE MANY OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES. I ENCOURAGE YOU ALONG WITH MY PEERS THE FACULTY OF SANTA ROSA JUNIOR COLLEGE TO CONSIDER RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE. >> THANK YOU. ISABEL FOLLOWED BY JUDITH. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS ISABEL AND I'M HEARING SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF PROJECT TO URGE YOU TO PASS THIS $15 MINIMUM WAGE.

SAY A SINGLE PERSON IS WORKING ONE-40-HOUR WEEK JOB AND MAKING THE CURRENT WAGE OF $12 AN HOUR. THAT MEANS THEY'RE MAKING ABOUT 1900 A MONTH IF YOU'RE NOT INCLUDING TABSSING OR IF THEY'RE FUNDING THEIR OWN HEALTHCARE ET CETERA. LET'S SAY THE SINGLE PERSON IS LIVING IN A ONE-BEDROOM APARTMENT. WHEN THE AFRMG RENT FOR ONE BEDROOM HERE IN SANTA ROSA IS ALSO ABOUT $1900 A MONTH. HOLD ON, THAT'S SCENARIO IS ALREADY IMPOSSIBLE.

BUT FOR THE SAKE OF THIS EXAMPLE, LET'S SAY THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO FIND AN APARTMENT FOR $1400 A MONTH. THEY'RE PAYING 75% OF THEIR INCOME TOWARDS RENT. 75. THEY'VE ONLY GOT $500 LEFT PER MONTH FOR ADDITIONAL EXPENSES LIKE UTILITIES, GROCERIES, SFRA MEDICAL PAYMENTS OR AYTHING THEY MAY NEED FINANCES FOR. IT'S THE CNSTANT SIEBLG OF BARELY MAKING ENDS ENDSES MET WITHOUT THE ACT TO ABILITY TO SAVE MONEY. THIS IS WHY PEOPLE ARE GETTING SECOND JOBS. AND LET'S NOT FORGET THAT WOMEN ARE MAKEs LESS. IN CALIFORNIA, WHITE WOMEN MAKE 80 CENTS ON EVERY DOLLAR A MAN MAKES. AS ASIAN. AFRICAN-AMERICAN WOMEN 60 CENTS ON THE DOLLAR. AND LATIN X WOMEN ONLY 41 CENTS ON THE DOLLAR.

IT'S AN IMPORTANT STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND IT'S RAISING AN UNLIVABLE WAGE TO SLIGHTLY LESS UNLIVABLE WAGE BUT STILL AN IMPORTANT STEP FOR WORKING PEOPLE YOUR CONSTITUENCE. THANK YOU. >> JUANITA. >> GOOD EVENING. I'M HERE TO EMPHASIZE WHAT SHE SAID, MOST PEOPLE MAKE $12 SOME STILL MAKE $11 IN THE CITY. OTHER IN 20.20 A MONTH. IF THEY ARE LUCKY WE CAN GET ONE BEDROOM APARTMENT FOR 1400. WILL YOU BETS SAY WE GET AN APARTMENT FOR 1400, OUT OF THAT, YOU HAVE 520 LEFT. SO IF YOU CAN FIGURE OUT AD LET ME KNOW HOW THEY CAN PAY THEIR BILLS. BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO PAY FEDERAL TAXES, STATE STABSING TAXES, STATE INSURANCE, CAR INSURANCE, FOOD, ELECTRICITY. IT'S LIKE WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO PAY? SO, LIKE I SAID, YOU CAN FIGURE IT OUT. LET US KNOW. I THINK IT'S MORE THAN FAIR TO RAISE THIS MINIMUM WAGE BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE, THEY'RE ALREADY FEEDING THEIR FEEDS WITH MAC AND CHEESE IF THEY'RE LUCKY WITH WATERED MILK AND HOT DOGS.

THAT'S NL NUTRITION. NOT ALREADY BUT BUT THEY GAVE AWAY THEIR BEING ABLE TO LIVE BY THEMSELVES BASICALLY. THEY GIVEAWAY VACATION. IT'S OUT OF QUESTION. YOU KNOW, SO THEY HAVE BEEN GIVING AWAY TOO MUCH STUFF PRIVACY. AND NOW SOME OF THEM THEY'RE GIVING AWAY THEIR DIGNITY BECAUSE SINGLE MOTHERS. MAKING MINIMUM WAGE, THEY HAVE TO SELL THEIR DIGITY OR GIVEAWAY BECAUSE THEY'RE LIVING SOMETIMES IN A LIVING ROOM AND PEOPLE TELLING THEIR KIDS, DON'T DO THAT. THAT'S HARD FOR A MOTHER. THAT'S HEART BREAK. MRAE, IT'S A NCESSITY AND I'M ASKING YOU AS A HUMAN BEING TO RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE TO $15.

THAT WILL BE $500 MORE A MONTH. >> THANK YOU. LOGAN FOLLOWED BY DANA. >> THANK YOU. I'LL DO MY BEST TO STAY WITHIN TIME. I'M HARVEY, THE MAYOR OF SONOMA. WE DO HAVE A 3.5 PERCENT GUARANTEED WAGE INCREASE AT THE MOMENT. IT WAS LISTED IN OUR WEBSITE BUT THAT'S NOT AT FAULT TO YOUR STAFF. WE'LL BE COMING TLUT CPI AS WELL. ANOTHER POINT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IS WE HEARD A LOT ABOUT CREDITS DURING OUR MINIMUM WAGE FIGHT.

OUR CITY ATTORNEY DETERMINED THAT IT WAS ILLEGAL AS DID YOUR CITY ATTORNEY, THE NORTH BAY JUSTICE ATTORNEY DEXLAIRD THAT IT WAS ILLEGAL UNDERSTATE LAW. AND RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION WAS ACTIVE DURING OUR MINIMUM WAGE COME PAIN. SO THEY DIDN'T BELIEVE IT WAS LEGAL THERE. SO THERE IS NO WAY THAT THAT WAS A LEGAL PROPOSITION FOYER. IN ADDITION JUST REMIND YOU WHO THESE WORKERS ARE.

THEY'RE MAKING SUB 25,000 A YEAR. THEY'RE LIVING COMPLETELY HAND AND MOUTH. THESE ARE NOT WORKERS CAPABLE OF GOING TO THEIR BOSS AND DEMANDING A RAISE. THESE ARE NOT WORKERS THAT ARE CAPABLE OF FIGHTING FOR THEIR OWN RIGHTS. I HOPE SANTA ROSA DOES NOT BECOME THE FIRST CITY TO SAY NO TO THEIR LOW WAGE WORKERS. THANK YOU. >> DANA FOLLOWED BY FRED. >> HELLO IM DANA, 15 DOLLARS AN HOUR. TO SUPPORT HIM OR CER SELF AND A CHILD NOT EASILY BUT WITHOUT HAVING TO LIVE IN A PLACE THAT IS SO ILL MAINTAINED, IT'S NOT WARM ENOUGH IN THE WINTER.

IT NAINLS THEM TO HAVE A LIFESTYLE THAT IS AT LEAST, HELPFUL FOR THEM. WHEN PEOPLE ARE IN GOOD HEALTH AND AT EASE, THEY WORK BETTER. AND IF THEY HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO KNOW THAT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO AFFORD THEIR APARTMENT, THEY'RE GOING TO BE A LOT MORE RELAXED. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO, TOURIST TO SEE, SO MANY HOMELESS PEOPLE ON THE STREET, THE THING TO DO IS NOT TO EMULATE THE MEDIEVAL PRINCE WHO HD HIS SOLDIERS GO OUT AND KILL ALL THE BEGGERS, THE THING TO DO IS TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY CAN AFFORD THEIR APARTMENTS. THAT'S IN KEEPING WITH THE COUNCIL'S OVERALL VSION FOR THE CITY IF THERE IS NO RENT CONTROL, IT MUST HAVE BEEN DECIDED WITH THE IDEA THAT, WAGES WOULD BE RISING SO THIS IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO ALLOW THE WAGES TO RISE SO THAT PEOPLE CAN EARN ENOUGH TO PEOPLE THEMSELVES AND THEIR CHILDREN HOUSED.

PLEASE DO PASS THE $15 AN HOUR MINIMUM WAGE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. FRED FOLLOWED BY LORI FONG. >> FOOD EVENING, I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE SONOMA VALLEY HOUSING GROUP. AND I WOULD STRONGLY ENCOURAGE TO YOU ADOPT THE NORTH BAY JOBS WITH JUSTICE TEMPLATE. AND I AGREE WITH THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SAYING TO TAKE OFF THE CPI LIMITS. AND AGREE WITH THE WOMEN WHO WAS UP HERE WHO SAID IT WAS MORE THAN FAIR RAISING MINIMUM WAGE, THERE WAS A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE, I WOULD LIKE TO LIST THE PEOPLE THAT I DID AGREE THE, NORTH BAY JOBS WITH JUSTICE, THE GREEN PARTY, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS AND SANTA ROSA, JUNIOR COUNCIL AND YOUNG DEMO XRATS LEE NORTH BABESINGER BLACK CHAMBER. I AGREE WITH ALL LEE ALL GREEN LIGHTS. JESUS AND STATE OF OREGON SONOMA IS A EXCELLENT DOCUMENT THAT I'VE LOOKED AT A LO. THE FOLKS, JUNIOR FACULTY AND THE NORTH BAY ORGANIZING PROJECTS. 15 IS GOING TO PUT 3000 MRE IN THE POCKETS OF LOW WAGE WORKERS, THAT'S NORTH BAY JOBS OF JUSTICE FIGURE AND THAT'S MONEY THAT WILL RIPPLE UP INTO THE ECONOMY.

WE HEARD FOR YEARS ABOUT TRICKLE DOWN. I THINK THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO RIPPLE UP SOME EFFECTS INTO THE ECONOMY AND I THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA. AFFORDABLE HOUSING IT'S NOT GOING TO, WHAT THESE WORKERS REALLY NEED IS 20 A TO HAVE A LIVING WAGE IN SONOMA COUNTY. BUT, IT WILL HELP WITH HOUSING AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS A INDICATOR THAT BRINGS ALONG A LOT OF OTHER INDICATORS WITH IT. SO IF YOU HAVE A GOOD ROOF OVER YOUR HEAD, YOU'RE IN GOOD SHAPE. I ENCOURAGE TO YOU DO THE RIGHT THING AND PASS 15 AND RIPPLE IT UP TO THE PEOPLE WHO NEED IT THE MOST. >> THANK YOU. LORI FONG FOLLOWED BY LOUIS. >> HAPPY TO SEE YOU. MAYOR SCHEWEDHELM, SANTA ROSA COUNCILMEMBERS, I'M REPRESENTING SCHOOL BOARD AS THE VICE PRESIDENT.

WE CONSIDER THE CITY, AND ALL BUSINESSES AND ALL NONPROFIT OUR PARTNERS IN PREPARING OUR STUDENTS TO BE LIFE-READY LEARNERS. THE SANTA ROSA SCHOOL BOARD PASSED A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE SANTA ROSA ORDINANCE RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE TO $15. AS WE ALL KNOW AND WORKING ON TOGETHER THE COST OF HOUSING IN OUR AREAS IS THE HIGHEST IN THE NATION. ACCORDING TO BUREAU SA ADVERTISE TICK THE SANTA ROSA IS THE 5th MOST EXPENSIVE CITY IN THE NATION FOR TEACHERS AND RENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF SALARY. OUR STRONGEST THOUGHTS, WAS THAT THIS WOULD HELP OUR FAMILIES. SANTA ROSA RESIDENTS HAS OVER 50% OF THE STUDENTS WE SERVE ARE ELG ABLE FOR FREE LUNCH, 50%. EVEN THOUGH PEOPLE NEED MORE THAN $15, THIS WOULD IMPROVE THE LIFE OF FAMILIES AND HELPING OUR STUDENTS.

WHILE THE SCHOOLS ARE EXEMPT FROM TE CITY ORDINANCE, WE HAVE OUR OWN INTENT AND TIMELINE TO RAISE OUR CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES TO $15 AND WORKING WITHIN OUR MEANS TO DO WITH A TARGET DATE OF 2021. WE HONOR THE CITY'S INTENT TO SUPPORT OUR MOST VULNERABLE CITIZENS. THEREFORE THEY HAVE PRESENTED THE RESOLUTION THAT WE PASSED IN SEPTEMBER. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. LOUIS FOLLOWED BY PETER RUMBLE. >> H, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK. YEAH, I, I'M A STUDENT AT SANTA ROSA JUNIOR SCIENCE, A POLITICAL SCIENCE MAJOR AND FORMER MEMBER OF NORTH BAY ORGANIZING PROJECT AND MEMBER OF STUDENT COUNSEL SIM. ONE REASON I SUPPORT BERNIE SANDERS BECAUSE HE WAS THE FIRST TO SUPPORT THE $15 PAGE IN 2016. HE WAS THE ONLY CANDIDATE WILLING TO GO AS FARCE $15. I REMEMBER HILLARY WAS CAPPING IT AT $12.50. LET ME JUST TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT MYSELF. I WAS, I WAS BROUGHT TO THIS COUNTRY AT THE AGE OF 3 BY MY MOM WHO MIGRATED FROM MEXICO TO HERE WITHOUT KNOWING A WORD OF ENGLISH. AND I HAD TO SEE HOW MUCH SHE HAD TO STRUG TOLL PUT FOOD ON THE TABLE.

SHE HAD WORK TWO YEARS FOR 20 YEARS, SHE DIDN'T HAVE A SINGLE DAY OFF. AND LIKE THE THINGS THAT WE WERE ABLE T AFFORD WERE NOT THE BEST OF QUALITY THINGS, WE HAD TO EAT LIKE MACARONI AND CHEESE AND STUFF LIKE THAT. TO THIS DAY, MINIMUM WAGE IS NOT ENOUGH TO AFFORD A DE SENT STANDARD LIVING HERE IN SONOMA. AND I WANTED TO SAY, THAT, INCREASING THE MINIMUM WAGE IS SUPER IMPORTANT AS I'M ALSO FOR THE ECONOMY. IT'S ONE OF THE BEST WAY TO SEE STIMULATE THE ECONOMY. WHEN YOU PUT MONEY THIS DISPOSABLE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF WORKING CLASS PEOPLE, THEY WILL BY HERE IN LOCALLY. TO THIS DAY I'M A STUDENT AND LIKE ONE OF THE GUIDELINES FOR ATTENDING CLASSES WELL I RAN–I WANTED TO START BY BEING ABSOLUTELY CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT, THE SANTA ROSA CHAMBER I NOT HERE TO ARGUE AGAINST A MINIMUM WAGE. IN DEED INCREASING INCOME AND WAGES IN A COMMUNITY IS FANTASTIC FOR ALL OF THE REASONS SITED. FOR BEING ABLE TO PAY LIVING EXPENSES FOR THE HEADLIGHT –HEALTH REASONS, AND WORKERS ARE WELL REPRESENTED.

I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE TO BE AS CRYSTAL CLEAR ABOUT SOME OF OUR BUSINESSES HERE IN THE COMMUNITY. PARTICULARLY OUR FAMILY OWNED RESTAURANTS. WE HAVE RESTAURANT OWNERS WHO HAVE LITERALLY PAID THEMSELVES ZERO FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS WHILE TRYING TO PAY THEIR EMPLOYEES AS MUCH AS THEY CAN INCLUDING HEALTH BENEFITS. AND FOR THOSE SMALL BUSINESSES THAT ARE ABLE TO PAY MORE LIKE WE HEARD FROM LYFT, THAT'S WONDERFUL AND THEY WILL DO THAT. THEY CARE ABOUT EMPLOYEES LIKE THEY DO FAMILY. WE DO NOT HAVE THE SAME LEVELS OF TURNOVER AS WERE SITED IN STUDIES. WE DO NOT HAVE THE SAME LEVELS OF PERSONAL COST. I THINK WE'LL HEAR GREATER DATA FROM THAT. BUT THERE WILL BE REAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS FOR OUR BUSINESSES INCLUDING CLOSING AND LAYING OFF WORKERS. AND I JUST WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE ARE MAKING THIS DECISION WITH THAT FULLY CONSCIOUS FULLY IN MIND THAT THAT IS ALSO NOT GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY.

THIS IS A I KOW, A DPULT CHOICE. –DIFFICULT CHOICE. BUT BECAUSE OF THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS THE CHAMBERS ADVOCACY COMMITTEE HAS VOTE TODAY STAY CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE AND NOT MOVING IN FRONT OF THAT. TAKING OUT MORE DEBT IS NOT GOING TO HELP WHEN TERE IS ZERO REVENUE. >> THANK YOU. THOMAS ELSE FOLLOWED BY GARY LENS. >> THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. AND THANK YOU FOR TAKING UP THIS ISSUE. THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT. AND I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE CPI IS A COLA, EVERYBODY HAS HEARD OF COLA, THE COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT. THOSE WERE YANKED OUT OF SENIORS AND VARIOUS THINGS. IT WAS ATTEMPT TO TAKE IT OUT OF SCIAL SECURITY AND THAT WAS NOT ALLOWED. BUT IN MANY PLACES IN FOR WORKERS, IT WAS TAKEN OUT EVEN FOR WORKERS, THE COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENTS WERE TAKEN OUT OF THEIR INCOME. IT WAS A CONCERTED EFFORT. THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS CREATES BASKET OF GOODS THAT LOOKS AT THE COST OF LIVING AND IT'S BASED ON SALE PRICES FOR WORKERS, BASKETS, FOR CONSUMERS BASKETS, IT'S BASED ON THE SALE PRICE.

SO IF YOU LOOK AROUND AND YOU SEE A SALE PRICE, YOU SEE, THAT'S REALLY LOW. NOT THE REGULAR PRICE, THAT SALE PRICE IS WHAT IS USED TO CREATE THE BASKET OF GOODS TO CREATE THE COLO AND THE CPI, WHICHEVER CPI IS GOING TO USE, THEY'RE USING THE SALE PRICES. AND NOT EVERYBODY CAN AFFORD TO STOCK UP O THE GOODS ON AT THAT VICE BECAUSE IT CAN BE SIX MONTHS BEFORE THAT GOOD IS ON SALE AT THAT PRICE AGAIN. WITH THESE WAGES, YOU CANNOT BUY SIX MONTHS WORTH OF GOOD. SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE THAT UNDERING THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE CAPPED AD THAT IT COME BACK, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO REVIEW THE STATISTICS WITHIN SIX MONTHS. AND I'LL EXPLAIN THAT IN A SECOND AS TO WHY. (INAUDIBLE) THERE WAS JUST ON THE SET OF TEETH, THERE WAS A 10% OVERNIGHT RATE ON THE OVERNIGHT MARKET. THAT'S AN CALLED INVERSION OF INTEREST RATES. THAT WAS A HUGE INVERSE. >> THANK YOU OKAY, GARY LENS FOLLOWED BY MICHAEL. >> HI THERE. I THINK IT'S, OBVIOUSLY A WORTHY GOAL TO WANT TO HELP OUR LESS ADVANTAGES CITIZENS, WHO ARE MAKING $12 TO MAKE MORE.

AND IF WE AS A SOCIETY, WE WONDER WHY YOU WANT TO DO IT IN THE BACKS OF BUSINESS OWNERS WHO ARE THE PEOPLE WHO HIRED THEM. IT'S DIFFICULT DECISION TO START A BUSINESS, I HAVE NOT DONE IT, BECAUSE IT'S VERY DIFFICULT. I WORRY THAT WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THINGS WORSE BECAUSE WHILE YOU CAN PASS THIS LAW, WHAT YOU CANNOT REPEAL IS THE LAW OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND ECONOMICS. IF THERE ARE A FEWER BUSINESSES IN BUSINESS OR THEY'RE CUTTING EMPLOYEES, THAT'S GOING TO HURT THE PEOPLE YOU'RE TRYING TO HELP.

WHAT MAKES PEOPLE MAKE MORE MONEY IS WHEN MORE JOBS ARE CHOICING FEWER PEOPLE. IF WE HAVE FEWER PEOPLE EMPLOYED, THEY HAVE TO RAISE WAGES OR ELSE THEY'LL REJECT THE WAGE. IF WE AS A COMMUNITY DECIDE THIS IS A PROBLEM WE WANT TO SOLVE, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE WANT TO DO IT IN THE BACKS OF BUSINESS. WHY DO WE DECIDE TO GIVE MONEY OUT OF OUR CITY TREASURY TO FOLKS TO HELP THEM OUT.

WHY PUT BUSINESSES OUT OF BUSINESS. THAT'S WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. TO DO IT IN THE BACKS OF PEOPLE DOING BUSINESS IS MISS GUIDED. I HOPE THAT EVERYBODY CAN BE LIFTED AND UP AND WE CAN HAVE MORE MONEY, AND PEOPLE CAN MAKE THEIR RENT AND MEDICINE PAYMENTS. TRUSTLY, I THINK THAT'S A WORTHY GOAL. I JUST THINK MAKING FEWER OUT OF BUSINESS SIGNS DOWNTOWN AND MORE RESTAURANTS GOING OUT OF BUSINESS IS NOT GOOD WAY TO DO IT.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. MICHAEL FOLLOWED BY MERLIN. >> GOOD EVENING, I'M MICHAEL AND I OWN RESTAURANTS FOR OVER 30 YEARS AND FOR THE LAST 15 YEARS I'VE BEEN A PARTNER IN THE BOOKKEEPING COMPANY EXCLUSIVELY DEVOTED TO DO THE BOOKS OF RESTAURANTS. THE ONLY TRIND HERE, THE ONLY PEOPLE SEAKING IN ANY WAY AGAINST THE MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE ARE PEOPLE IN THE RESTAURANT BUSINESS. I WANT TO EXPLAIN THAT T YOU WHO DON'T UNDERSTAND THE RESTAURANT BUSINESS.

AND IT'S ONLY THE THING THAT I CAN SPEAK ABOUT. 40 TO 4% OF EVERY RESTAURANT GOES OUT TO LABOR. RESTAURANTIERS THAT ARE TIPPED EMPLOYEES. AND THAT'S WHAT IS THROWING THIS OUT OF WHACK. I WANT TO EDUCATE PEOPLE TO WHAT THIS REALLY MEANS. AND ALL OF THEIR NON TIPPED EMPLOYEES FOR THE MOST PART, 95% ARE BANKING ON MINIMUM WAGE. BUT BECAUSE OF THE MINIMUM WAGE, THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT RECEIVE MINIMUM WAGE ARE THE TIPPED EMPLOYEES. AND THAT MEANS WHEN THE MINIMUM WAGE GOES UP, THE TIPPED EMPLOYEES ARE THE ONES THAT ARE GETTING WAGES. SO THIS IS A HARDSHIP FOR RESTAURANTS. I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND WHY. SO IT'S GOING TO HAVE AN IMPACT AN INCREASE OF 25% TO THE MINIMUM WAGE WHICH IS ABOUT 12 TO $15 IS GOING TO BE A 4 OR 5% HIT TO BOTTOM LINE OF RESTAURANTS.

IT'S NOT THAT THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT THEIR PROFITS BUT PROFITABILITY AND ABILITY TO PAYOFF LOANS. I JUST WANT PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> YOU DESERVE YOUR APPLAUSE, TAKE 20 SECONDS IT GIVE GREAT APPLAUSE BECAUSE IT WON'T TAKE UP MORE OF THE CITY COUNCILMEMBERS TIME. (APPLAUSE) >> THANK YOU ALL. AWESOME. I DON'T BE APPRECIATING SHUT UP BY A TOREITARIAN MAYOR OR HIS MERCENARIES WITH GUNS THAT CAME TO ME AND SAID YOU CAN NOT USE YOUR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION. F YOU.

>> [CALLING SPEAKER NAMES] >> I WANT TO THANK YOU MAYOR AND MMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL FOR HAVING THIS CONVERSATION TONIGHT AND MAY NAME IS CARRIE-I WANT TO DRAW THE LINK BETWEEN CLIMATE RESILIENCY AND IMPORTANCE OF HAVING $15 MINIMUM WAGE OR HIGHER. OUR COMMUNITY WE KNOW IS GROUND ZERO FOR CLIMATE IMFACT AND IMPACTS OF CLIMATE WILL GET WORSE. WE HAVE 10 YEARS TO AVOID IMPACTS. WE KNOW THE COST OF FOOD WILL RISE AND TO STAY COOL AND RELATED HEALTH COST WILL RISE. THIS IS A CRITICAL STEP TO ADAPT TO CLIMATE CHANGE. ADAPTATION IS LOOKING AT THE RISKS POSED BY CLIMATE CHANGE. WE KNOW LOW INCOME WORKERS ARE THE HARD TS HIT. THE FARM WORKERS THE TEACHER YOUTH AND COMMUNITIES STRUGGLING WITH MENTAL. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THEY DON'T HAVE TO PICK BETWEEN TURNING ON THE AIR CONDITIONER DURING A HEAT WAVE OR BYING GROCERIES AND LIVE CHECK TO CHECK HOPING THE NEXT DISASTER AND FIRE DOESN'T HIT THEM. THERE ARE SO MANY REASONS TONIGHT WE SUPPORT AND WANT TO MAKE SURE WE RECOGNIZE THE GROWING INSTABILITY WE WILL BE FACING DUE TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL SUPPORT CAN HELP MITIGATE THAT AND HAVE A LARGE RIPPLE EFFECT ON OUR COMMUNE ITY AS A WOLE.

>> [CALLING SPEAKER NAMES] >> GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. I AM SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE NORTH BAY LABOR COUNCIL AND ALSO A RESIDENT AND A PRO-LIVING WAGE PERSON. WE HEARD FROM QUITE A FEW RESTAURANT OWNERS AND SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS WHO ARE AFRAID OF THE VIABILITY OF THEIR BUSINESSES AFTER A $15 AN HOUR WAGE GOES INTO EFFECT, AND I JUST WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT.

I'M ACTUALLY FINISHING MADDIE HEARSEFIELDS NOTES BUT WE FELT THIS IS SUCH A IMPORTANT POINT THAT WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT GOT MADE. THE ONLY DATA THAT CORRELATES RAISES TO WAGES WITH FAILURES OF SMALL RESTAURANTS WAS DONE IN SANTA CLARA IN 2013 AND THE STUDY SHOWED THAT RESTAURANTS THAT CLOSED EARLIER THEN THE OWNERS WOULD HAVE EXPECTED WERE ON THEIR WAY TO CLOSURE ANYWAY.

IN OTHER WORDS THERE IS NO CORRELATION BETWEEN INCREASE IN MINIMUM WAGE AND FAILURE OF RESTAURANT. MOST THAT HAD CLOSED TALKED ABOUT CUSTOMER-TALKED ABOUT THE SATISFACTION WAS LOWER AND THAT EVEN THOUGH THE RESTAURANT WAS ABLE TO PAY MORE MONEY OR WORKERS WERE QUITTING LESS OFTEN BECAUSE THEY WERE GETTING A HIGHER WAGE, THE RESTAURANT WAS STILL THE CUSTOMER STILL EXPRESSED DISSATISFACTION. SO, WE UNDERSTAND THE POSITION OF SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS, BUT THE ORDINANCE IS EVIDENCE BASED AND WE WANT YOU TO PASS IT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> [CALLING SPEAKER NAME] >> FIRST, THANK YOU. I CAN SEE THIS ISSUE IS SUCH AN IMPORTANT TO OUR COMMUNITY AND ALL OF YOU KNOW WE HERE ONE OF THE KEY TINGS WE DO IS AS A COMPANY IS DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING FOR OUR COMMUNITY AND SUPPORTING MANY OF THESE FOLKS THAT I HAVE SEEN SPEAK TODAY WE SUPPORTED THEM FROM OUR BUSINESSES. VARIOUS BUSINESSES. ONE OF THE KEY THINGS I THINK THROUGH WHAT SANTA ROSA HAS BEEN THROUGH IN THE LAST 2 YEARS WITH THE DESTRUCTION WE HAVE SEEN MANY BUSINESSES CLOSE.

THE RESTAURANT ISSUE MANY EMPLOYEES ARE ALREADY PAID A LOT MORE THEN MINIMUM WAGE BECAUSE OF THE TIPS THAT EXIST. ONE OF THE KEY THINGS I LIKE THE COUNCIL TO LOOK AT IF THERE COULD BE A MODIFICATION COULD BE DONE, I THINK THE PLAN PROPOSED BY THE STATE TIMELINE WOULD BE MRE SENSIBLE BECAUSE INCREASING-IF WE SHIFT IN JULY 25 PERCENT INCREASE, WHICH IS MORE THEN 40 PERCENT OF OUR EMPLOYEES I THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, WHAT IT DOES IS THERE NO WAY WE CAN INCREASE PICES BY 25 PERCENT AND THE TIME AS WE ARE LOOKING AT THE DOWNTURN UPCOMING IN THE FUTURE, I APPRECIATE THE STAFF THE REPORTS THEY HAVE DONE BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER THAT THE RESTAURANT INDUSTRY CANNOT ALL OF A SUDDEN INCREASE 25 PERCENT ON THEIR PRICES AND THAT'S THE KEY ISSUE THE ADJUSTMENT IS TOO QUICK, THAT IT WOULD BE HARD FOR MANY BUSINESSES. I DO WANT TO SAY THAT I SUPPORT MINIMUM WAGE T GO UP, I WANT OUR LIVING WAGES FOR EMPLOYEES TO BE WHERE THEY DO HAVE THEIR LIVING SPACE THAT THEY DESERVE.

THANK YOU. >> [CALLING SPEAKER NAME] >> HELLO. I LIKE TO SAY I'M STRONGLY SUPPORTIVE OF $15 MINIMUM WAGE AND A LOT OF BUSINESSES CLOSE BECAUSE THEY SUCK. >> THOSE ARE ALL THE CARDS. THIS IS PUBLIC HEARING AND DON'T HAVE TO FILL OUT A CARD. IF YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL. ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS IT COUNCIL ON THIS ISSUE? PLEASE. PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF. >> MY NAME IS JOSH SILVERS THE OWNER OF JACKSON'S BAR AND OVEN AND I SUPPORT MINIMUM WAGE AND LIKE ALL THE RESTAURANTS HERE, I HAVE TO BE HONEST IT I A HUGE HIT FOR US. ALL OUR STAFF MAKES MORE THEN THE MINIMUM WAGE IN THE BACK OF THE HOUSE. IT IS ALL THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE PEOPLE AND I EMPLOY 40 PLUS PEOPLE, WHICH IS HUGE CHUNK. I HAVE BEEN IN THE RESTAURANT BEEN IN SONOMA COUNTY SINCE 1999 AN I ACTUALLY HAVE AN EMPLOYEE WHO STARTED THE SECOND DAY I OPENED SO THE IDEA OF TURNOVER-MY GENERAL MAN WORKED FOR ME 18 YEARS. IT IS NOT A REAL THING. I'M SORRY, I HAVE BEEN DOING THIS SO LONG AD IT IS SUCH A HUGE HIT FOR A SMALL RESTAURANT.

WE ARE CLASSIFIED AS A LARGE RESTAURANT, BUT WE FEEL LIKE A SMALL RESTAURANT. WE HAVE ONE LOCATION, AND TO JUST PUT THAT BIG OF A HIT ON US IS RATHER A DIFFICULT WAY TO GO. EVERY YEAR WE GET A RENT INCREASE, EVERY YEAR TAXES GO UP. WE PAY TAXES ON EQUIPMENT THAT WE BOUGHT SO THERE IS A USE TAX. WE PAY $400 EVERY TIME WE GO TO THE STAPLES TO GET SUPPLIES. YOU KNOW, WE GET ASKED I WOULD SAY IN A WEEK 30 TIMES FOR DONATIONS AND A LOT OF TIMES WE GIVE MONEY WHEN THE FIRES HAPPENED, MY RESTAURANT ALONE WE COMPED IT CAME OUT TO ABOUT $30 THOUSAND WORTH OF FOOD AND WINE FOR PEOPLE WHEN THEY LOST THEIR HOUSE. WE SAID WE'LL TAKE CARE OF YOU.

YOU ARE A PART OF OUR COMMUNITY, WE WILL NOT CHARGE YOU JUST EAT AND ENJOY. WE BOUGHT PHONE CHARGERS SO PEOPLE COULD CHARGE THEIR PHONES. WE FEEL WE ARE PART OF THE FABRIC OF THE COMMUNITY. I LOST A HOUSE IN THE FIRE WE ARE REBUILDING NOW, BUT IT IS JUST MORE AND MORE DIFFICULT TO DO BUSINESS HERE. I DON'T WANT TO BE-IT JUST-YOU KNOW. >> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL? PLEASE, SIR. >> MY NAME IS RICHARD SAVAGE. I GREW UP IN A FAMILY THAT RAN A SMALL BUSINESS, IT WAS A GROCERY STORE THAT MY FATHER GRANDFATHER BUILT FROM THE BOTTOM UP. WE SUPPLIED A LOT OF RESTAURANTS. YOU ARE IN A TOUGH BUSINESS AND SO WAS A SMALL GROCERY STORE IT RUN AND OERATE AND BUY EQUIPMENT AND HIRE STAFF AND THE LIKE.

SO, I KNOW AND UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE GOING THROUGH. I ALSO RAN MY OWN BUSINESS IN A LITTLE CONTE SOUTH OF HERE AND I HIRED EMPLOYEES TO. IT WAS ROUGH RUNNING THAT BUSINESS BUT I WAS ABLE TO IN THE 1980'S AND 1990'S TO PAY THEM $15 A HOUR OR MORE. YES, I WAS ABLE TO DO THAT. IF WE ARE TO RUN BUSINESSES WHICH ARE NOT JUST BUSINESSES AND I KNOW HOW TOUGH SMALL BUSINESS IS TO MAKE A BUCK FOR YOU AND YOUR FAMILIES AS WELL AS YOUR WORKERS, BUT WITHOUT WORKERS YOU DONT HAVE A BUSINESS. SO, AT THE SAME TIME YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND TAT WE ARE PART OF A COMMUNITY, SOCIALLY, ECONOMICALLY AS WELL AS IN OTHER WAYS AND SO $15 AN HOUR, ALL YOU CAN DO IS RAISE SOME OF YOUR PRICES.

THAT'S WHAT I HAD TO DO TO MY COSTMERS. I KNOW IT IS COMPETITIVE , I KNOW IT IS TOUGH BUT IT'S THE RIGHT THING IT DO TO PAY PEOPLE SO THEY COME AND VISIT YOUR RESTAURANT. IF YOU ARE RUNNING IT WELL AS MANY HAVE OVER THE LAST 10, 20 OR 30 YEARS YOU WILL FIGURE A WAY TO KEEP IT GOING AND MAKE A BUCK. >> ANYONE ELSE LIKE TOADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NO ONE ELSE RISE WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING BACK TO COUNCIL.

ANY QUESTIONS YOU HEARD THAT STAFF MAY BE ABLE TO ANSWER? MRS. COMBS. >> I HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS I THINK STAFF MIGHT BE ABLE TO HELP WITH BASED ON TESTIMONY THAT WE HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC. DO WE HAVE ANY DATA ON PRICE INCREASES-I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU GIB GIVE US DATA ON PRICE INCREASES AS A RESULT OF INCREASING MINIMUM WAGE? >> WELL- >> IN OTHER AREAS OBVIOUSLY. >> RIGHT. ONE OF THE ISSUES IS THE STUDIES WERE RELYING OR BASED ON AREAS OUTSIDE SANTA ROSA AND OUTSIDE THE SANTA ROSA ECONOMY, SO I'LL PREFACE SAYING THERE ARE STUDIES THAT ADDRESS PRICE INCREASES.

THEY ARE MOSTLY BASED AROUND SEATTLE, SAN JOSE, SAN FRANCISCO, OAKLAND, SO SORT THE DENSER AREAS. >> DIFFERENT KIND OF MARKET. >> RIGHT. >> WHAT IS THE TREND? >> THE TREND ON GROCERY STORES AND THE REPORT THAT I READ FROM TE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH SAID THERE WAS MINIMAL TO NO INCREASE ON GROCERY STORE PRICES AND AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, IN THE PRESENTATION, THERE WAS A STATEMENT IN THE REPORT FROM THE U C BERKELEY REPORT THAT WE HEARD EARLIER THAT I BELIEVE THEY SAID THAT THERE WAS A 2 PERCENT INCREASE IN RESTAURANT PRICES, WHICH I WILL TELL YOU THE LOCAL RESTAURANTS DISAGREE WITH FOR OUR LOCAL MARKET AND 1 PERCENT PASS-THROUGH TO THE CONSUMER. >> OKAY. >> AND, DO WE HAVE A DATA ON TURNOVER RATES FOR ANY OF THE STUDIES? >> AGAIN, DATA IS PULLED MOSTLY FROM REPORTS OUTSIDE OF THE AREA.

TERE IS ONE REPORT THAT I CAN POINT TO THAT IS FROM THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH WHICH IS 2018 REPORT THAT ENDICATES THAT THERE IS A 8 PERCENT REDUCTION IN TURNOVERS RESULTING FROM INCREASE. >> DOES A REDUCTION IN TURNOVER IN SOME WAY EQUAL FINANCIAL BENEFIT? >> RIGHT, SO THEY DID EQUATE IT TO-I JUST DONT HAVE IT IN MY NOTES RIGHT HERE BUT THEY DID IT EQUATE IT TO A COST SAVINGS NOT SO MUCH A FINANCIAL INCREASE BUT A COST SAVINGS TO BUSINESS AND AGAIN, IT WAS NOT SPECIFIC TO RESTAURANT OR RETAIL, THIS WAS A GENERAL STUDY THAT WAS DONE AGAIN BY THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH. >> THANK YOU FOR SRATCHING YOUR MEMORY ON SOME OF THESE. WAS THERE DATA ON CLOSING? >> THERE IS NO DATA THAT I RECALL READING ABOUT ON CLOSURES. >> OKAY. IS THERE ANY DATA ON AN INCREASE IN CUSTOMERS OR INCREASE IN INCOME FOLLOWING INCREASE? >> THERE MAY BE BUT THAT ISN'T SOMETHING I NOTICED IN THE RESEARCH.

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

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. INTRODUCE A ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF SANTA ROSA ADDING CHAPTER 10-45 T CITY CODE TO ESTABLISH MINIMUM WAGE PAID BY EMPLOYERS WHERE WAVE FURTHER READING OF THE TEXT. >> DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT MR. TIBBETTS? >> ILL SECOND THAT. >> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. START OVER HERE WITH COMMENTS. >> WOULD YOU ACCEPT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? WHICH IS IT REMOVE THE 3.5 PERCENT CAP ON-IT IS THE WAGE CAP THAT I'M LOOKING-NOT FOLLOWING CPI BUT THE CAP ON LIMITING HOW MUCH WAGES COULD INCREASE BY CPI? >> I WOULDN'T BE WILLING TO ACCEPT THAT. >> YOU WOULD NOT ACCEPT THAT AS A FRNDLY AMENDMENT? >> I WOULD NOT. >> MR. MAYOR CAN I MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION? >> SURE. >> TO PASS THE ORDINANCE AS WRITTEN WITH THE REMOVAL OF THE 3.5 PERCENT CAP. >> SECOND. >> SO MADAM CITY ATTORNEY, THAT LAST ONE TRUMPS THE FIRST ONE? >> YES, YOU WOULD TAKE THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION FIRST IF THAT DOES NOT PASS THEN YOU GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION.

>> OKAY. BEFORE WE START COMMENTS- >> I LIKE TO ADD A FRNDLY AMENDMENT TO MR. ROGER, A COUPLE OF THEM IF THAT IS POSSIBLE. ONE IS I WOULD LIKE TO ADD ENFORCEMENT LANGUAGE THAT PROHIBITED BY STATE OR FEDERAL LAW UPON DETERMINATION OF VIOLATION OF THE CHAPTER AFTER HEARING A SUS PECKDED VIOLATOR DUE PROCESS CITY AGENCIES MAY REVOKE OR SUSPEND ANY REGISTRATION CERTIFICATES PERMITS OR LICENSES HELD OR REQUESTED BY TE EMPLOYER UNTIL SUCH A TIME AS A VIOLATION OF THE CHAPTER IS REMEDIED. >> I DO BELIEVE COUNCIL MEMBER THAT THAT WAS IN THE LATEST VERSION OF TE ORDINANCE. >> IT IS. IT WAS-I DON'T HAVE THE VERSION. THANK YOU. >> WAS THAT THE CHAIR ACCEPTING IT BECAUSE I DON'T SEE IT IN THIS VERSION? >> I'M FINE WITH ACCEPTING IT. I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION IT WAS IN THE LATEST ORDINANCE. >> IT IS IN ALL VERSIONS THE PROBLEM IS WE CALL OUR BUSINESS LICENSES BUSINESS TAX CERTIFICATES AND SO IF YOU DO A SEARCH FOR PERMIT THAT DOES NOT COME UP.

>> OKAY. AND THEN ADDITIONALLY, I WAS HOPING- >> BEFORE WE GO ON THAT, CAN YOU SHARE WITH ME WHERE THAT LANGUAGE IS SINCE I WASN'T CAPTURING ALL THE WORDS YOU SAID TERE? >> 10-45.070 UNDER ENFORCEMENT, C4. >> THANK YOU. >> OKAY. >> I'LL LET IT GO AT THAT. >> TO BE CLEAR, IT IS IN THERE. >> CORRECT. >> THERE IS A OLD AD THEY SAID, PRAGUEO. >> ANY OTHER FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS ON THIS? THAT MOTION? ARE THERE ANY OTHER MOTIONS BEFORE WE CAN HAVE DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION AND SECOND? MR. TIBBETTS IF YOU LIKE TO MAKE COMMENTS ON THAT MOTION. >> SURE, THANK YOU, MAYOR. A LOT OF THE TIMES WHEN YOU DEAL WITH PUBLIC POLICY IN THE 3 YEARS I SAT HERE YOU FIND THE ISSUE THAT TOUCH POCKET BOOKS ARE THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL REGARDLESS WHO IS ON WHAT SIDE OF THE ISSUE SO TO HELP FORMULATE MY OWN DECISION AND WILL GET TO A PUNCH LINE THAT I HOPE SINKS IN WITH THE COMMUNITY, I LOOK AT THE OWN BUSINESS I HELP RUN.

I LOOK AT THE BUDGET AND WHAT INCREASING THE FOLKS TO $15 AN HOUR WOULD DO AND ACROSS THE BOARD IT COST ABOUT $55 THOUSAND A YEAR. IT IS ABOUT 1/3 OF THE NET PROCEEDS FROM THE RETAIL SALES REVENUES AND SO I WANT TO SY THAT BECAUSE THIS DOES COME WTH REAL IMPACTS TO THE BUSINESSES AND I WANT THE BUSINESSES TO KNOW THAT AS A OE COUNCIL OF 7 UP HERE I DOAK KNOWLEDGE, THAT IS NOT LOST ON ME. BUT THE OTHER SIDE OF WHAT I DO IS I DEAL WITH FOLKS THAT LIVE IN EXTREME POVERTY EVERY DAY AND FOLKS TAT I GET CHOKED UP TALKING ABOUT IT, BECAUSE THEY-I THINK OF ONE EXAMPLE, I'M MEETING WITH A WOMAN TOMORROW TO GIVE HER A CHECK TO LEAVE TOWN AND I THINK WHEN WE TALK ABOUT BEING A CITY OF EXCELLENCE WHEN PEOPLE ARE WORKING TWO JOBS AND THEY ARE LIVING NOT JST PAY CHECK TO PAY CHECK BUT PENNY TO PENNY WHEN THEY WANT TO LEAVE TO MOVE TO A CHEAPER COMMUNITY THEY ARE TRAPPED BECAUSE THEY CAN'T PAY A SECURITY DEPOSIT.

WHEN I SAY CAN YOU HELP ME WITH A SECURITY DEPOSIT TO LEAVE THIS CONTINUE WE ARE OBVIOUSLY OFF-TRACK AND AGAIN, I SHARE THAT BECAUSE NOBODY SHOULD HAVE IT GO THROUGH THAT IN THIS COMMUNITY AND SO I'M VERY EAGER TO SUPPORT THIS ORDINANCE THE ONE YOU MADE MR. ROGERS AND I HOPE THAT THIS COUNCIL CAN SEE THAT REALTY AND VOTE IN UNISON TONIGHT TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN SO THANKS FOR LETTING ME SPEAK ON THE ISSUE. >> THANK YOU MR. MAYOR. I DO APPRECIATE THE CONCERNS OF THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY AND HOW MUCH WORK YOU GUYS DO IN PROVIDING JOBS. HOWEVER, I HEARD SOMEBODY SPEAK WITH JUST VERY CLEARLY OVER THE WEEKEND THAT THERE IS FALSE EQUIVALENCY WHEN WE TALK ABOUT BOTH SIDES THAT IT IS REALLY HARD ON BUSINESSES BUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE BUSINESS OWNERS COMPARE WOULD THE 30 THOUSAND EARNERS IN OUR COMMUNITY AND IN ADDITION TO THAT THAT WE WILL HAVE COMPASSION THAT WILL PUMP OVER A BILLION DOLLARS BACK INTO OUR LOCAL ECONOMY HERE WITH BACK OF THE ENVELOPE MATH AND WE HAVE TOTHINK ABOUT 30 THOUSAND PEOPLE AND THAT MEANS THERE WILL BE FOOD ON THEIR TABLE AND THEIR CHILDREN WILL HAVE MAYBE A FEW MORE HOURS WITH THEM BECAUSE THEY WONT HAVE TO WORK A THIRD JOB.

GROWING UP I HAD A FATHER WHO WAS A STRONG WAGE EARNER AND MOM WHO WAS A TEACHER AND WS GOING TO SCHOOL AT NIGHT AND KNOW FIRST HAND WHAT A DIFFERENCE IT MAKES TO HAVE A PARENT WHO COULD BE AROUND AND HOW LONELY IT IS FOR CHILDREN WHEN THEY DON'T SEE THEIR PARENTS. I THINK AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN DONT EARN THE SAME AMOUNT AS WHITE MALE EARNERS UNTIL AUGUST. I BELIEVE THAT IS EQUAL WAGE DAY FOR WOMEN OF COLOR. FOR CAUCASIAN WOMEN IT IS APRIL. THIS IS CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE AND WHILE I FEEL FOR THE BOTTOM LINES AND PROFORMOES OF BUSINESS OWNERS I GET CHOKED UP BECAUSE THIS WILL MEAN THAT WE HERE IN THE LAST COUPLE WEEKS IF WE ARE ABLE TO PASS THIS HAVE DONE SOME THINGS THAT WILL HOUSE PEOPLE AND FEED PEOPLE AND WE LOOK AT OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN SUCH DISARRAY AND SHAKE OUR HEADS BUT HERE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL WE HAVE A OPPORTUNITY TO COME TOGETHER AND DO SOMETHING MEANINGFUL, COLLABORATIVE AND STABILIZING FOR NOT JUST OR WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND FAMILY AND PEOPLE OF COLOR BUT RIPPLE OUT INTO THE THE ECONOMY AND I DO HOPE WE DON'T LOSE JOBS AND DON'T THINK WE WILL AND COULDN'T BE PROUDER TO PART OF THE COUNCIL TAKING ON TESE ISSUES.

THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING OUT. >> MRS. COMBS. >> I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO SUPPORTING $15 BY 2020. I'M ALSO LOOKING FORWARD TO SOMETIME IN TE FUTURE HAVING FOLKS COME BEFORE US AND TALK ABOUT HOW IMPORTANT IT IS FOR ALL OF THEIR EMPLOYEES TO BE ABLE TO BE HOUSED IN OUR COMMUNITY. I AM REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO HEARING FROM ALL THE BUSINESSES WHO HAVE EMPLOYEES THAT ARE LKE FAMILY UNDERSTANDING THAT THOSE FAMILIES ARE STRUGGLING AND SPEAKING TOWARD THAT STRUGGLE. I AM VERY FRUSTRATED WHEN WE HAVE THE SAME GROUP OF PEOPLE WO FIGHT RENT CONTROL FIGHTING INCREASES IN WAGES. I FIND THAT VERY DIFFICULT. I WANT TO APPRECIATE THE WRK OF MARTI BENNETT, MARA, NORTH BAY JOBS FOR JUSTICE, NORTH BAY ORGANIZING PROJECT, A VARIETY OF POLITICAL ENTITIES THAT HAVE SHOWN UP HERE TODAY. THANK YOU FOR THIS PERSISTENT LONG-TERM WORK ON BEHALF OF OR POPULATION, THE PEOPLE OF OUR TOWN.

THANK YOU. >> MR. SAWYER. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I WAS A LITTLE AMUSED WHEN I SAW I HAD THE ORDINANCE TO READ IN FRONT OF ME THIS AFTERNOON BEING ONE OF THE MOST VOCAL COUNCIL MEMBERS OVER THE YEARS FIGHTING INCREASE IN THE MINIMUM WAGE, BECAUSE OF THE REALTY OF MESSING WITH A LABOR MARKET AND MARKETS IN GENERAL, THERE IS ALWAYS A BIT OF FALL-OUT AND SOME OF US PREDICTABLE, SOME ISN'T AS PREDICTABLE. I DO FEEL FOR THE RESTAURANTS AND WISH THE STATE COULD HAVE COME UP WITH A REASONABLE WAY TO DEAL WITH THE REALTY OF TIPS, BECAUSE OF THE THOSE EMPLOYEES ARE NOT MAKING $12 AN HOUR. WE ALL CONTRIBUTE TO THAT AS WE SUPPORT OUR RESTAURANTS AND HOPE YOU CONTINUE TO DO THAT BECAUSE THEY WILL BE ONE OF THE LARGEST HIT IN OUR CITY. DON'T DECREASE YOUR TIPS JUST BECAUSE THE MINIMUM WAGE WENT UP POTENTIALLY. THERE ARE LOTS OF STRESSES IN THE COMMUNITY AND KNOW INCOME IS A SOCIAL DETERMINANT AND WE OFFER HEALTHCARE TO 1 OUT OF 4 IN SANTA ROSA SO THERE ARE SO MANY STRESSES HITTING SANTA ROSA AND MANY OTHER PEOPLE NOT ONLY IN CALIFORNIA BUT NATIONALLY.

STRESSES TAT DIDN'T EXIST 10 YEARS AGO WHEN I CLOSED MY BUSINESS AFTER 65 YEARS. I KNOW PART OF WHAT WHY I FOUGHT, WHO IQUESTION THE VALIDITY OF RAISING MINIMUM WAGE IS BECAUSE I NEVER PAID MINIMUM, IT WAS ALWAYS HIGHER, WE GAVE FULL MEDICAL SO I KNOW WHAT IT WOULD HAVE DONE TO US. WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO CLOSE BEFORE 2010. WE PAID THE EMPLOYEES AND LANDLORD AND TOOK NO DRAW OURSELVES BECAUSE THAT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THE RESEARCH DONE BY STAFF. I KNOW THAT WERE NOT ALONE COMPILING THAT, BUT WE HAD A COUPLE GOOD CONVERSATIONS AND THE FEAR THAT I HAD GAINED OVER THE YEARS AS A LONG TIME RETAILER I MAY ONE OF THE ONLY RETAILERS SITTING AT THE DAIS TONIGHT WAS TO ME REAL, BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THOSE STRESSES HAPPENING IN OUR COMMUNITY NOW. I CAN'T IMAGINE WHAT IT WOULD BE LIKE TO BE A TEENAGER OR SOMEONE IN THE EARLY 20'S TRYING TO MAKE A GO OF IT IN SANTA ROSA GIVEN HOW EXPENSIVE IT IS TO LIVE HERE AND THE RENT ARE JUST A PART OF THAT.

SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE INCREASE IN THE MINIMUM WAGE TONIGHT. KNOW THAT IT'S-IT WILL COME AS A SURPRISE TO MANY, BUT [LAUGHTER] BUT I ALSO-I AWAYS SAY GIB GIVE ME A GOOD REASON TO CHANGE MY MIND AND THERE WILL BE FALL-OUT FROM OUR BUSINESSES AND THOSE THAT ARE CAPABLE OF MAKING CHANGES THAT ARE NOT ON THE EDGE WILL DO THAT. WE WILL PROBABLY LOSE SOME AND PERHAPS IT IS TRUE THAT MAYBE THEY WERE CHALLENGED TO BEGIN WITH, BUT AGAIN, I REALIZE THIS IS FOR ME AND FOR OUR CMMUNITY THE RIGHT THING TO DO SO I WILL BE HITTING THAT GREEN LIGHT. >> MR. VICE MAYOR. >> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO THANK [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] FOR THE WORK YOU HAVE DONE ON THIS. I HEARD NOTHING ABOUT GOOD THINGS ABOUT TIME AND ENERGY YOU PUT INTO THIS AND I WANT TO THANK PROFESSOR GUZMAN ABOUT THE RECORDS HE HAS DONE AND INFORMATION HE PROVIDED. HE HAS GOTTEN BACK TO ME ON A NUMBER OF TIMES ON INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS AND COULDN'T BE HERE TONIGHT BUT THOUGHT HE NEEDED TO BE THANKED. FOLKS HEARD ME TALK ABOUT THIS BEFORE FROM THE DAIS, BUT OFTEN TIMES WHAT WE TALK ABOUT AT THE COUNCIL IS ECONOMIC INEQUALITY AND POFERB PORFBTY. EVERY TIME WE HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING SO FOLKS CAN FIND A PLACE TO LIVE WE ARE TALKING ONE SIDE OF THE EQUATION AND THAT IS WHAT PEOPLE ARE SPENDING AND RARELY HAVE A CHANCE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT PEOPLE ARE MAKING AND THE CAPACITY FOR THAT HOUSING.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT CLIMATE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SYSTEMIC CHANGES BECAUSE WE KNOW FOLKS PARTICULARLY THOSE STRUGGLING IN THE COMMUNITY DON'T HAVE THE FUNDS TO BE A INDIVIDUAL CHANGE. THEY DONT DRIVE A TESLA [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] HOW DO WE DRAW ON THE OTHER PRIORITIES AROUND THE COMMUNITY AND THAT IS ALL TALKING ABOUT POVERTY WITHOUT TALKING ABOUT POVERTY. WE CURRENTLY ARE AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF ECONOMIC INQUALITY SNSE THE CENSUS STARTED TRACKING THAT. THAT IS NEW DATA THAT CAME OUT THREE DAYS AGO. IT IS WORSE FOR WOMEN AND PEOPLE OF COLOR AND I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED AS WELL. WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO TONIGHT IS RETURN THE PURCHASING POWER TO LOW INCOME WORKERS TO MAKE SURE THEY CAN STAY IN OUR COMMUNITY AND THEY ARE PART OF OUR LOCAL ECONOMY BEING ABLE TO SPEND MONEY. WE KNOW THEY ARE NOT SAVING MONEY. WE HEAR THAT WEEK IN AND OUT. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE VERY CLEAR THAT WE ARE NOT TRYING TO LEAVE PARTICULARLY SMALL BUSINESSES BEHIND.

THAT IS WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION OF WHAT WE ARE GOING TO-DO TO TRY TO HELP SMALL BUSINESSES THAT WE KNOW MIGHT NEED A LITTLE BIT OF HELP, MIGHT NEED STRENGTHENING FROM OUR COMMUNITY AND THERE WAS A COMMENT THAT WAS MADE TO EMOO ME IN THE OUTREACH AND WAS FLOODED WITH E-MAIL JZ PHONE CALLS AND PROMISE I'LL GET BACK TO FOLKS IF I HAVEN'T ALREADY.

ONE PERSON TOLD ME IT IS EASIER FOR THE COUNCIL TO HELP A FEW STRUGGLING BUSINESSES THEN 25 THOUSAND STRUGGLING WORKERS. THIS IS A SYSTEMIC APPROACH TO SOLVING WHAT HITS SO MANY ON A PERSONAL AND INDIVIDUAL LEVEL. ANYBODY WHO FOLLOWED ON SOCIAL MEDIA HS SEEN THESE CONVERSATIONS WAGE ABOUT HOW GREAT THECONOMY IS AND LEAVE THING UZLOAN BECAUSE TE ECONOMY IS GREAT. THE REALTY IS WAGES HAVE BEEN STAGNANT 20 YEARS AND ASK I NOT NOW, WHEN.

WHEN IS THE MARKET GOING TO PUT THE PRESSURE AND SEE WAGES RISE AND THE ANSWER IS TONIGHT. WE ARE DOING THAT FROM THE DAIS TONIGHT. (APPLAUSE) >> THE FINAL COMMENT I WANTED TO MAKE AND THOSE WHO ARE HERE FOR THE SUDY SESSION KNOW THIS IS A PET PEEVE OF MINE BUT I EJOYED THE GENTLEMEN WHO WAS EDUCATING US ON TIPS AND HO THAT APPLIES.

AGAIN, I WANT TO POINT OUT AGAIN THE HISTORIC ORIGINS OF TIP PREVALENCE IN THE COUNTRY WAS SO FOLKS OF COLOR OR WOMEN COULD MAKE A DIFFERENT WAGE IN THE AMOUNT PEOPLE WERE PAYING AND AS A CONSUMER QUH WITH WHEN I GO IN A RESTAURANT AND BUY A $5 BEER I KNOW THE PRICE IS $6 BECAUSE THE TIP IS IN THERE SO ADDING ADDITIONAL AMOUNT RAISING THE COST OF THAT TO ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO AFFORD THE SERVICE SOMEBODY COMING IN IS SOMETHING I ALREADY EXPECT. I KNOW WE WILL SEE IT A LITTLE BIT, BUT THAT'S MY PET PEEVE AND TURN IT OVER TO THE MAYOR.

>> I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS BECAUSE I THINK AS A COMMUNITY THOSE ON COUNCIL WE HAD ADVERSARIAL CONVERSATIONS AND I APPRECIATED MY CONVERSATION WITH STAFF BUT THE GROUPS THAT SOMETIMES PEOPLE THINK IT IS A ADVERSARIAL CONVERSATION. THIS IS A TOUGH CALL, IT ISN'T A BLACK AND WHITE ISSUE BECAUSE THERE ARE IMPACTS AND I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER FLEMING MENTIONED IT. I'M PROUD TO BE PART OF A COUNCIL WE LISTEN TO ALL SIDES.

SOME SAY YOU HAVE ALREADY HAD YOUR MIND MADE UP BEFORE YOU CAME IN. NOT ME AND DON'T THINK ANY OF MY COLLEAGUES BECAUSE THERE IS SO MUCH INFORMATION AND THERE-I DON'T WANT TO SAY THERE ARE WINNERS OR LOSERS BUT EACH OF US AND ME SPECIFICALLY I WILL MAKE THE DECISION I THINK IN THE BEST INTEREST OF SANTSA ROSA AT THE TIME FOR THE COMMUNITY. YOU ARE VERY PREDICTIVE IF [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] I THINK YOU WILL GET UNANIMOUS CONSENT BECAUSE I THINK IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO FOR THE CITY AND UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES THIS MAY CAUSE WE ARE A COMMUNITY THAT CAN COME BACK TOGETHER AND ADDRESS THOSE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES IF THEY RAISE UP TO OUR LEVEL HERE.

WITH THAT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. YOUR VOTES, PLEASE. [ROLL CALL] THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. (APPLAUSE) WITH THAT, COUNCIL WILL TAKE A-COUNCIL IS-IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE? COUNCIL WILL TAKE A 15 MINUTE BREAK AND WHEN WE BACK WE'LL BE ON THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 15.2 WHEN WE COME BACK AFTER OR BREAK. THANK YOU. [RECESS] >> OKAY WE CONVENE. >> ITEM 15.2. PUBLIC HEARIN – ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA AMENDING TITLE 21 OF THE SANTA ROSA CITY CODE, UPDATING CHAPTER 21-02, HOUSING ALLOCATION PLAN, TO MODIFY THE REQUIREMENTS AND INCENI ROSA.

[AUDIO CUT OUT] >> FOR HOUSING, ASHLEY CROCKER CITY ATORNEY. EVERYBODY CONTRIBUTED A GREAT DEAL TO THIS EFFORT IN THE COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND PREPARATION FOR THE DRAFT ORDINANCE. WE COULDN'T DO THIS WITHOUT OUR CONSULTANT TEAM, HEALTH HEATHER HINES I [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] KAREN WARNER ASSOCIATES, SARAH GRAM HAM BOB SPENCER. THE REST ARE HERE AND AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AS WE WALK THROUGH THE ORDINANCE. WHAT WE HAVE IS A DRAFT ORDINANCE AND TWO RESOLUTIONS THAT ADDRESS FEES BECAUSE THIS IS PART OF THE HUSING ACTION PLAN. THIS IS INTENEDED TO ADDRESS INCLUSIONARY HOUSING OR SPECIFICALLY THE PRODUCTION OF AFFORDABLE HUSING IN THE CITY AND LOOKING AT IT A UP COUPLE DIFFERENT WAYS. RECRRG THE HOUSING ORD INSTANCE I EVALUATING WHETHER THE CITY IS READY FOR A COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE. THE HOUSING ACTION PLAN IS MANY DIFFERENT INITIATIVES WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON, SEVERAL YOU SEE HERE ARE ACCOMPLISHED IN EFFECT AT THIS MOMENT. OTHERS WE ARE STILL WORKING ON, BUT IT IS NEVER ONE OF THESE INITIATIVES THAT IS GOING TO MAKE HOUSING HAPPEN FOR SANTA ROSA IS THE CLECKDS ENT GRATED COMPREHENSIVE EFFORT SO THIS IS NO DIFFERENT, THIS IS ANOTHER TOOL I THE TOOL BOX WE ARE WORKING ON.

( WE ARE GOING TO LOOK AT ANALYSIS SET UP FOR THE DRAFT ORDINANCE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. THE OPTIONS OF BUILDING UNITS ON SITE OR PAYING A FEE OR BOTH HYBRIDS. WHAT TYPE OF PROJECT TYPES AND SIZES WOULD BE RELEVANT TO EITHER OF THOSE OPTIONS. AREAS AD NEEDS TO ADDRESS INNOVATION AND THING WEEZ HAVEN'T THOUGHT OR HEARD OF. ALTERNATIVES AND HOW TO ADDRESS THAT. FLEXIBILITY IS WHAT WE HEARD A LOT THROUGH THIS PROCESS. IMPLEMENTATION AND THEN REVISITING THE IMPACT FEE ITSELF AND WHAT LEVELS TO SET THAT AT. SECOND PART THE PRESENTATION WILL BE COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE AD AGAIN HOW DOES THAT FIT WIN THE OVERALL HOUSING STRATEGY TO HOW TO EVALUATE THE RESPONSIBILITY OR OPPORTUNITY FOR NON RESIDENTIAL USES TO CONTRIBUTE TO HOUSING. SO, A LITTLE BACKGROUND BEFORE WE HEAD INTO THE DRAFT ORDINANCE ITSELF, THIS SLIDE IS ESSENTIALLY JUST SHOWING OUR PROGRESS TO DATE OF PRODUCTION OF HOUSING.

IN RECENT YEARS THERE IS A SCIG COULDN'T DCLINE IN HOUSING PRODUCTION AND SO THE HOUSING ACTION PLAN ALL THE INITIATIVES INCLUDING THE ONE TONIGHT NEEDS TO BE WRITTEN IN A WAY THAT IS INCENTIVIZEING HOUSING PRODUCTION AND WORK WITH A MARKET TO NOT DETOUR THE HOUSING. THIS IS HOW WE ARE DOING IN OUR CURRENT HOUSING CYCLE THIS ISN'T UNIQUE TO SANTA ROSA BUT AS YOU CAN SEE THE TO DIFFERENT COLORS HERE, THE REMAINING IS IN RED AND PERMITS ISSUE IN THE CURRENT HOUSING CYCLE WHICH IS 2015 AND 2023 YOU SEE THAT THERE IS A LOT MORE TO DO IN OUR TIME AND AGAIN, IT ISN'T UNIQUE TO SANTA ROSA BUT OUR TOOL BOX NEEDS TO BE A FIT.

THIS SLIDE IS IDENTIFYING WHAT WE MEAN BY AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN TERMS OF DIFFERENT INCOME GROUPS. AND THEN THIS SLIDE TALKS ABOUT THE TWO PRIMARY OPTION THAT ARE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IN THE ORDINANCE, ONE IS ON- SITE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING WHICH MEANS YOU PUT IT ON SITE. IT HAS PLUSES AND MINUS AND WE'LL GO OVER THAT BUT ESSENTIALLY IT IS WHERE WE GET TYPICALLY THE LOW INCOME UNITS ARE JUST THE NATURE OF HOW INCLUSIONARY HOUSING MANIFESTS IT SL THROUGH PARTNERSHIPS AND WHAT NOT.

WE LOOKED AT DIFFERENT WAYS HOW TO WRITE INCLUSIONARY SO YOU COULD GET OTHER TPES OF INCOME LEVELS IN INCLUSIONARY. AND THEN THE HOUSING IMPACT FEE IS ANOTHER PRIMARY OPTION AND WITH THAT, WE TEND TO WORK WITH IN PARTNERSHIPS AND LEVERAGES THE FEES WE COLLECT IS OFTEN USED TO FILL A GAP OR THE LAST DOLLAR IF YOU WILL TO COMPLETE A AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT. SO, WE HAVE I THE PAST SINCE 1992 HAVE VARYING DIFFERENT HOUSING POLICIES RELATED TO INCLUSIONARY HOUSING, AND IN THE MORE CYCLE OF THE ORDINANCE THE DEFAULT IS PAYING A FEE. WE WANTED TOPRINT HOW WE HAVE DONE SINCE 1992, HOW MUCH HOUSING HAVE WE PRODUCED BY FEE OR INCLUSIONARY AND AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, NOT A WHOLE LOT IN EITHER CATEGORY BUT WHAT YOU SEE IS THERE IS 1500 IN THE HOUSING IMPACT FEE AND ONE THING I FEEL WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE IS THOSE ARE NOT OUT-RIGHTED PROVIDED BY THE HOUSING IMPACT FEE.

THE IMPACT FEE GOES TOWARD MAKING THE 1500 UNITS ACCESSIBLE, FEASIBLE. SO, IT'S A PARTNERSHIP WITH OTHER MONIES AND LEVERAGING OTHER MONIES THAT MAKE THAT HAPPEN. SO, WITH THAT ANDY WILL GO OVER OUR DRAFT ORDINANCE AND OUTREACH COMMENTS W RECEIVED TO DATE THAT HELPED FORMULATE THAT DRAFT ORDINANCE AND ANDY. >> THANK YOU, CLARE. SO, I THINK YOU WERE RECALL WE HAD A STUDY SESSION IN AUGUST AND THAT REALLY CULMINATED A 6 MONTH PERIOD THAT WE WERE ACTIVELY REACHING OUT TO THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVIDERS COMMUNITY MEMBERS AS WELL AS PRESENTING TO THE HOUSING AUTHORITY AND PLANNING COMMISSION TO VET THE ORDINANCE CONCEPTS.

THIS PROGRAM-THAT OUTREACH PROGRAM RESULTED IN SOME KEY ISSUES OR COMMENTS THAT ARE PART OF THE ORDINANCE THAT WILL BE PRESENTED TO YOU. ONE IS THAT THE INCLUSIONARY AND FEE SHOULD BE BLENDED. THE ORDINANCE SHOULDN'T RELY EXCLUSE IVLY ON ONE TOOL OR THE OTHER AND THE FLEXIBILITY IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO PROMOTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO ADAPT OR MODIFY REQUIREMENTS TO FIT THE INDIVIDUAL PROJECT CIRCUMSTANCE AND THAT INNOCENTIVES ARE REALLY IMPORTANT TO PROMOTE HIGHER INTENSITY DEVELOPMENT PARTICULARLY DOWNTOWN WHERE OUR DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN IS NOW LOOKING AT WAYS OF GETTING MORE HOUSING IN PAR OF THE CITY WHERE WE CAN SUPPORT IT MOST.

SOME OF THE KEY POINTS THAT THE PUBLIC RAISED WAS-I'LL SAY ALSO AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS THE HOUSING IMPACT FEES ARE A CRITICAL TOOL FUNDING SOURCE TO SUPPORT PROJECTS THAT RELY ON LOW INCOME TAX CREDITS AND INCLUSIONARY PROJECTS GIBBON OPPORTUNITY INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH OR MARKET RATE DEVELOPERS AD AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS TO COLLABORATE TO BUILD A BLENDED PROJECT ECH TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE TYPE OF HOUSING THAT THEY KNOW HOW BEST TO BUILD AND ARE EFFICIENCY THERE. THE OTHER CONCEPT THAT WAS BROUGHT UP WAS THAT OUR INCLUSIONARY PERCENTAGE REQUIREMENT SHOULD B TIERED THE LEVEL OF AFFORDABILITY AND PERCENTAGE REALLY SHOULD WORK TOGETHER AND THAT WAY NOT BE SO BURDENSOME TO A DEVELOPER. WE LEARNED LAND DEDICATION IT SOUNDS GOOD HAS A LOT OF HIDDEN COST. WHEN WE WERE-IF WE WERE TO ACCEPT THE LAND DDICATION FOR A FUTURE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT SITE, THERE ARE A LOT OF COSTS THAT ARE NOT RECOGNIZED UP FRONT THAT OFTEN MAKE A FUTURE PROJECT CHALLENGING TO FINANCE. FINALLY, IN TERMS OF FLEXIBILITY THERE WAS DESIRE TO INCORPORATE SOME OF THE FLEXIBILITY THAT IS BUILT INTO THE DENSITY BONUS TO ALLOW FOR DISPERSION REQUIREMENT TO BE RELAXED PARTICULARLY WHEN WE HAVE A CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE A BLENDED PROJECT WHERE AFFORDABLE UNITS ARE MIXED WITH MARKET RATE UNITS IN A BILDING MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO FINANCE.

THE KEY PART OF THIS PROGRAM THAT WE WENT THROUGH IS BASED ON A NEXUS STUDIES AND A WHITE PAPER THAT SUMMARIZED THE FINDINGS, WHCH REALLY GAVE US A SNAPSHOT OR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT OUR DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT IS. THE RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEE NEXTS STUDY TOOK A LOOK AT THE TYPE OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WE WERE LIKELY TO SEE HERE. SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED, SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED, 201600 SQUARE FEET AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APARTMENT BUILDINGS AND BASED ON THE COST OF CONSTRUCTING THOSE UNITS IN THIS MARKET PLACE AND THE AVERAGE SALES PRICE, COST VERSUS WHAT THE UNITS COULD BE SOLD FOR OR RENTED FOR IT WAS ESTABLISHED THERE IS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FINANCIAL RETURN THE DEVELOPER NEEDS ON THE RIGHT HAND COLUMN THERE IS THE RETURN ON INVESTMENT COST OR YIELD THAT IS NEEDED FOR A DEVELOPER TO DECIDE THAT SANTA ROSA IS A PLACE WHERE IT IS FEASIBLE TO ACTUALLY BUILD SO WE ARE LOOKING AT 15 TO 18 PERCENT FOR PRODUCTS THAT ARE SOLD AND ABOUT 6 TO 7 PERCENT FOR PRODUCTS THAT ARE BEING RENTED.

AND, THE CHALLENGE WE HAVE WITH THIS ORDINANCE IS TO BALANCE THE DIFFERENT FACTORS OR VARIABLES THAT COME INTO PLAY IN INCLUSIONARY ORDINANCE. HOW MUCH INCLUSIONARY DO WE REQUIRE THE PERCENTAGE? WHAT TYPE OF AFFORDABILITY ARE WE MANDATED AND DOES IT APPLY TO ALL PROJECTS SIZES? ALL THOSE WORK TOGETHER TO MAKE THE ON-SITE INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENT WORK OR NOT. LIKEWISE, IT IS COUNTER BALANCED TO HOUSING IMPACT FEE. WE NEED TO REALLY LOOK CAREFULLY AT THE FEE THAT WE WERE REQUESTING IN LIEU OF BUILDING UNITS ON THE STE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE NOT DIPPING DEEPLY INTO THE DEVELOPER'S FINANCING TO EXCEED THOSE RATES OF RETURN WE SAW IN THE PREVIOUS SLIDE. THOSE FEES DONT JEOPARDIZE THE FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF A PROJECT. SO AGAIN, WE ARE LOOKING AT THE BALANCE THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO ACHIEVE AND IN THE ORDINANCE THAT I'LL PRESENT NOW, THOSE KEY ELEMENTS, WE'LL GO THROUGH THOSE IN DETAIL.

IT IS A GOOD TIME TO PAUSE IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THOSE PARTICULAR POINTS OR ISSUES. >> GREAT, COUNCIL ANY QUESTIONS? MRS. FLEMING. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH CARE AND ANDY. I WANT TO GO BACK TO SLIDE 11 AND GO OVER TH E-JUST CONFIRM THAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING THAT WE HAVE AN EXEMPTION FOR INCLUSIONARY UNITS OR INCLUSIONARY-DEVELOPMENTS THAT WOULDN'T PENCIL IF THEY WERE REQUIRED TO DO INCLUSIONARY HOUSING.

>> THIS IS ON THE DISPERSIAN EXEMPTION OR IMPLEMENTATION? WHICH ITEM ARE YOU REFERRING TO? YEAH, SO THE-THIS PROVISION MIRRORS WHAT THE DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE PROVIDES THAT IN CERTAIN CASES THE DEVELOPER WOULD HAVE TO SHOW THAT THE FINANCING THAT IS BEING PROPOSED FOR A PROJECT WOULD FOT BE FEASIBLE OR WOULD JEOPARDIZE THE PROJECT IF MIXED INCOME DEVELOPMENT OCCURS. >> FEASIBILITY SEEMS LIKE A FINANCIAL STANDARD IS JEOPARDY IS THAT ANOTHER STANDARD AND I'M WONDER-WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, IF IT ISN'T SOMETHING SOMEBODY WANTS TO DO, THEY CAN IS A SAY IT JEOPARDIZE THE PROJECT. HOW DO WE DETERMINE IF DOES JEOPARDIZE THE PROJECT OR IS THIS A FINANCIAL MATTER THEY HAVE TO PROVE? >> WE WOULD REQUIRE A LEVEL OF PROOF OR STANDARD OF EVIDENCE TO SHOW TAT THERE IS A BONIFYED RISK TO THE PROJECT FINANCING.

WE UNDERSTAND FROM COMMENTS WE RECEIVE THAT LOW INCOME TAX CREDIT FINANCING IS CHALLENGING IN A MIXED INCOME PROJECT. >> I ALWAYS HEAR IT IS CHALLENGING, BUT NOBODY EVER SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE SO I'M HOPING WE CAN GET TOWARD– >> ITHINK AS MENTIONED WE HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR IN TERMOFFS THE DIRECTION OF COUNCIL WE HAVE THE REALTY OF TAX CREDITS SO WE'LL WORK WITH THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT TO FIGURE WHAT THE PROJECTS ARE AND REALLY MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR THE FINANCING. YOU WILL HEAR LATER IN THE PRESENTATION THE FLEXIBILITY SO THIS DID CHANGE FROM THE PREVIOUS POLICY THAT ALLOWED PROJECTS TO HAVE UNITS AROUND, NOW WE ARE SAYING IT HAS TO BE MIXED UNLESS YOU SHOW THIS SO THIS IS EXTRA STEP WE ARE TRYING TO PUT IN PLACE.

>> THAT IS HELPFUL. THANK YOU. >> MRS. COMBS. >> THANK YOU, I'M LOOKING AT SLIDE 6. MOSTLY BECAUSE IT SURE LOOKS-MY SENSE OF OUR COMMUNITY IS WE REALLY NEED TO BE BUILDING EXEXTREMELY LOW VERY LOW LOW, MODERATE HOUSING, BUT WHEN I LOOK AT A CHART LIKE THIS, IT SURE LOOKS TO ME LIKE ABOVE MODERATE IS DESPERATELY NEEDED IN OUR COMMUNITY BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE CHART IS SHOWN USING UNIT NUMBERS INSTEAD OF PERCENTAGE OF GOAL. SO, I MEAN A QUICK CALCULATION SHOWS FOR MODERATE TO EXTREMLY LW WE ARE FALLING SHORT 80 PERCENT IN THE EXTREMELY LOW AND VERY LOW, WE ARE FALLING SHORT 90 PERCENT, WHEREAS WE ARE AT ABOUT 60 PERCENT ON THE ABOVE MODERATE, SO IT CONCERNS ME TO SHOW THIS WITHOUT SHOWING ALSO THE PERCENT OF HOW MUCH WE ARE ATTAINING.

THAT'S PERHAPS MORE OF A COMMENT THEN A QUESTION, BUT I THINK THAT IF I SAW THIS ANDS LESS INFORMED I WOULD WONDER WHY WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT VERY LOW INCOME AND I THINK THAT STORY IS NECESSARY AND HOPING THAT YOU WILL USE PERCENTAGES IN THE FUTURE. >> WE ARE CERTAINLY GOING LOOK AT DFFERENT WAYS TO ILLUSTRATE THE INFORMATION. I THINK THAT IS A GOOD POINT. RENA IS TARGETING SPECIFIC NUMBERS. IT IS A QUANTITATIVE EXERCISE BUT A GREAT POINT. WE SHOULD LOOK AT DIFFERENT WAYS TO ILLUSTRATE THE INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC. >> THANK YOU. WE DEFINITELY NEED TO MEET THE HOUSING GOALS AND IT IS INTERESTING TO SEE THE FUTURE HOW OUR NUMBERS LOOK BECAUSE I REALLY DONT THINK THAT WE ARE MATCHING OUR HOUSING NUMBERS WITH OUR INCOMES IN THE COMMUNITY.

BUT, I'M HOPING WE CAN GET THERE AT SOME OTHER MEETING AND NOT THIS ONE, JUST I THINK MORE THEN ANYTHING THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? PLEASE CONTINUE. >> THANK YOU. SO, THE NEXT SERIES OF SLIDES WE'LL GO THROUGH THE KY COMPONENTS OF THE ORDINANCE UPDATE AND JUST LOOK AT WHAT THE EXISTING ORDINANCE REQUIRES AND WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED HERE. THE FIRST SLIDE LOOKS AT INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENT. CURRENTLY THE DEVELOPER HAS DISCRETION TO CHOOSE TO BUILD UNITS ON THE SITE OR PAY THE FEE. WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS A BASICALLY CONTINUE THAT SAME POLICY, BUT TO INSERT A PROJECT SIZE THRESHOLD THAT SAYS, FOR SMALLER PROJECTS AND THAT SHOULD READ 1 T 6 UNITS, I APOLOGIZE, THE DEVELOPER PAYS AN IMPACT FEE AND FOR PROJECTS THAT ARE LARGER 7 AND ABOVE, THEY HAVE A CHOICE TO EITHER BUILD THE UNIT ON SITE OR PAY THE FEE.

WHAT THIS DOES IS ENTERS INTO MUCH EARLIER IN THE PROCESS A CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT WORKS BEST FOR A ALSO LIKE TO NOTE HERE THAT THE DEVELOPER WHO IS BUILDING A SMALL PROJECT CAN THROUGH THE INNOVATIVE COMPLIANCE APPROACH SAY HEY, LOOK IT WORKS BETTER FOR ME TO BUILD A UNIT ON SITE BECAUSE I MAY CHOOSE TO COUPLE THE ADVANTAGE OF A DENSITY BONUS, BECAUSE WE SAY 1-6 SHOULD BE A FEE SHALL BE PAID IT DOESN'T PRECLUDE THE OPTION FOR A DEVELOPER TO COME IN WITH UNITS.

THAT IS A CRITICAL THEME ABOUT FLEXIBILITY THAT WE INSERT HERE. >> ARE WE-FORGIVE ME YOU WILL PROBABLY ABOUT TO COME TO THIS, I WOULD HOPE THAT WE'RE LEANING TOWARD ENCOURAGEING BUILDING ON SITE AND I'M TRYING TO WHEN I SEE SOMEBODY HAS A CHOICE, MY FEELING ABOUT THIS LINE HAS TO DO WITH HOW WE ARE ENCOURAGING FOLKS TO BUILD ON SITE, SO I HOPE THAT YOU'LL CLARIFY THAT WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINTCH >> WHAT WE LIKE TO DO IS PRESENT THE WHOLE OF THE ORDINANCE THAT WAY AS YOU REMEMBER WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THE STUDY SESSION THESE ARE ITERATIVE THINGS SO IT IS COMPREHENSIVENESS THAT SHOWS HOW THIS IS PUT TOGETHER. WE'LL WALK THROUGH THE DRAFT ORDINANCE AND THEN THAT IS GREAT TIME TO PAUSE FOR QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ELEMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE AND HOW THEY FIT TOGETHER. >> SO, THIS SLIDE REALLY TALKS ABOUT DOES THE INCLUSIONARY ORDINANCE APPLY TO ALL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AS IT DOES NOW. OR, ARE THERE BUILT IN EXCLUSIONS OR EXCEPTIONS BASED ON SIZE AND WHAT WE ARE SAYING HERE IS THE ORDINANCE WILL APPLY TO ALL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

THERE WILL CONTINUE TO BE EXEMPTIONS THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE EXEMPTIONS FOR AD U, OWNER BUILDER UNITS, COMMUNITY CARE FACILITIES, THE TYPES OF USES WHICH ARE PROVIDING BY DEFINITION A AFFORDABLE SUPPORTIVE TYPE HOUSING THAT WE NEED. SO, ONE OF THE KEY CHANGES THAT WE ARE PROPOSING IN TERMS OF INCLUSIONARY RIREMENTD REQUIREMENT IS A TIERED APPROACH AS BROUGHT TO OR ATTENTION DURING THE REVIEW PROCESS. CURRENTLY WE HAVE A FLAT 15 PERCENT LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLD REQUIREMENT. IF A DEVELOPER ELECTS TO BUILD ON SITE THE PROPOSAL IS TO HAVE A CITYWIDE TIERED INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENT THAT FOR FOR SALE 10 PERCENT MODERATE AND THAT AT 128AMI DOESN'T SO OVER-STRESS A PROJECT THAT IT DOESN'T PRECLUDE THE DEVELOPER FROM SERIOUS THINKING ABOUT BUILDING THE UNITS ON SITE AND AS THE CHART WE LOOKED AT NOW JUST PREVIOUSLY, THAT WOULD DEFINITELY HELP A NEEDED HOUSING CATEGORY.

FOR THE FOR-RENT CATEGORY, WE ARE TIERING LOW AND VERY LOW AT 8 PERCENT AND 5 PERCENT RESPECTIVELY. THIS AGAIN HELPS TO LESSON THE FINANCIAL BURDEN OF PROVIDING ON-SITE DEVELOPMENT AND WE THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE KEY CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE TO HELP INCENTIVIZE ON-SITE DEVELOPMENT TO YOUR POINT. ANOTHER THING WE HEARD AND RESPONDING TO HERE IS TO PROVIDE ENCOURAGEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT DOWNTOWN, SO FOR DOWNTOWN MLTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE PROJECTS ONLY, WE WOULD REDUCE TE INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENT TO 5 PERCENT FOR MDERATE FOR-SALE PRODUCTS SO THOSE COULD BE A CONDOMINIUMS IN A MULTI-TYPE BUILDING OR RENT, 4 AND 3 PERCENT FOR LOW AND VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.

THIS WE THINK MIGHT REALLY BRING A DEVELOPER DOWNTOWN AND UNLOCK POTENTIALLY THAT FINANCIAL PUZZLE TO MAKE A PROJECT GO FORWARD SUCCESSFULLY. THERE IS A RECOMMENDED MODIFICATION HERE THAT WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO PESENT TO YOU AND THAT IS WHEN A PROJECT DES COME FORWARD DOWNTOWN AT THESE LOWER PERCENTAGES, WE WANT TO ADD A PROVISION TO THE INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENT OF THE ORDINANCE THAT SAYS ESSENTIALLY, IF YOU COME FORWARD AND COMPLY WTH THIS AFFORDABILITY, YOU WILL EARN AN INNOCENTIVE OR CONCESSION BECAUSE WITHOUT THAT PROVISION, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO G TO TE DENSITY BONUS REGULATION AND EXPECT THAT VERY LOW AND LOW INCOME PROJECTS EVEN MODERATE INCOME PROJECTS DOWNTOWN WOULD EARN A INCLUSIONARY OR EXCUSE ME, CONCESSION OR INSENTSIVE SO THAT IS A PROVISION THAT AT THE END WHEN YOU TAKE ACTION ON THE ORDINANCE WE WILL READ INTO THE RECORD A RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE AD YOU HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF YOU IN BOLD.

>> BEFORE YOU MOVE ON, JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, BECAUSE WE WERE TRYING TO EXPLAIN ALSO EXISTING VERSUS WHAT IS PROPOSED. CURRENTLY IF A APPLICANT COMPLIES WITH THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE THE CODE CURRENTLY SAYS YOU ARE GRANTED A CONCESSION, SO THAT IS A BUILT IN INCENTIVE AND THE AMENDMENT BEFORE YOU TONIGHT WE WANT YOU TO-OUR RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO CONTINUE THAT INCENTIVE SO IF YOU COMPLY AND I WOULD SAY THE RECOMMENDATION ISN'T JUST FOR DOWNTOWN BUT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH OUR CURRENT POLICY BECAUSE IT IS AN ATTRACTIVE-WE ARE TRYING TO BUILD INCENTIVES NOT REQUIRE THEM IT TO DO INCLUSIONARY BUT HAVE THEM WANT TO DO INCLUSIONARY BECAUSE OF A WHOLE PACKAGE OF OTHER INCENTIVES SO THAT ONE INCENTIVE WHEN YOU GET A CONCESSION THAT IS KEY SO THAT IS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT.

>> THANK YOU, CLARE. I DO APOLOGIZE, WNT TO NOTE ALSO THAT THERE WAS A PROVISION OF OUR ORDINANCE THAT DEFINED PROJECT SIZE THAT WE NEED TO ADD TO THIS SAME SECTION AND WE'LL ALSO ADD THAT TO THE RECORD TO CLARIFY THAT PROJECTS WITH 6 OR LESS UNITS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE IMPACT FEE AND THAT TE LARGER UNITS-LARGER PROJECTS HAVE THE CHOICE DOING INCLUSIONARY UNITS OR PAY THE FEE. THE NEXT SERIES OF SLIDES DEAL WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. WE ARE REALLY NOT CHANGING THE EXISTING REQUIREMENTS DRAMATICALLY THOUGH WE ARE CLARIFYING THAT IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT THAT THE INCLUSIONARY UNITS ON THE SITE ON THE OUTSIDE APPEAR THE SAME AS THE REMAINDER OF THE PROJECT, BUT RECOGNIZE THAT ON THE INSIDE OF THE UNITS WE ARE WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BEDROOM MIX AND SIZE ARE SIMILAR TO THE REMAINDER OF THE MARKET RATE PROJECTS OR UNITS ON THE SITE.

THAT'S REALLY A CONTINUATION OF POLICY. AND THEN HERE IN TERMS OF FLEXIBILITY ON HOW TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDINANCE FOR THE INCLUSIONARY ASPECT, CURRENTLY WE HAVE MECHANISMS THAT ALLOW OFF-SITE CONSTRUCTION OF AFFORDABLE UNITS WITHIN THE SAME QUADRANT OF THE CITY. WE TALKED ABOUT LAND DEDICATION AND WE HAVE A INNOVATIVE ALTERNATIVE. ALL 3 WOULD CONTINUE WITH THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BUT WE WOULD ADD SOMETHING NEW, WE WOULD ALLOW A DEVELOPER TO CONVERT EXISTING UNITS ON A SITE TO AFFORDABLE, AND THEN ALSO ALLOW CREDIT FOR OR RECOGNITION OF PRESERVING AT RISK AFFORDABLE UNITS.

THIS WOULD BE HELPFUL TO PROMOTE PROTECTION OF EXISTING HOUSING STOCK WITHIN THE CITY. FOR SOMETHING NEW TO THIS CITY BUT NOT NEW ELSEWHERE IN THE STATE, WE WOULD ESTABLISH A CREDIT FOR AFFORDABLE UNITS BUILT ON THE SITE IN EXCESS OF THE INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENT, WHICH A DEVELOPER FROM ANOTHER PROJECT IN THE FUTURE MIGHT BE ABLE TO BENEFIT FROM AND WE CAN TALK MORE ABOUT THE DETAILS OF THAT IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.

SO, THOSE ELEMENTS WE HOPE WILL HELP INCENTIVIZE ON-SITE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE UNITS. FINALLY, WE HAVE IN TERMS OF THE ORDINANCE PROVISIONS WE ARE RECOMMENDING EXTENDING THE TERM OF THE AFFORDABILITY ON INCLUSIONARY TO 55 YEARS THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH DENSITY BONUS AND HOUSING RELATED REGULATION AND HERE I WANT TO SHOW THE LIST OF EXEMPTIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO PROJECTS-DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOUSING THAT ALREADY PROVIDE NEEDED HOUSING FOR SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS IN THE CITY AS WELL AS EXTENED THAT EXEMPTION TO OWNER BUILDERS AND NOT APPLY IT TO ADDITIONS AND REPLACEMENT UNITS. SO, THAT WRAPS UP THE ORDINANCE MECHANICS. THE NEXT SET OF SLIDES TALK ABOUT THE HOUSING IMPACT FEE, WHICH EVALUATED THE AMOUNT OF FEE THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO CHARGE FOR THESE DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES, AND NOT JEOPARDIZE A FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF PROJECTS. I'LL TELL YOU NOW THE NEXT SIDE WILL HELP EXPLAIN THIS TABLE VISUALLY, BUT I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT HERE A COUPLE THINGS. OUR FOR-SALE FEE IS BASED ON 2.5 PERCENT OF THE SALE PRICE. WE PROPOSE TO LEAVE THAT MEASURE AND APPLY A FEE BASED ON SQUARE FOOTAGE.

WE CONTINUE TO RECOGNIZE IN OUR FEE STRUCTURE GOING FORWARD THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SMALL UNITS AND LARGER UNITS. SMALL BEING DEFINED AS 909 SQUARE FEET OR LESS, LARGE IS 910 SQUARE FEET AND ABOVE. WE WOULD HAVE ESSENTIALLY A FEE PROGRAM ESTABLISHED THAT WOULD FOR CITYWIDE HOUSING PROJECTS BE STAGED OVER 5 YEARS IN 3 STEPS TO BRING UP THE FEE TO AN AMOUNT THAT COULD BE SUPPORTED BY DEVELOPMENT AND NOT EXCEED THE DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY THRESHOLD.

IN ADDITION ON THE BOTTOM LINE, YOU SEE WE HAVE ALSO A DISCOUNTED FEE, REDUCED FEE, THAT WILL HELP WE BELIEVE INCENTIVIZE MULTIFAMILY TYPE DEVELOPMENT BOTH FOR SALE AND RENT DOWNTOWN, WHICH IS WHAT IS BEING TARGETED FOR THAT AREA, AND THE NEXT CHART WILL HOPEFULLY ILLUSTRATE THE FIRST-THIS IS THE FIRST EXISTING FEE STRUCTURE WHICH IS BASED ON AT THE LEFT SIDE THE SMALLER UNITS IS A DOLLAR A SQUARE FOOT AND BEYOND 910 SQUARE FEET THAT PER SQUARE FOOT RATE INCREASES AS YOU SEE THERE ON THE GRAPH AND IT CAPS OUT AT I THINK $2700-EXCUSE ME, $2750 PER UNIT$10 SQUARE FEET THAT PER SQUARE FOOT RATE INCREASES AS YOU SEE THERE ON THE GRAPH AND IT CAPS OUT AT I THINK $2700-EXCUSE ME, $2750 PER UNIT.

$12.750. THE MAXIMUM FEE DETERMINED TO BE SUPPORTIVE AND NOT DRIVE A PROJECT BELOW FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY IS $10 A SQUARE FOOT AND THAT IS A PLOTTED ACROSS THE UNIT SIZES. WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS A STAGED FEE PROGRAM WHICH WOULD START OUT AT IN THE FIRST YEAR'S ONE AND TWO FOR THE SMALL UNITS WOULD BE $2 A SQUARE FOOT AND THEN FOR THE LARGER UNIT WOULD BE $5 A SQUARE FOOT. THAT EXPLAINS THE JUMP IN THE CURVE. IN YEARS 3 TO 5, THE FEE WOULD INCREASE TO $5 FOR SMALL UNIT PER SQUARE FOOT AND $8 PER SQUARE FOOT AND THEN AFTER YEAR 5 IT JUMPS FROM-IT GOES TO $5 A SQUARE FOOT FOR THE SALL UNITS AND THEN TO $10 FOR THE LARGER UNITS. SO, YOU CAN SEE AFTER 5 YEARS THIS TRANSITION BRINGS US UP TO A BASIS WHICH A FEE PROGRAM WHICH COULD HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO OUR FUNDS TO HELP SUPPORT AND FUND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS HERE IN THE CITY. BUT IT IS DONE IN A WAY STEP WISE SO THAT CURRENT PROJECTS ARE NOT ADVERSELY IMPACTED AND THERE IS ENOUGH TIME FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPER TOOZ FACTOR IN THESE INCREASES INTO THEIR PRO FORMA WITHOUT DISRUPTING NECESSARY PROJECTS IN THE NEAR TERM.

THE NEXT SLIDE SHOWS AGAIN THE BASE FEE THAT APPLIES IN THIS CASE FOR DOWNTOWN, AND THIS IS THE MAXIMUM FE. THE CURVES HERE ARE IN REVERSE ORDER AND APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. THE FIRST YEAR, THE FEE WOULD BE-WOULD REMAIN AT A DOLLAR PER SQUARE FOOT DOWNTOWN FOR THE SMALL UNITS AND IT WOULD GO UP TO $3 A SQUARE FEET FOR LARGER UNITS AND YEAR 3 AND THERE AFTER DOWNTOWN THE SMALL UNITS GO UP TO $2 PER SQUARE FOOT AND LARGER UNIT REMAIN AT $3. YOU CAN SEE THAT IT IS A MUCH LOWER FEE LEVEL ASSESSMENT DOWNTOWN AGAIN IN KEEPING WITH THE IDEA THAT WE WANT TO INCENTIVIZE DEVELOPER TOZ COME DOWNTOWN AND BUILD HOUSING. FINALLY, THIS SLIDE JUST KIND OF PROVIDES A SNAPSHOT OF FEES CHARGED OR ASSESSED IN THE AREA. WHAT I LIKE TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO IS THE SANTA ROSA PROPOSED FEE. THAT IS FOR EACH ITEM TYPE IN THE TOP. THE FEE WOULD INCREASE TO $10 A SQUARE FOOT AFTER 5 YEARS ON THE CITYWIDE BASIS SO YOU CAN SEE A $10 PER SQUARE FOOT FEE IS RIGHT IN THE MIX OF THE RANGE OF FEES THAT ARE CHARGED LOCALLY.

WE ARE NOT A OUTLIER. THAT CONCLUDES THE FEE COMPONENT OF THE INCLUSIONARY ORDINANCE. THERE IS RESOLUTION FOR YOU TO ACT ON TO ADOPT THIS AND THEN CAN TAKE QUESTION NOW ON THIS PARTICULAR MATTER BEFORE WE COMMENCE WITH THE COMMERCIA LINKAGE FEE. >> THANKS. MR. TIBBETTS. >> I'LL TRY TO BE AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE. THANK YOU FOR THIS REPORT. ONE O THE QUESTIONS I HAD IS YOU TALKED EARLIER IN THE SLIDES AND FORGIVE ME I'M BRAIN DEAD AT THIS POINT BUT CONVERT EXISTING UITS THAT ARE-I TINK IT HAD TO DO WITH EXTENDING THE DED RESTRICTION.

I'M SURE THIS ISN'T WHAT IT WAS POPOSING BUT IS THERE A-WAS IT SLIDE 19? DO YOU MIND GOING TO SLIDE 19? YES. THIS WAS IT. I KNOW THIS ISN'T WHAT IT IS ASKING FOR, BUT IS THERE A SITUATION WHERE IN THIS ORDINANCE LET'S SAY YOU ARE A DEVELOPER OWNER AND BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE TIMES WHEN I TALK TO DEVELOPER THE FEAR ABOUT DOING INCLUSIONARY ON SITE. THE UNITS JUST-THEY GOT A MORTGAGE AND IT IS ONE OF THE COST EXPENSES ON THE BOOKS THAT BECOMES DIFFICULT TO DEAL WITH IF YOU GOT CERTAIN UNITS RESTRICTED AND DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO INCREASE THOSE. WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO ADD TO THIS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR LET'S SAY YOU GOT ANOTHER PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA, IT IS PAID OFF, THERE IS NO MORTGAGE ON IT ANYMORE T DEDICATE THOSE UNITS TO KIND OF MEET THE REQUIREMENT? AM I MAKING ANY SENSE OR TALKING JIBEROUS? >> I THINK YOU ARE SPEAKING OF A OFFSITE IDENTIFYING A EXISTING OFF SITE PROJECT.

THE PROBLEM IS WE ARE NT GETTING NEW UNITS SO THAT WOULD BE A POLICY CONSIDERATION. IF YOU ARE DEVELOPING NEW UNITS OFF SITE THEN THAT DOES INCREASE THE OVERALL HOUSING PRODUCTION AS WELL AS PROVIDE AFFORDABLE UNITS. >> I UNDERSTAND WE WANT T DO BOTH, WE WANT TO PRODUCE HOUSING A NEW UNIT TO MARKET AND PRODUCE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT WOULD THAT EXAMPLE OF CONVERTING EXISTING MARKET RATE TO DEED RESTRICTED UNIT FULFILL THE OFF SITE REQUIREMENT? >> SO, IN THAT SCENARIO WE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO USE THE INNOVATION POLICY IN THE ORDINANCE, AND THE TEST THERE IS WOULD THAT APPROACH FURTHER OUR HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS AND POLICIES. >> MEGAN BASENJURE, HOUSING COMMUNITY SERVICE MANAGER. I THINK THE ANSWER IS YES, WE WOULD USE OUR AGREEMENTS TO RESTRICT THE DEDICATED OFF SITE UNIT FOR 55 YEARS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE.

>> NOBODY TALKSED TO ME ABOUT THAT BUT I THOUGHT IS THAT A WAY TO TROUBLE SHOOT ISSUES WITH DEVELOPERS WHO MAY NOT HAVE THE SOPHISTICATION TO DO MIXED INCOME HOUSING. DEED RESTRICTION IS A COMPLAINT WE FACE A LOT AND ALSO JUST TRYING TO GET THESE NEW UNITS TO MARKET BUT I DO KNOW THAT SOME OF THE FLKS WE WORK WITH IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OWN EXISTING PROPERTIES FREE AND CLEAR ELSE WHERE THAT IT MIGHT BE LESS OF A BOTTOM LINE IMPACT BUT HELPS SO I WANT TO THROW THAT OUT THERE. I HOPE THAT WE HAVE THOSE CONVERSATION EITHER AS A COUNCIL OR STAFF TO MAKE THAT OPTION AVAILABLE. CAN WE-THE OTHER THING I WANT T ASK IS WE CAN LOCK IN THE FEE AT PLAN SUBMITTAL BECAUSE IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING WE HAVE PROJECTS IN THE PIPELINE NOW AND I'M RECENTLY GETTING EXPERIENCE IN THIS FIELD ON A PERSONAL LEVEL AND I DO UNDERSTAND THAT AT A CERTAIN POINT COST TEND TO INCREASE AND USUALLY HAPPENS THE REAL COST INCURS AFTER YU HAVE DONE PLAN SUBMITTAL.

IS IT POSSIBLE TO WALK THOSE IN AT THAT POINT VERSING ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS? >> I THINK THAT TIMING ISSUE IS A PART OF OUR RESOLUTION. I'M TAKING A LOOK NOW WHEN THE FEES COME DUE. >> THEY ARE DUE WHEN YOU PULL THE PERMIT. I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING WE ARE LOOKING AT FOR A NUMBER OF FEES WHEN THEY ARE DUE. ONE THING THAT DOES LOCK IN WE ARE LOOKING AT MODELING IS THE BUILDING CODE CYCLE SO QUH YOU SUBMIT THE PERMIT THAT IS WHEN YOU LOCK I AT THAT'S CYCLE SO LOOK TO SEE WHAT IT TAKES TO CHANGE THE FEES SO EVERYTHING LOCKS IN AT THAT SAME POINT. THAT IS SOMETHING WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT AND TRYING TO FIGURE HOW TO ADDRESS THAT. >> OKAY.

ALSO, I WAS CURIOUS TO WHAT ARE THE CURRENT RATES FOR CAPITAL FACILTY, WATER SEWER AND PARK? ONE SLIDE I DIDN'T SEE IS THE OVERALL PICTURE BY MAKING THESE INCREASES WHAT ARE WE DOING TO THE OVERALL FEE LEVEL IN THE CITY AND WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? >> SO, THOSE FEES WERE FACTORED INTO THE TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION IN THE NEXUS STUDY TO LOOK AT HOW MUCH REMAINS CAPACITY IN A PROJECT TO CARRY THE HOUSIN IMPACT FEE SO THOSE WERE BUILT IN. I CAN TRY TO POINT YOU TO THAT IN THE PACKET, BUT THAT WAS A PART OF THE ANALYSIS. >> OKAY. I GUESS CAN YOU? YOU SAID YOU WOULD POINT TO IT. >> WE'LL PULL THAT UP FOR YOU. I THINK THE QUESTION IS WHAT IMPACT DOES THIS HAVE ON THE FEE IMPACT BECAUSE WE DID ADJUST THE FEE SO A HEADS UP ON DOWNTOWN AND OTHERS IT MIGHT BE DIFFERENT BUT WE CAN LOOK CITYWIDE AND GIVE THE NUMBER BECAUSE WE HAVE IT DOWNTOWN INCENTIVE PROGRAM WHICH CHANGES THE FEES.

>> THE REASON WHAT I WANTED TO GET TO AND I'LL TRY TO SPARE THE EFFORT, IS BECAUSE ARE THERE OPPORTUNITIES TO REDUCE RATES IN OTHER AREAS? ONE CLEAR EXAMPLE IS THE PARKS IMPACT FEE THAT WE HAVE. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THAT FEE IS ON NEW PARK DEVELOPMENT, YET A COUPLE MEETINGS AGO THE COUNCIL HA A CONVERSATION UES NEW PARK REVENUE TO MAINTAIN THE PARKS WE HAVE, WHICH SIGNALED TO ME SITTING UP HERE THAT WE MAY NOT BE HAVE A APPETITE TO START RAPIDLY DEVELOPING MORE PARKS SO WOULD THAT BE A AREA WE COULD LOOK AT REINING IN A BIT AS WE TRY TO ATTRACT NEW DEVELOPMENT? >> I DO WANT TO NOTE THIS EVENING DISCUSSION IS ON HOUSING IMPACT FEESMENT WE ARE NOT HERE TO TALK TO OTHER DEVELOPMENT FEES. >> I THINK WHAT I'LL ADD IS THAT WHEN WE DID THE IMPACT FEES PARK FEES CFF FEES WE TALKED ABOUT THAT THIS INCLUSIONARY FEE WAS COMING AND THAT WE TRIED TO HOLD THOSE FEES TO MAKE SURE WE HAD CAPACITY TO HAVE TIS CONVERSATION WE ARE HAVING TONIGHT.

BUT, I THINK WE HEAR YOUR POINT IN TERMS OF LOOKING AT THE OVERALL IMPACT. IF THE FEES GO INTO EFFECT WE WILL LOOK AT THE IMPACT TO SEE WHAT WE NEED TO DO MOVING FORWARD. >> THAT WAS WHAT WAS DRIVING AT DAVID. APPRECIATE IT. >> MRS. COMBS; >> THANK YOU MAYOR AND THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD. I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. SORRY I DID NOT GET TO HAVE THE SEPARATED MEETING WITH YOU TO CLARIFY QUESTIONS THAT I MIGHT HAVE, SO YOU ARE UNFORTUNATELY DOING IT LATE TONIGHT SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WANT TO ASK FOLLOW-UP TO MY COLLEAGUE'S QUESTION. I UNDERSTAND YOU LOCK IN COSTS AT TIME OF PERMIT APPLICATION OR WHEN THE PERMIT IS PULLED. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY ARE DUE AT THAT TIME, SO I DIDN'T KNOW IF WE WERE LOOKING AT ANY FLEXIBILITY IN DUE DATE VERSUS DATE WHEN YOU ARE LOCKED IN ON THE AMOUNT.

>> THAT IS CORRECT. WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT NUMBERS-TWO DIFFERENT DATES. THE DATE WHEN THE FEE IS LOCKED IN WHICH IS WHEN YOU PULL YOUR PERMIT. WE HAVE A DEFERRAL PROGRAM WHICH DEFERS THE FEES TO THE END OF THE PROJECT. >> [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] >> THAT IS A FEE DEFERRAL OPEN TO ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO APPLY TO THAT. >> OKAY. MY QUESTION STILL ON I THINK THIS SLIDE 19, IT LOOKS AS IF WE ARE CREATING A MARKET ALLOWING THE TRANSFER OF INCLUSIONARY UNITS FROM OE ENTITY TO ANOTHER. WE ARE DO THIS PERSON BUILDS A LOT OF INCLUSIONARY UNITS AND DOES A MARKET THING SORT OF SELLING TO SOMEONE WHO NEDS UNITS WHEN THEY HAVE EXTRA ONES. I'M JUST ASKING IF SURE LOOKS LIKE WE ARE ESTABLISHING A MARKET. DID WE TALK ABOUT IT THAT WAY? I HAVE NOT LOOKED IN DETAIL AT WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATION OF CREATING THIS KIND OF MARKET. I'M ASSUMING IT IS A GOOD THING OR YOU WOULDN'T HAVE BROUGHT IT FORWARD BUT CAN YOU CLARIFY THE IMPLICATION OF CREATING THIS TYPE OF MARKET? >> WELL, WHAT I CAN CLARIFY IS HOW W CAME UP WITH THE OPTION.

WHAT WE HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR FROM ALL STAKEHOLDER GROUPS IS TO ADD SOME ELEMENT OF FLEXIBILITY AND ROOM FOR INOVATION BECAUSE PAST POLICIES ON INCLUSIONARY IMPACT FEES HAVE BEEN YOU MUST DO THIS AND DO IT IN THIS EXACT WAY AND THAT HAS NOT INCENTIVIZEED NOR HAS IT BEEN EASY TO WRK WITH, BECAUSE THE FINANCING OF HOUSING I CONSTANTLY CHANGING, THE MARKETS ARE CHANGESING SO WE HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR TO HAVE SOME ELEMENT IN THE ORDINANCE THAT HAS A A PROCESS OF VETTING PROCESS AND SO SOME OF THESE WE HAVE NEVER DONE AND SO WE WILL BE LEARNING TOGETHER WHAT THE IMPLICATION ARE SPECIFICALLY, BUT WHAT THIS ORDINANCE DOES THE WAY IT IS WRITSON IT ALLOWS THE OPTION TO BE CONSIDERED THAT MAYBE IS NEW TO US.

THAT'S WHERE THAT COMES FROM. >> LET ME CLARIFY THAT I THINK CREATING A MARKET IS A GOOD IDEA. THE INDIVIDUAL WHO BUILT EXTRA UNITS CAN BENEFIT FROM HAVING DONE SO. I'M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING WHETHER OR NOT THIS REALLY MEANS THE KIND OF THING THAT HAPPENED IN ROANOKE PARK WHERE A CALCULATION IN A AREA AND DECIDED THEY HAD ENOUGH AFFORDABLE UNITS AND SOMEBODY THAT CAME IN WITH A PROJECT DIDN'T REQUIRE AFFORDABLE UNITS BECAUSE THEY SAID THE REGION HAD A ENOUGH. THE INDIVIDUALS WHO BUILT ALL THESE AFFORDABLE UNITS DIDN'T BENEFIT IN THE WAY THE INDIVIDUAL CAME IN LATER BENEFITED FROM THEIR WORK AND THAT DIDN'T FEEL FAIR TO ME TO THE PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT GROUP, SO I'M CONCERNED ABOUT UNDERSTANDING WHETHER WE WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE IS MAKING A MARKET OR WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE IS SAYING WE WILL DRAW A ARBITRARY BOUNDARY AND IF THERE IS ENOUGH UNIT WE WILL NOT REQUIRE THE NEXT ONE.

AM I CLEAR IN WHAT MY QUESTION IS? >> I WOULD ASK KAREN WARNER TO MAYBE DESCRIBE HOW THIS TYPE OF A PROGRAM HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED ELSE WHERE IN THE STATE BUT IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING WE ARE NOT DRAW AGBOUNDARY OR REGIONS WITHIN THE CITY AND ESTABLISHING AFFORDABLE NUMBER OR QUOTA. >> THANK YOU. >> RIGHT, ANDY IS CORRECT, IT'S NOT REDUCING THE NET NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS. BOTH NOVATO AND ROANOKE PARK HAVE INCLUSIONARY CREDIT PROGRAM WHERE THE INITIAL DONOR PROJECT IS FIRST AND THEN THE RECEIVING PROJECT IS SECOND. >> I UNDERSTAND THE SEQUENCE, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHO BENEFITS FROM THE INITIAL DONOR PROJECT COMING IN BECAUSE IT WASN'T CLEAR TO ME THAT IN ROANOKE PARK THE INITIAL DONOR PROJECT BENEFITED FROM PROVIDING EXTRA UNITS. IT SEEMED AS IF THE ONLY BENEFIT FROM THE SECOND GROUP AND SAID THERE ARE ALREADY UNITS SO WE DON'T HAVE TO DO ANY.

SO, I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND-I DON'T LIKE THAT SORT OF IMBALANCE SYSTEM. >> I THINK THE WAY THIS WOULD WORK AND THINK THIS IS HELPFUL IF A DEVELOPER PUTS THESE IN PLACE THE DEVELOPER WOULD OWN THOSE CREDITS. >> OWNS THE CREDITS. >> WE DON'T DIVVY THEM OUT. I IS THEIR CREDIT >> IT IS A INDEPENDENT MARKET FROM THE GOVERNMENT? >> CORRECT, YES. BUT WE NEED TO- >> [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] TO SAY HOW MUCH I LIKE THAT.

>> I THINK YOU ARE MAKING A GOOD POINT, IT IS UP TO US MAKING SURE THAT ISN'T ABUSED. WE ARE TRYING TO ADD FLEXIBILITY BUT IT WILL TAKE SOME OVERSIGHT FROM US TO MAKE SURE THIS IS DONE RIGHT. >> I APPRECIATE THE FLEXIBILITY, I APPRECIATE THE ROLE GOVERNMENT HAS AS OVERSIGHT AND I LIKE THE MARKET IDEA. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS A FAIR MARKET. THANKS. >> MRS. FLEMING. >> SO, I THINK MY QUESTIONS AROUND THAT–HAVE BEEN SOMEWHAT MY CONCERNS HAVE BEEN [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] I WONDERING, WOULD THE UNIT IN THAT SCENARIO BE TRANSFERRABLE OR WOULD THEY BE REQUIRED TO STAY WITH THAT-IF I'M A DEVELOPER AND BUILD EXTRAS CAN I TRANSFER THEM TO ANOTHER DEVELOPER TO HELP THEM WITH THEIR DEVELOPMENT POJECT TO MEET THEIR INCLUSIONARY GOALS.

>> THAT WULD BE THE INTENT CHT THE UNITS THEMSELVES WOULD NOT LEAVE, THEY CONTINUE TO BE ALLOCATED UNDER A 55 YEAR CONTRACT, BUT THE CREDIT FOR THOSE UNITS COULD BE LIBERATED FROM THE SITE AND APLIED TO A SEPARATE SITE. >> THAT IS WHY I'M ASKING ARE THE CREDITS TRANSFERRABLE FROMANTTY TO ANOTHER ENTITY? >> SO, ONE TIME TRANSFER I ASSUME WOULD BE ALLOWED, BUT IT WOULD LAND AND STAY AT ITS FINAL DESTINATION. >> IS IT LIKE MITIGATION? >> I THINK BECAUSE THIS IS A NEW PROGRAM SOMETHING WE HAVEN'T DONE BEFORE WHAT WE WANT TO DO BEFORE WE START TO ISSUE THESE CREDITS OUT IS TO CREATE SOME PROGRAM FRAMEWORK TO THIS AND BE VERY CLEAR BECAUSE THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS WE NEED TO WORK THROUGH. THIS POLICY JUST ALLOWING THESE TYPE OF THINGS TO HAPPEN BUT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE ARE ON THE SAME PAGE HOW WE IMPLEMENT IT AND HAVE A DOCUMENTED PROGRAM.

YOU BRING UP A GOOD POINT ABOUT [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] STAY WITHIN THE SAME DWELLER AND AREA OF TOWN. >> AND HAS STAFF TAKEN TIME TO THINK ABOUT HOW THE INNOCENTIVE TO GET EARN CREDIT COULD POTENTIALLY INCENTIVIZE SOMEONE TO BUILD EXTRA IN ORDER TO SUBVURT THE INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE WHAT WE ARE GOING AFTER HERE. >> RIGHT. I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING WE HAVE TO LOOK AT. THESE ARE OPTIONS WE CAME UP WITH DURING THE STUDY SESSION TO TRY TO PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY BUT THE INTENT IS TO TRY TO REALLY HIT ON THE INNOVATIVE ALTERNATIVES SO COMES WITH A ALTERNATIVE WE EVAL WAITD AND RUN THROUGH THE PACES.

>> DO YOU HAVE A METRIX HOW YOU WOULD ASSESS A UNIT THA IS AT RISK AFFORDABLE UNIT AT RSK? >> GENERALLY WHAT WE CONSIDER TO BE A AT RISK UNIT IS ONE THAT HAS A AFFORDABILITY AGREEMENT EXPIRING SO WE SEE THE LOSS OF RENT RESTRICTIONS ON THE HORIZON. SO WE WOULD LOOK TO EXTEND THE RESTRICTIONS FOR AN ADDITIONAL PERIOD OF TIME. >> WOULD THAT TIME PERIOD- >> 55 YEARS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE. >> THANK YOU. I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION AND THEN I'LL SEE THE FLOOR.

BY GOING UP TO SLIDE 21 BY GOING TO FIXED FEE STRUCTURE AWAY FROM PERCENTAGE OF SALE PRICE, DO W HAVE ANY PLAN FOR WHAT WE WILL DO AFTER THE MATURATION OF THE STAGED INCREASE SCHEDULE BECAUSE AT A CERTAIN POINT IT WILL BE LIKE IN 50 OR A HUNDRED YEARS AFTER SOME TIME THAT DOLLAR VALUE WILL RELATIVE TO THE MARKET NOT BE THE SAME PURCHASING POWER WHICH A PERCENTAGE WOULD BE. >> THIS FEE STAGED PROGRAM WOULD HOLD THROUGH 5 YEARS AND THEN FOR THE ENTIRE CITY AND THEN AFTER THAT POINT IT WOULD ADJUST BASED ON A REGIONAL INDEX COST OF LIVING INDEX, SO ON A ANNUALIZED BSIS AND WE'LL REPORT BACK TO COUNCIL ON A ANNUAL BASIS TO GIVE YOU A PROGRESS REPORT ON HOW WE ARE DOING AND THAT WOULD BE THE TIME FOR US TO TALK ABOUT AMENDING ADOPTING RESOLUTIONS FOR FEE INCREASES. >> THERE IS A BUILT IN- >> YEAH. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> JUST AS A QUICK FOLLOW-UP, SOME OF THE OTHER INITIATIVES HAVE COME OUT OF THE E HOUSING ACTION PLAN ARE SIMILAR.

WE ARE TRYING NEW THINGS SO A LOT HAVE A UPDATE IN 5 YEARS SO WE WILL BE LOOKING AT ALL THESE THINGS AGAIN AND SEEING HOW HAVE THEY ATTRACTED DEVELOPMENT, ARE THEY INCENTIVES, HOW ARE THEY WORKING THAT OPPORTUNITY WILL BE PROVIDED. >> SO, QUESTION I HAVE IS RELATED TO THE FEE REVIEW. & WHAT IS THE REASONABLE EXPECTATION BECAUSE I TALKED SOME DEVELOPERS WHO SAID I OWNED THE PROPERTY 15 YEARS, AND NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN IT IS GRADUATED UP FOR 5 YEARS FROM A COUNCIL EXPECTATION LEVEL WHEN WOULD WE GET DATA THAT COULD BE APPLIED TO FUTURE YEARS I A REALISTIC SENSE? >> WELL, ON A ANNUAL BASIS WE'LL TALK ABOUT HOW MANY PROJECTS PAID THE FEE OR BUILT THE UNITS AND WE'LL AFTER 5 YEARS HAVE A BTTER TREND LINE TO UNDERSTAND IF THE FEE IS SUPPRESSING OR NOT HINDERING DEVELOPMENT HERE IN THE CITY.

I THINK THE METRIX IS WILL DEPEND ON ARE WE GETTING BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED AND UNITS BUILT. >> I GUESS MY QUESTION IS 5 YEARS HOW DID YOU COME UP WITH 5 YEARS? SOME OF THE EXPERIENCE I HAD HERE IN DEVELOPER TALK THIS HAS BEEN DECADES IN THE DISCUSSION, HOW DID WE COME UP WITH 5. IS THAT TOO LONG O NOT LONG ENOUGH SO SOME SAY IF YOU MISSED 5 YEARS YOU MISSED THE BOAT. HOW DID WE COME UP WITH 5 YEARS AS A SOLUTION? >> AS CLARE MENTIONED WE HAVE OTHER METRIX THAT USE 5 YEARS AS A BENCHMARK BUT WE COME TO THE COUNCIL ON A ANNUAL BASIS AND REPORT TO YOU ON THE PROGRESS TOWARDS FULFILLING THE GOAL OF THIS PROGRAM AND OTHERS SO WE'LL HAVE CHECK-INS ANNUALLY TO BE ABLE TO GET A SENSE ARE WE GETTING RSULTS OR NOT AND THEN A THE 5 YEAR-THERE IS NOTHING MAGIC THAT HOLDS BACK THE COUNCIL FROM MAKING A CHANGE IF THERE IS SOMETHING SUBSTANTIAL THAT OCCURS IN OUR ECONOMY BUT 5 YEARS IS A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME NOT TOO FAR OUT.

>> JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, THE TWO DIFFERENT TIMES WHEN WE TALK ABOUT 5 YEARS 5 YEARS TO REVIEW TE FEE POLICY IS A BEST PRACTICE TO LOOK AT FEE STRUCTURE EVERY 5 YEARS. THE OTHER 5 YEARS IS IMPLEMENTATION PHASE. WE DID A 5YEAR PROGRAM TO ADJUST THE BUILDING CYCLE SO TYPICALLY A TWO YEAR PROCESS SO STEPPED IN TWO YEARS TO GET TO THE 5 YEAR MARK SO I THINK ALONG THOSE LINES WE WOULD WANT TO EVALUATE THOSE AND FEES ARE DONE BY RESOLUTION, SO THOSE FEES COULD BE ADJUSTED IF WE NEED TO, SO IT GIVES THE COUNCIL FLEXIBILITY IF WE SEE A CHANGE IN THE MARKET. >> FOR ME EARLIER THIS MORNING HAVING DISCUSSION WITH A DEVELOPER WHO SAYS WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS IT WORKING BECAUSE WE DONT SEE CRANES IN DOWNTOWN BUILDING HOUSING AND MADE ME THINK WHAT IS TE RIGHT TIME FRAME BECAUSE ALL THE EFFORTS WE ARE DOING BUT GUESS WE ARE STILL IN THE VERY EARLY STAGES OF SEEING THE IMPACT OF THE DECISIONS WE HAVE BEEN MAKING.

>> YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. IT IS ABOUT A YEAR OF POLICY WORK AND STILL TRYING TO FINISH UP THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND THEN THESE FEES INCLUSIONARY POLICY SO I THINK WE ARE GETTING CLOSE TO HAVING THAT COMPLETE PACKAGE OF ELEMENTS HOPEFULLY WE SEE MOVEMENT AND JUST FROM OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH DEVELOPERS WE KNOW THINGS ARE STARTING TO MOVE AND POLICY WORK DONE HAVE MADE MOVEMENT, SO WE WITH WITH YOU. WE NEED A CRANE IN THE AIR QUICK AND HOPING THERE ARE DEVELOPERS BEHIND US LISTENING TO THIS AND COME THROUGH WITH THATISM >> COULD YOU GO TO SLIDE 23, THE FEE COMPARISON? I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT IN ONE SENSE THESE-IF YOU KEEP GOING THE ONES WITH THE CITIES, THE COMPARISONS. THERE YOU GO. IN ONE SENSE IT IS SMOUT OUT OF CONTEXT BECAUSE THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IS A SET OF FEES MR.

TIBBETTS FIRST BROUGHT UP SO FOR ME IT IS HELPFUL IF SAW INCLUSIONARY HOUSING AND OVERALL FEES TO COMPARE. SECONDLY, ARE ANY OF THESE JURISDICTIONS ROCK STARS IN INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEE COMPARISON WORLD? WHAT IS GETTING IT DONE? ARE ANY MODEL CITIES WE WANT TO MODEL AFTER BECAUSE THAT IS OUT OF CONTEXT. WE REQUIRE 30 PERCENT BUT IF NOTHING IS BUILT WHAT IS THE POINT? >> I HAD THE SAME QUESTION WHEN WE EMBARKED ON THE PROCESS OF EVALUATING THE CITIES. I WANTED TO KNOW WHO HAS IT RIGHT. NO ONE HAS IT RIGHT BECAUSE WE ARE ALL TRYING DIFFERENT THINGS. >> CALIFORNIA? >> EVEN THIS SAMPLING OF CITIES BAY AREA CITIES, THEY ARE TRYING EVERYTHING AND THEY ARE NEW AT IT SO NO ONE HAS BEEN DOING IT FOR A WHILE WITH PROVEN RESULTS.

WE HAVE TO FIT FOR SANTA ROSA SO THIS STUDY DOESN'T HAVE THAT ANSWER FOR US, SO WE ARE ALL EMBARKING ON THE SAME JOURNEY IN DIFFERENT WAYS. >> I WILL JUST SAY WITH WE SPEAK AT DIFFERENT EVENTS AROUND THE STATE WE HEAR THAT SANTA ROSA IS TRYING THINGS THAT A LOT OF CITIES ARE NOT SO I THINK A LOT OF CITIES ARE WATCHING SANTA ROSA NOW TO SEE WHAT WILL WORK.

SIT AEDS IN THE REGION ARE WATCHING WATT WE ARE DOING BUT WE DONT KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN AND WHY WE ARE TRYING A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT THINGS. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS PART OF THE PRESENTATION. PLEASE CONTINUE FOR THE COMMERCIAL LINK AGE FEE. >> HELLO. SO, I'M GOING TO DO A OVERVIEW OF SOME THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT AT THE LAST STUDY SESSION AND GET TO WHAT OUR RECOMMENDATIONS ARE. SO, JUST AS A QUICK OVERVIEW, THE PURPOSE OF THIS FEE IS TO MITIGATE THE DEMAND FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING FROM COMMERCIAL MARKET RATE DEVELOPMENT. ESTABLISHING THE IMPACT FEE WE COMMISSIONED A NEXUS STUDY THAT ANALYZED THE MOST COMMON RECENT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT TYPES IN THE CITY AND EVALUATED WHAT THE IMPACT FEE THRESHOLD IS AS WELL AS WHAT COULD BE ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE TO DEVELOPERS.

IN SHORT, THE STUDY QUANTIFYS AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS ASSOCIATED WITH NEW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE PROTOTYPES AND ALSO CONSIDERS OTHER FEES AND POLICY THAT EFFECT THE FEASIBILITY OF A PROPOSED PROJECT. SO, LOOK AT THE MOST COMMON RECENT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY, THE PROTOTYPES WE USE FOR THIS STUDY WERE HOTEL RETAIL RESTAURANTS SERVICES AND BUSINESS PARKS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND THIS STUDY QUANTIFIED THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEED ESTIMATING THE NUMBER OF WORKERS THAT WOULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH THESE COMMERCIAL SPACES. WHAT THE ESTIMATED WORKER INCOME IS AS WELL AS THE AFFORDABILITY GAP FOR NEW LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS ASSOCIATED AGAIN WITH THOSE NEW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS. SO, YOU MAY REMEMBER THIS SLIDE FROM THE STUDY SESSION. THE CHART SHOW THE PRO FORMA ANALYSIS THAT WAS TESTED ON THE FINANCIAL IMPACT ON THE MAXIMUM REDUCED FEE SCENARIO. THE BLACK LINE IS THE YIELD NEEDED TO MAKE THE PROTOTYPE FEASIBLE. AND THE RED BAR SHOW THE TOTAL STACK OF FEES BY SCENARIO AND ANY RED ABOVE THE BLACK LINE SHOWS THE FINANCIAL CAPACITY. SO, WHERE WE LANDED IS THE $3 PER SQUARE FOOT OPTION WHICH IS SHOWN ON THE RIGHT OF EACH OF THESE THREE GRAPHS AND I HAVE ANOTHER VERSION OF THAT JUST IN TXT, WHICH IS AGAIN BY THE PROTOTYPES.

YOU CAN SEE THE VAST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MAXIMUM JUSTIFIED FEE AND THE FEE OPTION THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING. SO, ALSO WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE IN LINE WITH COMPARATIVE CITIES AND WE ARE. $3 PER SQUARE FOOT IS WELL WITHIN THE RANGE OF OUR COMPETITOR CITIES AND REGIONAL CITIES. SO NOT OUTSIDE OF THE NORM OF WHAT DEVELOPERS ARE SEEING. SO, THE QUESTIONS FROM THE STUDY SESSION WE WERE CHARGED WITH ADDRESSING ARE MOSTLY SHOULD WE AOPT COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE.

WE HAVE NOT HAVE ONE. IS THE PROPOSED FEE REASONABLE AND FEASIBLE AND WHAT OPTIONS SHOULD WE CONSIDER RLATED TO THIS FEE? WE RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS A BENEFIT TO OUR HOUSING STRATEGY AND WE DO ALSO RECOGNIZE AS I JUST SHOWED YOU THAT IT COMPARES FAVORABLY WITH OUR COMPETITIVE CITIES AND WITHIN THE REGION. SO, WE ARE HERE TONIGHT BECAUSE WE DO INDEED RECOMMEND A COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE AT $3 PER SQUARE FOOT. WE DID HOWEVER IDENTIFY SOME EXEMPTIONS WE WOULD ALSO RECOMMENDING. MOST ARE FAIRLY STANDARD BUT WE DID INCLUDE SOME THAT ARE MORE SPECIFIC TO SANTA ROSA AND THE COUNCIL GOALS. THOSE ARE TO FOR EXAMPLE ADDRESS OUR DESIRE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PARTICULARLY IN THE DOWNTOWN. THE ORDINANCE EXEMPTS MIXED USE PROJECTS CONSISTING OF TWO STORIES OF MORE OF RESIDENTIAL OVER COMMERCIAL. THAT SAID, THE COMMERCIAL PART WOULD BE EXEMPT, THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION MAY BE SUBJECT TO THE INCLUSIONARY POLICY. WE ALSO EXEMPT GOVERNMENT AND OTHER PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS.

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE CHILDCARE FACILITIES AND OTHER COMMUNITY BENEFITING DEVELOPMENTS SUCH AS HOMELESS SHELTERS, COMMUNITY CARE FACILITIES, S R O UNITS THAT ARE SPECIFICALLY TO BE USED BY PEOPLE WITH LOWER TO MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS AND ALSO FAIRLY STANDARD EXEMPT CHUNCHS. THE FEE IS BASED ON THE RATE IN EFFECT THE TIME OF BUILDING-THE TIME A BUILDING APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED. AND WOULD BE DUE AT OR BEFORE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE AND THEN IF A DEVELOPER BY CHANCE PROVIDES AFFORDABLE HOUSING THROUGH SOME OTHER MEANS THAT DEVELOPER COULD APPLY TO THE CITY FOR A CREDIT OR EXEMPTION TO THE FEE.

AND THEN LASTLY, REGARDING THE FEE STARTING AT THE FIRST YEAR AFTER ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION, THE FEE WOULD BE ADJUSTED ANNUALLY EACH JULY 1 BASED ON CPIU. I WANT T BE CLEAR BEFORE I STATE THE RECOMMENDATIONS, THAT THE ORDINANCE WILL GO INTO EFFECT 30 DAYS AFTER THE SECOND READING, WHICH IS SCHEDULED TO BE ON OCTOBER 22, AND ASSUMING THE SCHEDULE HLDS THAT MEANS THE EXPECTED EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD BE NOVEMBER 22 AND THEN THE FEES WILL GO INTO EFFECT DECEMBER 1 THIS YEAR WHICH IS 60 DAYS AFTER THE FIRST READING OF THE RESOLUTION WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE DOING TONIGHT. BEFORE I CONCLUDE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE ON COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE I WANT TO READ THE RECOMMENDED ACTION, WHICH IS TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AS AMENDED A-MINDING THE ITISY CODE CHAPTER 21-02 HOUSING ALLOCATION PLAN, TO AMEND THE REQUIREMENTS AND INCENTIVES FOR PROVIDING ON-SITE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING UNITS WITH MODIFICATIONS TO SECTION 21-020.060 TO ADD SECTION F AS STATED AND BY RESOLUTION UPDATE THE EXISTING HOUSING IMPACT FEE STRUCTURE AND THEN LASTLY BY RESOLUTION ESTABLISH A NEW COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE.

I'LL TAKE QUESTIONS. >> GREAT. MR. VICE MAYOR. >> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. TWO QUICK QUESTIONS, ONE IS THE SAME MY COLLEAGUE HAD ON THE FIRST PORTION OF THE PRESENTATION. HOW OFTEN WILL IT BE BACK FOR COUNCIL TO LOOK AND SEE WHETHER THIS IS WORK{WHAT METRICATES WE USE IT MAKE THAT DETERMINATION? >> IT IS BUILT IN THE RESOLUTION WE CAN COME BACK AND REVIEW IT, SO-EVERY YEAR.

>> I THINK AS PART OF OUR GENERAL PLAN UPDATE HOUSING WE HAVE BEEN DOING WE'LL BRING BACK THIS INCLUSIONARY POLICY. THE METRIX TERMS OF THE REVENUE GENERATED IS PRESENTED AT THAT POINT. >> GREAT. AND, WE JUST HEARD A LOT ABOUT CPIW, WHY IS THIS USING CPIU INSTEAD? >> CPI U IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INDEX THAT IS USED FOR ALL OF OUR IMPACT FEES. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? NO. OKAY. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING SO I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

FIRST SPEAKER IS DUANE DEWITTE FALLOWED BY ROB COLLINS. DUANE. OKAY. ROB COLLINS FOLLOWED BY KURT NICHOLS. >> IT IS ON. I'M ROD COLLINS WITH EVERGREEN DEVELOPMENT. WE ARE THE MASTER DEVELOPER FOR THE PROJECT THAT SANTA ROSA. WE RECEIVED ENTITLEMENTS FOR 252 UNITS IN JULY TO GO THERE. AS A MASTER DEVELOPER WE OURSELVES ARE NOT PLANNING ON BUILDING THE MULTIFAMILY PROJECT, WE HAVE BEEN PARTNERING WITH A COUPLE DIFFERENT DEVELOPERS AND AT THE RECOMMENDATION OF BILL ROSE OF THE CITY WE FIRST APPROACHED WOLF TO DO THE DEVELOPMENT THERE BECAUSE THEY COMPLETED ANNANDALE SUCCESSFULLY. WHEN WOLF STARTED THE PROJECT IT WAS IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2018 AND WHEN THEY DID THEIR INITIAL BUDGETS THE DEAL SEEMED TO ENS PAL. ABOUT A YEAR LATER 15 MONTHS LATER WHEN THEY REUPPED THE BUDGET CONSTRUCTION COST HAD GONE UP 20 TO 30 PERCENT AND I NOTICED THAT IN THE NEXUS STUDY YOU HAD UP THERE, THE DATA FOR CONSTRUCTION COSTS CAME IN THE FIRST HALF OF 2018, AND I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS RIGHT NOW HAVE GONE UP AT LEAST 20 PERCENT MAYBE 30 PERCENT AND RIGHT NOW WOLF BACKED OUT OF THE PROJECT BECAUSE IT WAS A HIT TO THEM OF ABOUT 7 TO $8 MILLION TO THEIR BUDGET.

THEY BASICALLY SAID WE CANT AFFORD TO GIVE YOU ANYTHING FOR THE LAND TO CONTINUE. WE THEN WENT TO ANOTHER DEVELOPER WHO LOOKED AT THE DEAL, THEY PASSED COULDN'T GET IT FINANCED. WE ARE NOW WORK WG A THIRD DEVELOPER TO TRY TO GET THIS DONE AT THIS POINT I DONT KNOW TODAY IF THAT PROJECT WILL GET DONE AND GUESSING THAT 252 UNITS IS PROBABLY THE BIGGEST PROJECT YOU HAVE NOW IN THE CITY, ONE OF THE BIGGER PROJECTS AND I DON'T KNOW IT CAN GET BUILT AND WHERE APPRECIATE DAVID WORKING WITH US AS FAR AS PHASING IN THE FEES, BUT THE PROBLEM RIGHT NOW IS THAT IN 2 YEARS TIME THOSE FEES WILL START GOING UP, SO IF WE CAN'T GET THE PROJECT BUILT NOW BECAUSE OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS WE LET THOSE SETTLE IN 2 YEARS TIME THE HIGHER FEES KICK IN, WILL THAT CANCEL OUT THE COST SAVINGS FROM THE REDUCED CONSTRUCTION COST? I APPRECIATE COUNCILMAN TIBBETTS TALKING ABOUT LOCKING IN THE FEES EARLIER TO THE EXTENT WE CAN LOCK THOSE IN THE SOONER THE BETTER BECAUSE IN THE DEVELOPMENT GAME WHEN WE CLOSE ESCROW ON LAND WE HAV TO ALL OUR FEES FIXED.

USUALLY THAT HAPPENED WHEN YOU HAVE THE INTITLEMENTS. WE ARE DOING A PROJECT IN MORGAN HILL AD LOCKED IN THE FEES IN 2016 SO I ENCOURAGE YOU TO LOOK AT THE TOTAL FEES YOU ARE CHARGING NOW AS WELL AS HOW TO LOCK IN THE FEES FOR DEVELOPER SOONER IN THE PROCESS THEN LATER AND LIKE I SAY TODAY, I'M HOPING WE CAN GET THAT BUILT. >> THANK YOU. KURT NICHOLS FALLOWED BY BERT BANGBURG.

>> MR. MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBERS, THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY. I WANT TO FOCUS MY COMMENTS ON THE HOUSING IMPACT FEE CHANGES. AS YOU HEARD THIS WILL EFFECT PROJECTS IN THE PIPELINE AND PHASE IN PLOVISIONS ADDED WOULD HAVE KILLED AT LEAST ONE PROJEBLTH YOU JUST HEARD ABOUT. WE ORIGINALLY STARTED WORKING OEN THAT PROJECT IN EARLY 218 AND GOT ENTITLEMENTS HERE IN JULY AND EXPERIENCED SIGNIFICANT CONSTRUCTION COST INCREASES THAT NOW THERE IS A THIRD DEVELOPER STEPPING INTO LOOK AT THAT. THEY ASKED US TO TABULATE THE IMPACT FEES SO THE CURRENT FEES NOW IN THE PROJECT TOTAL $8 MILLION.

THE CURRENT HOUSING IMPACT FEE OF $8 MILLION REPRESENT $575 THOUSAND, THE FLAT $10 SQUARE FOOT WOULD HAVE ADDED $1.6 MILLION TO TOTAL FEES TO 9.6 AND CLEARLY KILLED THE PROJECT SO I WANT TO THANK DAVID GUHIN FOR REVISING THE PROPOSED INCREASE TO ADDRESS PROJECT ALREADY IN THE PIPELINE. WE SAY WE NEED MORE HOUSING BUT NEED TO BE COGNISANT STHOF CHALLENGES FACED BY THOSE BUILDING HOUSING AND THE NEED IS GREATER FOR CERTAINTY TO FEES COST AND PROCESS TIMING. NOT ALL UNCERTAINTIES COULD BE ADDRESSED BUT SOME CAN. I LIKE TO CONSIDER MOVING UP THE TIME THE FEES ARE LOCKED IN EARLIER IN THE PROCESS AS BROUGHT UP BY A COUPLE OF COUNCIL MEMBERS.

IN THE CASE OF THIS EXAMPLE PROJECT THAT IS IN POCESS FOR OVER A YEAR AND A HALF AND THE DECISION TO PROCEED IS BASED ON PUBLISHED FEE SCHEDULE AT THE TIME WITHOUT A KNOWLEDGE OF SIGNIFICANT FEE INCREASE. THE CURRENT BUILDING CODE PROVISIONS ARE LOCKED IN WHICH PLANS ARE SUBMITTED FOR BUILDING PERMIT REVU, HOWEVER IMPACT FEES ARE NOT LOCKED UNTIL TO THEPD OF THE PROCESS. THIS IS TYPICALLY TWO YEARS WHEN THE PROCESS STARTED WITH THE ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION. IT WOULD BE A BIG HELP IN REGARD TO CERTAINLY TO LOCK IN IMPACT FEES WHEN THE BUILDING PERMIT PLANS ARE SUBMITTED AND BETTER TO LOCK IN WHEN THE ENTITLEMENT PLANS ARE SUBMITTED THAT IS WHEN DECISIONS ARE MADE WHETHER TO GO OR NOT.

I URGE YOU TO CONSIDER THE PACKAGE OF IMPACT FEES WEN MAKING DECISIONS BECAUSE THEY VARY CITY TO CITY AND OVERALL FEES MIGHT BE DIFFERENT. I ASK YOU LOOK AT THE WHOLE IMPACT FEE PACKAGE PAY ATTENTION TO THE AMOUNT OF EACH OF THE FEES. DO THEY REFLECT OUR COMMUNITY CURRENT PRIORITIES OR ADJUSTED TO RAISE WITH CORRESPONDING REDUCTION TO BETTER REFLECT PRIORITIES AND THE REALTY OF IT TOTAL FEES HAVE A IMPACT ON WHEN HOUSING IS BUILT. >> THANKS. BERT BANGSBURG. >> GOOD EVENING. I'M BERT BANGSBURG 18089 BELLA VISTA WAY. THE PROJECT MANAGER FOR CAR TAUS VILLAGE. WE ARE GEING THROUGH THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROCESS NOW. WE ARE WORKING ON OUR ENTITLEMENTS, AND I'M HERE THIS EVENING TO SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATION THAT YOU HEARD FROM CLARE HEARTMAN AND THAT IS THAT THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO RETAIN THE MANDATORY INNOCENTIVES IN THE ORDINANCE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF MORE THEN 70 UNITS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING WHEN IT TAKES PLACE ON THE SAME SITE T.

IS REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WHEN WE COME FORWARD AND WE PUT THESE LOW TO MODERATE INCOME HOMES ON A PARTICULAR SITE THAT WE GET THAT MANDATORY EXCEPTION. WE NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSE IN DOWNTOWN AND BELIEVE MORE MANDATORY YOU MORE YOU PUT FORTH YOU WILL BENEFIT GETTING MORE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY. DISCRETIONARY IF ILOUT A APPLICATION AND PAY THE FEE AND HOPE YOU GET THE EXSEMGZ BUT WITH YOU MAKE THEM MANDATORY LIKE THE ONE IN THE HAT AT THE MOMENT THEN THAT GIVES YOU THE BELIEF THE FAITH THAT YOU GOT IT AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO APPLY FOR IT. CAR TAUS VILLAGE HAS DEPENDED UPON THESE EXCEPTIONS AND IN THE HAT IN PARTICULAR AND SUPPORT THE STAFF'S POSITION ON THE AMENDMENT. >> THANK YOU. GEORGE [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] FALLOWED BY LARRY FLORIN. >> THANK YOU. I WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT I SUPPORT AND WHAT I DON'T. I DON'T SPORT THE COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE. IT STRIKES ME AS ARBITRARY. IT SAYS HERE IF ENACTED THE FEE IS APPLIED IN THE SAME AS CITY EXISTING FEES. EVERYTHING I HAVE SEEN HOW THE WAY THE CITY HANDLES THE FEES WE DO NOT NEED TO HIT UP DEVELOPERS FOR MORE MONEY.

STOP LOADING UP WITH FEES AND THINK HOW WE USE THE MONEY WE GOT. THE NEXT THING I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS SEE IF WE CAN AGREE ON WHAT THE DEFINITION OF A BRIBE IS. BECAUSE WHAT I THINK THE DEFINITION OF A BRIBE IS IS SOMEONE PAYS YOU MONEY SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAW, RIGHT? OR THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO SOMETHING THAT EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE TO DO. TEN I WANT TO READ WHAT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING THING SAYS. THIS SECTION CONTINUES TO PROVIDE REGULATORY OR PROCEDURAL FINANCIAL INCENTIVES IN EXCHANGE FOR ON-SITE INCLUSIONARY UNITS. SO, YOU CAN USE MONEY TO NOT HAVE TO BUILD AFFORDABLE UNITS, RIGHT? I DON'T-IF THAT IS NOT-IT IS WAY TOO CLOSE TO WHAT I UNDERSTAND-IT IS YUZING MONEY TO GET AROUND DOING SOMETHING THAT BENEFITS THE GENERAL PUBLIC AFFORDABLE HOUSING ISN'T PROFITABLE AND IT IS NOT GOING TO BE NO MATTER WHAT WE DO.

THAT IS WHY THERE IS A CITY, THINGS PROFITABLE THAT PEOPLE NEED THAT IS WHAT A GOVERNMENT DOES SO DO IT. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU KID YOURSELVES SOMETIMES. THE OTHER THING I WANT TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST IS THIS ENVISION. WHAT ARE WE INNOVATING BECAUSE I SEE WE ARE INNOVATING WAYS TO NOT HAVE TO BUILD AFFORDABLE UNITS. I MEAN, WHAT WE ARE DOING IS TURNING A PLACE WHERE SOMEBODY COULD LIVE INTO THIS LIKE A COMMODITY THAT COULD BE TRADED AND MOVED AROUND. IF WE GOT A 55 YEAR LIMITATION WHERE A THINK COULD BE BUILT AND IT COULD BE MOVALED TO A DIFFERENT PLACE , IS THERE A SYSTEM OOF TRACKING THAT OR IS IT JUST SOMETHING RICH PEOPLE TRADE? EVEN IF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS WERE MOVED AROND, WE ARE STILL NOT BUILDING NEW UNITS AND BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT I SEE RIGHT HERE WE HAVE A SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH BUILDING UITS.

IT GOES DOWN IT DROPS IN 2008 AND NEVER PICKS UP SO FINDING WAYS TO NOT BUILD UNITS AND MOVE AROUND FICTIONAL THINGS-I SEE A LOTF OPROBLEMS WITH CHANGING THINGS INTO ANY KIND OF ECONOMIC ENTITY THAT COULD BE TRADED INSTEAD OF BUILDING A PLACE FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE. THIS ISN'T MONEY, THIS IS HOME. IT HAS TO BE A TIME AND PLACE WHERE SOMEONE CAN USE IT SO FOCUS ON THAT AND STOP LOADING PEOPLE WITH FEES AND GET THE HOUSING BUILT. NOTE TO THE DOWNTOWN THING WHERE YOU REDUCED-NO TO THAT TOO. >> LARRY FLORIN. >> LARRY FLORIN WITH BURBANK HOUSING. I CAME UP TO ADDRESS COUNCIL MEMBER FLEMING'S CONCERN BUT SHE ISN'T THERE BUT I'LL SPEAK ANYWAY. I DO FIRST WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE ECFOS THAT ARE UCTAING ABOUT THE PROLIFERATION OF FEES, IT IS REAL. WHEN WE UNDERWRITE A PROJECT WE ASSUME IN SANTA ROSA THE FEES ARE $50 THOUSAND A UNIT ABOUT A 10TH OF COST. AS THE BENEFICIARY OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FEE MOST CASES WE HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT FEES HAVE GROWN A LOT AND EFFECTING OUR ABILITY TO BUILD.

I ALSO WANT TO CLARIFY WITH THE STAFF THAT WE ASSUME HUNDRED PERCENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECKTDS WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM AFFORDABLE HOUSING FEE AND DIDN'T SEE THAT IN THE ORDINANCE OR MAYBE I CAN CLARIFY THAT GOING FORWARD. THE ISSUE I WANT TO TALK ABOUT HAD TO DO OFF SITE VERSUS INCLUSIONARY HOUSING. WE HAVE THE SAME GOALS THAT SURE COUNCIL MEMBER FLEMING DOES WHICH IS WE DON'T WANT TO SEGREGATE POOR PEOPLE, WE LIKE TO MIX INCOME.

THE REALTY OF THE FINANCING WORLD AND TAX CREDIT WORLD IS YOU HAVE TO HAVE A TANGIBLE ASSET WHICH MEANS YOU NEED A NUMBER OF UNITS TOGETHER IN A BUILDING IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO SELL IT TAX CREDITS. I THINK WHAT THE DIFFERENTIATION HRE MIGHT BE IN THE ORDINANCE YOU ARE LOOKING AT , WE WON'T SELL IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO DO TAX ED CRT PROJECT UNDER 30 UNITS SO ANYTHING UNDER HAS TO FIGURE A FINANCING SUPPORT SYSTEM AND REQUIRING THE MARKET DEVELOPING TO PAY FOR THAT IS REASONABLE AND THAT IS A GOAL TO BUILD THE INCLUSIONARY UNITS.

AS SOON AS YOU TALK ABOUT TAX CREDIT UNITS YOU CAN'T BUILD INCLUSHZARY TAX CREDIT UNITS WITHIN A MIXED INCOME PROJECT. YOU CAN'T SELL THE CREDITS AND PUT IT TOGETHER. IS THE FACT OF LIFE. THE OTHER PART I WANT T SPEAK TO WAS THE LACK OF ABLE TO USE HOUSING AUTHORITY OR OTHER PUBLIC FUNDS IF YOU ARE DOING A OFF SITE PROJECT.

WE CAN'T ACCESS TAX CREDITS BECAUSE THEY ARE COMPETITIVE WITHOUT LOCAL SUBSIDIES SO ISN'T A QUESTION OF HELPING TO UNDER WRITE KEY CAN'T GET THE CREDITS BECAUSE OF THE COMPETITIVE NATURE OF THE TAX CREDIT AND THAT IS A FACTOR SCORING WHEN YOU GET TAX CREDITS SO NOT ALLOWING HOUSING AUTHORITY LOCAL FUNDS TO BE SPENT ON INCLUSIONARY OFF SITE MEANS YOU WILL NOT GET THE PROJECT BUILT. PRESERVATION IS ONE OF THE GOALS. BEING ABLE TO PRESERVE HOUSING IS ALSO AN IMPORTANT MISSION THAT I THINK WE NEED TO BE PAYING ATTENTION. WE THANK YOU HELPING TO BUY THE PARKWAY PROJECT WHICH HELPED 53 PEOPLE FROM BEING THROWN OT OF THEIR HOMES. THANKS. >> THANK YOU, LARRY. PETER HELLMAN FALLOWED BY [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] >> MY NAME IS PETER HELLMAN, I CURRENTLY HAVE TWO PROJECTS IN THE PLANNING PROCESS.

ONE IS A 105 LOT SINGLE FAMILY FOR SALE PROJECT AND THE OTHER IS A 30 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT SO I HAVE HORSES IN TWO OF THE THREE RACES THAT ARE RUNNING TONIGHT. THE PROPOSED CHANGES IN INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE ARE WELL MEANING, AND FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND THE STAFF HAS DONE A OUTSTANDING JOB REACHING OUT TO THE BUILDING COMMUNITY AND INCORPORATING MANY OF OUR PROPOSED COMMENTS AND CHANGES. I MAY HAVE TO HAND IN MY DEVELOPMENT CARD BUT I THINK THE FOR SALE REQUIREMENTS WORK. I THINK YOU HAVE DONE A GREAT JOB. THAT SAID, HOWEVER I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS KNHNG ANYTHING YOU CAN DO TO STIFLE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING MORE IN SANTA ROSA THEN INCREASING FEES. SHORT OF IMPOSING A MORATORIUM.

YOU GOT TO AT LEAST THE NUMBERS I LOOKED AT ONLINE TODAY, I FOUND THAT THERE WERE ONLY 75 MULTIFAMILY BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED IN SANTA ROSA IN ALL OF 218. THAT IS A RIDICULOUS NUMBER GIVEN THE STAGE WE ARE AT IN THE ENVIRONMENT IN THE BUSINESS CYCLE AS WELL AS THE DESPERATE HOUSING NEED THERE IS HERE IN TOWN GIVEN EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED. THE REASON FOR THAT IS MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS RARELY PENCIL. THE RELATIVE LOW RENTS BELIEVE IT OR NOT SANTA ROSA RENTS ARE LOW COMPARED TO OTHER AREAS IN THE BAY AREA. SKY HIGH CONSTRUCTION COST AND YES BUILDING PERMIT FEES ALL COMBINED TO MAKE THESE PROJECTS UNFINANCEABLE. JUST ONE QUICK NUMBER TO THROW AT YOU FOR RELATIVE PURPOSES, A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOFEM WE CAN BUILD IN FAIR FIELD FOR $90 A SQUARE FOOT, THE SAME HOME HERE IS $120 A SQUARE FOOT. 2200 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOME THAT IS $66 THOUSAND DIFFERENCE IN THE PRICE OF THE HOUSE, AND THE COST OF THE HOUSE.

THOSE NUMBERS COME DIRECTLY OUT O THE LAND VALUE AT THE END OF THE DAY. OUR LITTLE APARTMENT 30 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT THIS ORDINANCE IF WE PULL OUR PERMITS IN THE FIRST 2 YEARS WHICH WE WILL WILL ONLY INCREASE OUR COST BY $50 THOUSAND. THAT MAY NOT SOUND LIKE A LOT BUT THAT IS $50 THOUSAND AN ACRE AND THAT PUTS ME $50 THOUSAND AN ACRE FURTHER AWAY FROM BEING AIBLE TO DO MY NEXT PROJECT IN SANTA ROSA. IT REALLY HURTS SO RESPECTFULLY YOU RECONSIDER THAT PART OF THE PROGRAM. THANK YU. >> THANK YOU. [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] FALLOWED BY KRISTIN KIFER. >> GOOD EVENING. SANTA ROSA METRO CHAMBERMENT WE SUBMIT #D A LETTER REGARDING COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE SO SUMMARIZE KEY POINTS. WE RECOGNIZE THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING WE DON'T FEEL THIS IS A RIGHT TIME FOR A FEE. WE APPLAUD THE RECENT EFFORTS TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT ADDING A FEE AT THIS TIME SENDS A CONFLICTING MESSAGE TO THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY.

IT ALSO CREATE DISINCENTIVE FOR JOB CREATION WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS AT THE TIME WE NEED TO ECOURAGE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL INIVIST: SHOULD YOU MOVE FORWARD A COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE WE DO ENCOURAGE YOU TO INSURE IT ISN'T APPLIED TO TENANT IMPROVEMENTS AND CREATE A MECHANISM FOR ANNUAL REVIEW SO MODIFIED. THAT YOU INCLUDE A GROUP OF LOCAL EXPERT PRACTITIONERS TO HELP DEVELOP THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS AND YOU EXEMPT THE DOWNTOWN CORE SO YOU SANTA ROSA DOESN'T DISCOURAGE WHAT IT INTEND TO PROMOTE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. KRISTIN KIFER. >> GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. KRISTIN KIFER, I WORK AS A PLANNER AND REPRESENTING MANY DEVELOPERS IN COORDINATION WITH THE CTY.

I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE LEVERAGING OF INCENTIVES TO DEVELOP AFFORDABLE HOUSING. MANY ARE WELL MEANING CHANGES AND LABELING AS A INCLUSIONARY HOUSING POLICY, RATHER THEN THE HOUSING ALLOCATION PLAN I THINK IS A GOOD STEP TOWARDS THE INTENT BEHIND THIS POLICY. BUT DOES HIGHLIGHT MANY UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AS IT DOESN'T CONSIDER THE CURRENT STATE OF CONSTRUCTION FEES. OR CONSTRUCTION COSTS. I DO AGREE WITH LOCKING IN FEES AT THE ENTITLEMENT PERMIT BUT WOULD LICK TO FOCUS ON THE COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE. I DO NOT THINK APPLYING A $3 PER SQUARE FOOT RATE APPLY ALL SECTORS IN FAIRNESS EMBODYING OF THE INTENT OF THE POLICY.

IF THE POLICY IS TO INTEND IS TO DEVELOP AFFORDABLE HOUDSING NEED THAT IS OFFSET BY THE CREATION OF NEW COMMERCIAL FACILITIES, I DO NOT THINK THAT THIS IS ADEQUATELY REACHING INTO HOW TO ADDRES THIS PROPERLY. I THINK THAT THE STUDY SHOULD FOCUS A BIT MORE ON THE SECTORS THAT EACH COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IS APPLICABLE FOR AND RELATING HOW MANY EMPLOYEES REALLY WOULD BE RELEVANT TO THAT WITH THIS IWOULD ALSO ASK THAT A CONCESSION BE MADE FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROJECTS AND MIXED USE PROJECT THAT IS HORIZONTALLY MIXED USE NOT JUST VERTICALLY.

WE HEAR EXAMPLES OF PROJECTS WHERE THEY ARE CONTAINED ON THE SAME SITE, BUT ARE NOT BUILT WITHIN TWO STORIES ABOVE THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT SO I WITHED ASK FOR CONCESSION AND ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY IN THAT REGARD. THANK YOU. & >> THANK YOU. THOSE ARE ALL THE CARDS WE HAVE. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON THIS ISSUE? SEEING NO ONE, WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS THAT MAY HAVE COME UP FROM PUBLIC COMMENT VICE MAYOR. >> SO, DAVID, LARRY ASKED A PARTICULAR QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT AFFORDABLE PROJECS WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM THIS. CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT? >> ANY AFFORDABLE PROJECT COMPLIANT WITH OUR POLICY THAT YOU ADOPT IS EXEMPT FROM PAYING THE FEE.

>> GREAT. THANK YOU. >> MRS. COMBS. QUESTIONS FIRST AND I HAVE ONE QUESTION. >> IHAVE THE ITEM AND SO I JUST HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT I HAVE THE CONSTRUCT CORRECT LANGUAGE. IS THERE GOING TO BE SOME RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE REGARDING-WHERE HAVE IT LISTED AS SLIDE 17 >> WE HAVE THE LANGUAGE WE RECOMMEND ADDING IS TWO ADDS. >> SOMETHING TO DO WITH PROJECT SZE AS WELL FOR THE EARLIER SECTION? >> YES. >> OKAY. >> WE PREPARED TO READ THAT INTO THE RECORD.

>> YOU ARE READY FOR THAT WHEN THE TME COMES. I HEARD A REQUEST FOR LOCK IN FOR FEE EARLIER, IS THERE LANGUAGE AVAILABLE IF WE WANTED TO MOVE LOCKING THE FEE IN? >> WE DNT HAVE THAT AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW. ONE THING WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT AS THE BUILDING CODE IS CLOSER TO COME TO FRUITION IS WORK THROUGH THE PROCESS AND COORDINATE ALL THE FEES AND LOOK AT THE FEE PACKAGE SO WE AE WORKING OON THAT AND IF THAT IS KRECKZ DIRECTION FROM THE COUNCIL WE'LL FIGURE HOW TOBRING THAT TO COUNCIL. >> I WOULD BE-THERE IS DISTINCTION BETWEEN APPLICATION AND AT PULLED. >> CORRECT. >> AT APPLICATION MAKES SENSE TO ME. >> THAT IS THE POINT IN THE PROCESS WE ARE LOOKING AT IS APPLICATION. JUST TO CLARIFY THERE WERE COMMENTS ABOUT INTITLEMENTS, THE BUILDING PERMIT IS THE DATE JUST TO BE CLEAR. >> THAT WON'T NECESSARILY BE IN THE ORDINANCE IT IS SOMETHING YOU COME BACK WITH? >> CORRECT.

WE WILL BRING BACK SOMETHING TO ADDRESS ALL THE FEES. >> OKAY. DID YOU SAY YOU HAD A QUESTION? >> THAT WAS MY QUESTION SO THANK YOU. >> OKAY. WHAT I HAVE BEFORE IS A ORDINANCE AND TWO RESOLUTIONS, SO I'LL READ THE ORDINANCE FIRST AND THE ORDINANCE SHOULD HAVE TWO LANGUAGE ADDITIONS. DO YOU HAVE THAT? >> I DO AND IF YOU LIKE WHEN YOU ARE READY I CAN READ THAT LANGUAGE INTO THE RECORD. >> WILL YOU READ THE LANGUAGE NOW? >> YES. SO, SECTION 2102050 WOULD BE AMENDED TO ADD THE FOLLOWING: FIRST, RESIDENTIAL OR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH 6 FEWER UNITS PAY HOUSING IMPACT FEE AS NOTED IN SECTION 2102090. WHICH IS THE FEE REFERENCE.

THE SECOND ADDITION TO THAT SAME SECTION WOULD B A DEVELOPER PROPOSING TO PROVIDE ALLOCATED UNITS CONSIST WNTS THE INCLUSION IRMT ROOREQUIREMENT IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE A CONCESSION OUTLINED IN 2031 OF THE CITY DENSITY BONUS AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES PROITION HAVES OTHER OTHER BENEFITS AS NEGOTIATED WITH THE CITY. >> SO, JUST TO BE CLEAR I'M GOING TO MAKE THE MOTION AND MAKE THE MOTION AS AMENDED AND I INTENED THE AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE BOTH OF THOSE ITEMS. >> AND IF I MAY JUST CLARIFY, WITH THOSE ADDITIONS GO AT THE END OF THE SECTION? >> THEY CERTAINLY CAN. THERE'S PROBABLY A BETTER APPROACH TO THE NUMBERING OF THAT SECTION. >> I THINK JUST TO BE CLEAR THE FIRST IS C WOULD ADD C WITH THAT LANGUAGE.

AND THE LAST AMENDMENT WAS G THAT WE WOULD BE ADDED WITH THAT LANGUAGE. >> THANK YOU. OKAY. THE ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF CITY OF SANTA ROSA AMENDED TITLE 21 OF THE CITY CODE UPDATING 21-02 HOUSING ALLOCATION PLAN TO MODIFY THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PROVIDING ON SITE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING UNITS AND TO ESTABLISH A COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE FILE NUMBER P R J19-036 AS A-MINDED AND WAVE FURTHER READING OF THE TEXT. >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. COMMENTS MR. SAWYER, ANY COMMENTS? MRS. FLEMING, ANY COMMENTS? VICE MAYOR. >> I'LL BE BRIEF. IN OUR STUDY SESSION IDID BRING UP CONVERSATION TOPIC ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL LIJAGE FEE. I WILL VOTE FOR IT TONIGHT. I'M INTERESTED WHEN WE SEE HOW THIS IS IMPACTING OUR COMMUNITY HAVING AN ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION PARTICULARLY AROUNDS THE IDEA OF HIGH WAGE JOBS AND I THINK I SAID THIS LAST TIME THAT I FEELS A LITTLE LIKE WHAT WE ARE DOING WITH THE COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE IS TAXING KEY SITE TO PAY FOR HOUSING FOR WALMART BECAUSE THOSE DOLLARS WILL GO TO THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING. I UNDERSTAND HIGHWAY JAUJS ALSO BRING WITH THEM ADDITIONAL IMPACT ON THE HOUSING MARKET AND ON OUR COMMUNITY NEED TO ME THAT IS A IMPACT THAT WE WOULD WELCOME AND WOULD THEN BE ABLE TO TURN AROND WITH ADDITIONAL RESOURCES IN OUR COMMUNITY FROM WHAT THOSE JOBS BRING IN TERMS OF RESOURCES TO PUTD INTO HOUSING.

I WILL NOT FORCE THAT DISCUSSION TONIGHT BUT PERHAPS A YEAR FROM NOW WHEN WE LOOK AT WHAT THE IMPACT IS I WOULD BE INTERESTED SEEING DATA ON HIGH WAGE VERSUS LOW WAGE JOBS. >> I LIKE WHEN YOU COME BACK WITH THAT TIME CERTAINLY BECAUSE I SEE FROM THE DEVELOPER STAND POINT WE DO THE PAPERWORK AND CHANGE THE RULES MIDSTREAM THAT SO THA CONCERNS ME.

SAME THING ABOUT I REALLY APPRECIATE THE ENTIRE TEAM'S EFFORT TRYING TO FIND THE PERFECT MIX TO GET WHAT THE COUNCIL HAS BEEN VERY CLEAR ON WHAT WE LIKE IN OUR COMMUNITY, SO I WOULD ASK THAT YOU COME BACK TO US SOONER RATHER THEN LATER. IF YOU GET FEEDBACK WHAT IS WORKING AND NOT WORKING BECAUSE I KNOW WE ALL WANT THIS STUFF TO WORK BUT AS YOU SAID MR.

GUHIN WE ARE DOING THINGS COMMUNITIES ARE TRYING SO IF WE GET EARLY RETURNS THIS ISN'T THE RIGHT DIRECTION OR WE HIT THE JACKPOT ON THIS ONE I LOVE TO HEAR THAT SOONER RATHER THEN LATER. >> I REALLY WANT TO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD. I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE WORKED VERY HARD TO BRING THIS FORWARD AND VERY MUCH WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE HARD WORK STAFF HAS DONE ON THESE TWO ITEMS. IT IS NOT EASY AND YOU HAVE DONE A THOROUGH JOB AND REALLY APPRECIATE THE WORK YOU HAVE DONE. >> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. YOUR VOTES, PLEASE. AND THAT PASSES WITH 5 AYES. THANK YOU. >> WE HAVE TWO RESOLUTIONS THAT FOLLOW THIS. I ASSUME I DO NOT NEED TO SAY AS A-MINDED. RESOLUTION OF SANTA ROSA REVISING THE HOUSING IMPACT FEE AS PROPOIDED IN CHAPTER 2102 OF THESENTA ROSA CITY CODE FILE NUMBER P R J19036 AND WAVE FURLTHER READING OF THE TEXT.

>> SECOND. >> THANK YOU. W HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. YOUR VOTES, PLEASE. THAT ALSO PASSES WITH 5 AYES. >> WHAT A NICE NIGHT. WE HAD A LOT OF GREEN TONIGHT CHT RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF SANTA ROSA IMPT LMENTING A COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE PROVIDED IN CITY CODE WAVE FURTHER READING. >> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND. YOUR VOTES, PLEASE. AND ALSO PASSES WITH 5 AYES. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> BACK TO THE AGENDA. WE'LL DO ITEM 14.1. >> ITEM 14.1 REPORT APPROVAL OF GENERAL SERVICES AGREEMENT NUMBER F002035 FOR CITYWIDE LANDSCAPE SERVICES. JEN SANTOS DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PARKS PRESENTING. >> GOOD EKEENING MAYOR SCHWEDHELM, VICE MAYOR ROGERS AND COUNCILMEMBERS. JEN SANTOSE, WE ARE HERE TONIGHT TO DISCUSS THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACT GOING FORWARD FOR CONTRACTED MAINTENANCE THROUGHOUT THE CITY. OUR AGREEMENT EXPIRED AS OF YESTERDAY. WE HD EXTENDED AGREEMENT INTO SEPTEMBER 30 WHICH EXPIRED YESTERDAY. A FRMAL RFP PROCESS WAS STARTED EARLIER THIS YEAR IN MARCH IN ANTICIPATION OF THE EXPIRATION OF THE CONTRACT TO SOLICIT PROPOSAL FOR A NEW LANDSCAPE CONTRACT.

TONIGHT BEFORE YOU IS A PROPOSAL BASED OEN FEEDBACK WE HARD FROM OUR STUDY SESSION WITH YOU ON SEPTEMBER 24, AND IT ESSENTIALLY IS A MOWING CONTRACT ONLY. THERE IS IN THE ATTACHMENT AN OPTION TO COME BACK AND AMEND AT A FUTURE DATE BUT FOR TONIGHT ONLY WE ARE LOOKING AT THE MOWING CONTRACT WHICH DOESN'T INCLUDE ANY CHEMICAL TREATMENTS WEEDING OF ANY KIND, EVERYTHING IS DONE MECHANICALLY ONLY. AND SO THE PROPOSAL IS FOR COAST LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT BASED OUT OF NAPA. THE CONTRACT FOR A 3 YEAR CONTRACT TERM WITH 2 ONE YEAR EXTENSION OPTIONS, AND AS WE MENTIONED THE CONTRACT WILL PROVIDE MOWING SERVICES ONLY GENERALLY ONCE A WEEK FOR IRRIGATED TURF SITES WITHIN THE PARK SIEVING SITES AND ROADWAY LANDSCAPES. THESE ARE MOSTLY AT OUR SPORTS FIELDS ETCETERA. THE CONTRACT IS FOR A MILLION DOLLARS AND 78 THOUSAND, 56 DOLLARS PER YEAR FOR A TOTAL OF LTTLE OVER A 3 MILLION 2. AS A ANALYSIS, THE PROPOSED CONTRACT BRINGS BASIC MOWING SERVICES TO LANDSCAPE AREAS SO WE HAVE THE SPORTS FIELD, RENTED SPACES SOCCER BASEBALL AND CIVIC SITES AND THERE IS A FEW TINY PLACES IN THE ROADWAY WHERE THERE ARE IRRIGATED TURF SITES.

BRINGING FORTH A MOWER CONTRACT TONIGHT ALLOWS US TO COME BACK OR GO OUT TO THE COMMUNITY TO SOLICIT FEEDBACK TO FIND OUT ESSENTIALLY WE ARE SAYING WHAT SUCCESS LOOKS LIKE BUT ALSO WHAT THE COMMUNITY IS SEEKING AS FAR AS MAINTENANCE SERVICES. MEANWHILE THE CITY CREWS ALL-AUGMENT LANDSCAPE SERVICES WHILE W GO THROUGH THIS EVALUATION PROCESS, SO AS OF TODAY ALREADY ARE CITY STAFF ARE GEARING UP RENTING MOWERS AND TRYING TO TAKE ON SOME MOWING UNTIL OUR CONTRACT CAN MOVE FORWARD. IN NOVEMBER WE PLAN TO COME BACK WITH A LONG TERM DISCUSSION AND RECOMMEND AUGMENTITATION FOR THE REMAINING NEEDS. WE ARE ROLLING INTO NOVEMBER IN THE RAINY SEASON AND WEEDS AND THINGS ARE DYING DOWN, BUT WE WANT TO COME BACK AND ADDRESS THOSE ADDITIONAL CONCERNS AT A LATER DATE. SO FOR TONIGHT OUR RECOMMENDATION FROM THE TRANSPORTATION PUBLIC WORKS AND FINANCE DEPARTMENT THAT THE COUNCIL BY RESOLUTION APPROVE AWARD OF GENERAL SERVICES AGREEMENT SUBJECT TO IT FINAL APPROVAL TO FORM BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO SIGNATURE COAST HOLDINGS DOING BUSINESS AS COAST LANDSCAPE MANAGEM OF NAPA FOR THE CITYWIDE LANDSCAPE SERVICES FOR MOWING ONLY IN AMOUNT OF $1.078.056.

ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE? >> COUNCIL, QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, WE DO HAVE A COUPLE CARDS. IS DUANE IN THE HOUSE? STILL NOT HERE. GEORGE [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] >> [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] >> GO AHEAD, GEORGE. >> [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] I WALK THROUGH THE DOOR WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT THEY WILL HAVE SOME TYPE OF SHAME BUT YOU DON'T. SO, THE ENTIRE LANDSCAPE BUDGET FOR 2019-2020 IS $550 THOUSAND AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A CONTRACT JUST FOR MOWING THAT IS A MILLION PLUS. AND THEN I READ HERE AND LOOK THROUGH THE AGENDA MATERIALS AND ONE BUILDING LISTED THERE AND SURE YOU ARE SHOCKED TO FIND OUT IS RIDGE WAY SWIM CENTER USE WHICH I USED TO BE EMPLOYED MOWING LAWNS AT A WHOPPING $11 A HOUR. I'M NOT-THE LIST IN THERE FOR THE GUY THAT WOULD BE MOWING THOSE LAWNS WOULD BE $58 A HOUR. THE LANGUAGE IN THIS REPORT SAYS FOR OVER 10 YEARS THE ITCITY CONTRACTED LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICE TO SUPPLEMENT ITS SMALL CREW OF PARK MAINTENANCE STAFF. I WAS A SEASONAL WORKER, SO THERE WAS NOT AN OUTSIDE FIRM THAT CME IN AND PROVIDING LANDSCAPING SERVICE BECAUSE I WAS THE SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICE AND AN EMPLOYEE OF SANTA ROSA AND MADE $11 A HOUR.

AND ME AND ONE OTHER GUY DID THAT ENTIRE FACILITY, ALL THE LANDSCAPING AND EVERYTHING THERE. THAT'S JST-I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH ME CALLING IT A LIE BUT I'M BLANKING ON A DIFFERENT WORD FOR THAT ROGET NOW. THAT IS JUST NOT THE TRUTH IS IT IS JUST NOT REAL. AND SO THAT DOESN'T BODE WELL FOR THE REST OF THOSE NUMBERS WHICH DON'T LOOK GREAT. I MEAN, I WE ARE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE MOWING, IT IS-THEN THEY WANT TO CONTINUE IT. EVERY YEAR AFTERWARDS. WE ARE JUST GOING TO LET THIS LANDSCAPING COMPANY DOUBLE OUR ENTIRE LANDSCAPING BUDGET JUST FOR MOWING AND THEN JUST CONTINUE IT FOR EVERY SINGLE-WHY? I MEAN THIS IS RIDICULOUS. IT IS RIDICULOUS ON ITS FACE AND KNOW IT PERSONALLY TO FOT BE THE TRUTH.

I DID THIS JOB FOR $11 A HOUR. IT IS UNJUSTIFIABLE AND IT IS JUS I MEAN NOT EVEN CLOSE TO THE TRUTH AT ALL. SO, I DON'T-IT IS SUCH A HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY AND SUCH AN OBVIOUS JOKE THAT IT IS HARD FOR ME TO BELIEVE TAT YOU ARE JUST GOING TO-VOTE. I WONDER WHAT GOES THROUGH YOUR HEAD SOMETIMES I REALLY DO. NO. PLEASE DON'T. I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO SAY TO YOU. STOP IT. JUST KNOCK IT OFF. >> THOSE ARE THE ONLY CARDS I HAVE. MR. TIBBETTS YOU HAVE THIS ITEM? >> YES, MAYOR. I MOVE RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA APPROVES LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE MOWING SERVICES AND WAVE FURTHER READING OF THE TEXT. >> MOTION AND SECOND. ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM ANYONE? SEEING NONE YOUR VOTES, PLEASE. THAT PASSES WITH 6 AYES. THANK YOU.

MR. -YOU SITTING IN MR. NUTT? >> SINCE MR. MCGLYNN ISN'T IN THE ROOM IM HAPPY TO INTRODUCE REPORT ITEM URGE AGENCY ORDINANCE RESILIENT CITY COMBINING DISTRICT AMENDMENT FOR MOBILE HOME PARK CLOSURE. CLARE HEARTMAN DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING REPORTING. >> ALRIGHT. GOOD EVENING. AGAIN. S, WHAT IS BEFORE YOU IS A URGENCY ORDINANCE AND IT IS A CONTINUATION OF OUR RSILIENT CITY COMBINING DISTRICT. WE HAVE A BASE ORDINANCE AND THEN WE HAD SOME AMENDMENTS FROM TIME T TIME AND I'LL BRING YOU UP TO DATE OF WHERE WE ARE AT WITH THIS PARTICULAR NEED FOR AN AMENDMENT. SO, AS UNFORTUNATELY KNOW TOO WELL OCTOBER 8, 2017 THE CITY WAS HIT BY A FIRE AND LOST 3 THOUSAND HOMES IN THE CITY, WHICH REPRESENTED 5 PERCENT OF OUR HOUSING STOCK AND WITHIN THAT RESOURCE OF OURS AND OUR COMMUNITY 191 MOBILE HOMES WERE IMPACTED AND THAT IS INVOLVING THREE DIFFERENT MOBILE HOME PARKS.

SOME WERE HIT HARDER THEN OTHERS BUT ALL HIT HARD. PARTICULARLY [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] MOBILE HOME PARK LOST 16 MOBILE HOME UNITS OUT OF 160 SO THINK THAT IS OVER 70 PERCENT OF HOMES. IT WAS UNPRECEDENTED IN THE CITY. AS I MENTIONED THE CITY HAS A BASE ORDINANCE WE CALL THE COMBINING DISTRICT AND THIS WAS DRAFTDED WE ARE WERE STILL FIGHTING FIRES AND WE DID THE BEST WE COULD TO TRY TO THINK HOW COULD WE FACILITATE THE RECOVERY THAT WOULD BE STILL INVOLVE THE RIGHT CHECKS AND BALANCES, BUT EXPEDITE THE PROCESS FOR RECOVERY, AND WE DID PRETTY GOOD BUT OVER THE LAST COUPLE YEARS WE HAD TO DO INITIATIONS OF A COUPLE AMENDMENTS SO THESE ARE EXAMPLES OF WHERE WE HAVE ISSUE HAS AEMERGED AND WE HAD TO ADDRESS THROUGH THE URGENCY ORDINANCE. THE ITEM BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS SPECIFIC LA TO MOBILE HOME PARKS SO WE HAVEN'T COVERED THIS BEFORE AND BASICALLY GOTTEN TO THIS POINT THAT SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE AMENDED SO THAT WE CAN FACILITATE IN PRTICULAR THE MOBILE HOME PARK CLOSURE PROCESS AND I'LL GO OVER THE CHANGES WE ARE LOOKING AT BASICALLY WE ARE TAKING WHAT WAS A 1996 ORDINANCE THAT NEVER ANTICIPATED A NATURAL DISASTER SO IT SETS UP POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AS THOSE THE RESIDENTS ARE STILL THERE, YOU HAVE HOA AND YOU CAN WORK WITH THEM SO THAT ISN'T THE CASE.

IT IS CHALLENGING OVER THE LAST COUPLE YEARS, AND NOW WE ARE NEEDING TO RELOOK AT THAT PROCESS AND MAKE AMENDMENTS. SO, I'LL GO OVER THE SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS THAT WE ARE LOKING AT. AGAIN, THE ELIGIBILITY IS THAT IT IS FOR MOBILE HOME PARKS WITHIN THE BURN AREA. WE ARE SPECIFICALLY LOOKING AT THOSE THAT ARE MOST IMPACTED SO REALLY PAST THE POINT OF RECOVERY LOOKING TO CLOSE THE PARK, SO ESSENTIALLY WE SET A TRESHOLD THAT WOULD BE THE PARKS THAT LOST MORE THEN 5 OPERCENT OF THE UNITS. ALSO WE ARE LOOKING AT SOME OF THE NUANCES FOR HOW YOU ARE READY TO MOVE INTO THIS STAGE. WE ARE READY TO MUSK INTO THIS STAGE AND THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR MOVING INTO THE THE CLOSURE PROCESS WITHOUT ALSO HAVING CONCURRENTLY A PROJECT IN ITS PLACE, SO BASICALLY ALLOWS THE CITY TO PROCESS A CLOSURE REPORT AS A FIRST PHASE OF RECOVERY.

THE APPLICANT OF A MOBILE HOME PARK CLOSURE PLAN WOULD BE ALLOWED TO SELECT A QUALIFIED CONSULTANT THE CITY WOULD REVIEW AND ACCEPT, AND THEN WE WOULD PROCESS THAT CONSULTANT'S REPORT THROUGH THE PROCESS. THE AMENDMENTS ALSO INCLUDES SORT OF A CLEAR CHECK LIST OF WHAT NEEDS TO BE IN THAT REPORT. IT IS A 1996 ORDINANCE. THERE IS MODERNIZATION THAT NEEDS TO OCCUR CLARIFICATION OF TERMS AND SO THE AMENDMENT INCLUDES THAT. THE REVIEW AUTHORITY IS TYPICALLY THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT IS HOW THE CURRENT ORDINANCE IS BUT ONE OF THE AMENDMENT WA JUST TO BRING STRAIGHT TO THE CITY COUNCIL SO AGAIN, JUST THINKING HOW CAN WE MAKE IT VERY CLEAN AND STREAMLINED IN TERMS OF GETTING TO THE RIGHT REVIEW AUTHORITY IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.

WE ARE PROPOSING THAT YOU REDUCE THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE FROM 30 DAYS TO 15 DAYS. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THIS PARTICULAR SITE FOR SOME TIME AND SO THEY ARE QUITE AWARE OF THIS SO THIS IS AGAIN TO SORT OF LOOK AT A OPPORTUNITY TO SHORTEN PROCESS BUT DON'T GIVE UP ON THE FACT THERE IS COMMUNICATION THAT HAS OCCURRED THAT NEEDS TO CONTINUE OCCUR AND GET IT IN ALIGNMENT WITH OUR OTHER HEARING PROCESS REQUIREMENTS. THERE ARE OTHER ELEMENTS TO THE AMENDMENTS ONE IS THAT THE CLOSURE IMPACTS ARE CLARIFICATION THEY ARE MITIGATED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE UP TO THE REASONABLE COST OF RELOCATION, BUT IT COULD INCLUDE COMPENSATION OR BENEFITS RECEIVED FROM OTHER SOURCES. ANOTHER IS THAT AND THIS IS KEY IT CLARIFIES THE CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE MITIGATION ARE MUTUALLY SATISFACTORY BETWEEN THE OWNERS RESIDENTS AND THOSE THAT ARE PROVIDING THAT COMPENSATION. AND THEN IT ALSO CLARIFIES IN PARTICULAR THIS IS PROBABLY THE BIGGEST ONE IS JUST WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF THE OWNER INTENT, 1996 ORDINANCE IS AS YOU MIGHT IMAGINE IT IS FOR THOSE ON THE SITE WHILE YOU GO THROUGH THE CLOSURE PROCESS AND DON'T HAVE ANYONE ON THE SITE IN TERM [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] THIS CLARIFIES REDEFINED WHAT THAT IS, WHICH IS PREVIOUS TENANTS.

SO, THOSE ARE THE SUMMARY OF THE CHANGES. IT IS URGENCY ORDINANCE AND AGAIN SO THERE IS NO REQUIRED NOTIFICATION, HOWEVER WE HAVE BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH THOSE THAT WOULD BE MOST EFFECTED BY THIS PROCESS AND WE USED SOCIAL MEDIA TO CONTINUE TO EDUCATE ABOUT WHAT THIS AMENDMENT IN PARTICULAR IS. IT IS THE AMENDMENT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, 3 DIFFERENT BASIS FOR THAT EXEMPTION. OBVIOUSLY WE ARE STILL IN THE STAY OF LOCAL EMERGENCY RESPONDING TO TE FIRES, THE PARTICULAR AMENDMENTS DON'T SUBSTANTIATE THE PROJECT FOR CEQA.

THE RECOMMENDATION BEFORE YOU HAVE TO AMEND THE SECTION OF THE ZONING CODE THAT TALKS ABOUT THE RESILIENT CITY COMBINING DISTRICT SO ADDING THIS NEW SECTION THAT TAKES THE CURRENT ORDINANCE WHICH IS IN CHAPTER 667 MAKING THE NECESSARY EDITS AND PLACED IT IN THAT WHAT IS TEMPORARY URGENCY ORDINANCE RESILIENT CITY COMBINING DISTRICT AND WITH THAT, THERE IS ONE AMENDMENT. IT IS TYPO GRAPHICAL AMENDMENT JUST REFERENCE-THERE IS ONE ON PAGE 8 OF THE ORDINANCE THERE IS REFERENCE TO 667 AND WE WILL REPLACE THAT WITH J3 AND WHEN WE GET TO THE READING OF THE ORDINANCE I CAN RAD THAT. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. >> THANKS. COUNCIL QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, I HAVE A COUPLE CARDS. DID DUANE COME BACK AT ALL? NO, HEEZ HE'S NOT. DOUG JOHNSON. >> I VIN HERE SINCE 4 O'CLOCK.

DOUG JOHNSON WITH WESTERN MANUFACTURED HOUSING COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION. LOTS OF WORDS THERE. WE REPRESENT THE OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF MOBILE HOME PARKS THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. WE APPRECIATE THE HARD WORK STAFFS HADONE ON THE AMENDMENTS TO THIS ORDINANCE AND WE SUPPORT ADOPTION. THANK YOU. >> GREAT. THANK YOU. MRS. FLEMING YOU HAVE THIS ITEM. >> I DO, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO PROCEED WITH THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE? THE AMENDMENT REQUESTED IS THAT ON PAGE 8 OF 12 ON THE ORDINANCE SUBSECTION 8 THE REFERENCE TO SECTION 667.030 IS STRICKEN WITH REPLACED WITH J3. >> LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT I ACCEPT THAT AS I READ THIS ORDINANCE OF THE CITY AMENDING TITLE 20 SECTION 20-28.100 RESILIENT CITY COMBINING DISTRICT TO ADD MOBILE HOME PARK CLOSURE PROCEDURES FOR MOBILE HOME PARKS OF THE CITY MOST SEVERELY IMPACTED BY THE FIRES OF 2017 AND WAVE FURTHER READ OOG THF TEXT.

>> MOTION AND SECOND. ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENT SAID? SEEING NONE YOUR VOTES, PLEASE. THAT DOES PASS WITH 5 AYES WHICH IS BHAUT WAS NEEDED FOR URGE AENSH. THANK YOU. 14.3. >> COUNCIL DIRECTION TO VOTING DELEGATE FOR LEGAL OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 2019 ANNUAL CONFERENCE RGARDING COUNCIL POSITIONS ON THE RESOLUTION COMING BEFORE THE LEAGUE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. IT IS MY PLEASURE TO INTRODUCE KEITH GORE C, THE CITY MANAGER FELLOW. THIS IS HIS WIND UP TIME. WE OFFER THE CITY MANAGER FELLOW A CHANCE TO DO A PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL. THIS IS KEITH'S PRESENTATION BEFORE HE GOES BACK TO WATER. THANK YOU KEITH FOR EVERYTHING YOU HAVE DONE FOR THE CITY DURING YOUR 6 MONTH STENT IN THE CITY MANAGER OFFICE. >> THANK YU, SEAN. >> KEITH DON'T BE IMPACTED BY EVERYONE LEAVING.

WE STILL HAVE 2 ASISSANT CITY MANAGER, FIRE CHIEF AND POLICE OFFICER STILL HERE AWAITING YOUR PRESENTATION. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MAYOR. COUNCILMEMBERS. KEITH GORE CUTHE CITY MANAGER FELLOW. IT IS MY PLEASURE TO PRESENT THE TWO RESOLUTIONS OF LEGAL OF CALIFORNIA SIT AEDS AND SEEK DIRECTION FOR GIDING THE PARTICIPATION AT THE 2019 LEAGUE OF CITIES CONFERENCE. POLICY DEVELOPMENT IS VITAL TO DETERMINE THG LEAGUE LEGISLATIVE AND PROGRAM STRATEGIES FROM IMPORTANT ISSUES FACING ITISIES THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA. EACH MEMBER CITY HAS ONE VOTING DELEGATE AT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY HELD INL LONG BEACH CALIFORNIA ON OCTOBER 16-18. THIS YEAR THERE ARE 2 RESOLUTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN THROUGH THE POLICY COMMITTEES WHICH WERE THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMUNEITATION AND PUBLIC WORKS.

RESOLUTION OE, RESOLUTION READS, RESOLUTION FROM THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CALLING ON CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UILITIES COMMISSION TO AMEND RULE 20A TO ADD PROJECTS IN VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES TO THE LIST OF ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AND TO INCREASE FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FOR THE RULE 20A PROJECTS. SUMMARY OF RULE 20A. UTILITIES ALLOCATE RATE PAYER FUNDS IN THE FORM OF CREDITS FOR UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING PROJECTS THAT HAVE A PUBLIC BENEFIT AND MEET AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: THE MAIN GOAL WAS TO ADDRESS THE VISUAL BLIGHT OF OVERHEAD CABLES.

NOTABL FIRE SAFETY IS ECLUDED FROM THAT LIST. EXCLUDING FIRE SAFETY FROM THE LIST PUTS THE BURDEN OF UNDERGROUNDINGUE ILITTIES TO REDUCE FIRE RISK ON PROACTIVE PROPERTY OWNERS OR THE AGENCY WILLING AND ABLE TO COVER THE ENORMOUS COSTS OF THOSE PROJECTS. WE KNOW ALL TOO WELL HERE IN THE CITY THAT OVERHEAD UTILITIES POSE IN HIGH WIND AND DRY CONDITIONS. THE GOAL OF RESOLUTION 1 IS TO EXPAND THE CRITERIA AWAY FROM ESTHETICS TOWARDS ONE OF FIRE SAFETY RISK MITIGATION. RESOLUTION 1 AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ALIGN IN GAVNER NEWSOM WILDFIRE STRIKE PROGRAM. IT IDENTIFIES HARDENING OF THE ELECTRICAL GRID IS CRITICAL TOWILDFIRE RISK MANAGE. KEY COMPONENT TO THE STRATEGY IS TO UNDERGROUND OVERHEAD UTILITIES. THEN WE GET TO HIGH FIRE AND RISK. HERE IS A MAP OF OUR SANTA ROSA. THE-AIR AIN RED SHOWS WHAT CAL FIRE DEEMS AS A VERY HIGH FIRE ZONE.

THE PINK IS WHAT WE CALL THE WILD LAND URBAN INTERFACE AND BELIEVE THAT TO BE THE SAME, A VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD ZONE. IN 2009 TE COUNCIL ADOPED A AMENDMENT TO THE FIRE CODE DEFINING THE WILD LAND URBAN INTERFACE DUE TO THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN WILDFIRE DESIGNATION AND WHAT IS A FIRE ZONE. WILD LAND URBAN FACE ALLOWS THE CITY TO MAINTAIN AND ENFORCE CODES AND MITIGATE RISK IN THESE VULNERABLE AREAS. SUPPORTING THE RESOLUTION THERE IS NO PROJECTED IMPACT TO THE CITY FOR SUPPORTING THE RESOLUTION. THE RESOLUTION CALLS FOR UNSPECIFIED INCREASEEN UND FUND. FOR EWOO KNOW PG&E I FACING BANKRUPTCY AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE RECENT WILE FIRES.

EXPANDED WILL INCREASE THE COST TO THE RATE PAYERS IN THE CITY. IT IS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE THAT THE COUNCIL BY MOTION CNSIDER TAKING THE POSITION AND DIRECT THE VOTING DELEGATE TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2 WITH ONE ADDITION ONE AMENDMENT. THAT IS TO ADD THE TERM WHILED LAND URBAN INTERFACE ALONG WITH VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEERITY ZONE TO THE LIST OF CRITERIA FOR ELIGIBILITY. >> IF I MY INTERJECT THIS IS EXACTLY TRACKING TO YOUR QUESTION EARLIER COUNCIL MEMBER ROGERS ABOUT THE NEED THAT NOW WE HAVE THE EVACUATION ROADS IDENTIFIED AND THE HARDENING ASSOCIATED WITH THEM THAT IS WHY WE WOULD BE URGING TIS LANGUAGE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE AT THE PLACED INTO THE RESOLUTION AND FOR THE VOTING DELEGATE WHEN WE GO DOWN TO THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES MEETING.

>> I ALERTED THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ABOUT THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT. RESOLUTION 2. RESOLUTION CALLING UPON THE FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS TO ADDRESS THE DEVASTATING IMPACT OF TRANSBOUNDSRY POLLUTION FLOWS TO THE SOUTHERN MOST REGION OF CALIFORNIA AND PACIFIC OCEAN. LITTLE CONTEXT. THE NEW RIVER FLOWS NORTH FROM MEXICO ACROSS THE U.S. BORDER INTO THE SALT AND SEA IN EMPYREAL AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. THE TIJUANA RIVER FLOWS AND EMPTIES IN BOARDER BEACH STATE BEACH SAN DIEGO COUNTY. THESE CARRIES TRANSBOUNDARY POLLUTION FLOWS THAT ARE A MAJOR SOURCE O RAW SEWAGE, TRASH XHEMICAL HEAVY METALS AND TOXINS AND POLLUTE THE COMMUNITIES AND ENVIRONMENT AND HARDEN THE ECHO SYSTEM AND FORCE CLOSURES AT BEACH, DAMAGE FARM LAND AND MAKE PEOPLE SICKISM BOARDER FIELD STATE BACHES ARE CLOSED FOR 800 DAYS IN THE LAST 5 YEARS. THESE POLLUTION FLOWS INCREASED FROM THE URBAN CENTERS ALOCK THE BOARDER AND NAFTA AGREEMENT. THEY GENERATED INCREASED POLLUTION AND IT WAS ECONOMIC BENEFIT THE EXPAENGZ OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND WATER STREEMENT CAPACITY HAS NOT KEPT PACE WITH THE GROWTH. THE DGRADATION OF THE IST XING WATER STREEMENT AND POLLUTION FLOW EXCEED THE TREATMENT CAPACITY COUM POUNDED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DEFUNDING OF THE 1996 BOARDER WATER INFRATRUCKTURE PROGRAM.

OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS THIS PROGRAM HAS BEEN DEFLATED FROM 1 HILLIAN A YEAR TO 10 MILLION AND THIS IS FOR THE ENTIRE SOUTHERN BOARDER OF THE UNITED SATES WITH MEXICO. SUPPORTING THE RESOLUTION IS IN ALIGNMENT WITH CALIFORNIA VOTERS WHO IN 2014 APPROVED PROPOSITION 1 TO AUTHORIZE 7.5 BILLION TO FUND WATER QUALITY PROJECTS. THIS RESOLUTION IS IN DIRECT SUPPORT THE LEGAL GOAL. THE LEGAL HAS EXTENSIVE LANGUAGE ON WATER AND WATER QUALITY AND SUMMARY OF EXISTING POLICIES AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES. SUPPORTING OF THIS RESOLUTION WILL NOT DIRECTLY IMPACT THE CITY'S GENERAL FUND THOUGH DECLINE OF REPUTATION OF STATE BEACHES AND POLLUTION FLOW IN THE PACIFIC MOTION CAN CARRY MACRO ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENT EFFECT THAT RIPPLE OUTSIDE SAN DIEGO AND THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA.

FURTHER COUM POUNDING THIS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HS SLATED TO ELIMINATE THE BWIP PROGRAM FOR THE 2020 YEAR BUDGET. FUNDAMENTALLY, IT IS RECOGNIZED WATER QUALITY IS ESSENTIAL TO THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF EVERYONE. THEREFORE, IT IS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY MANAGER OFFICE THAT THE COUNCIL BY MOTION SUPPORT RESOLUTION 2 AND DIRECT THE VOTING DELEGATE TO APPROVE THE RSOLUTION AT THE 2019 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL MEETING. THANK YOU. >> GREAT. WELL DONE. THANK YOU KEITH FOR YOUR FIRST PRESENTATION. QUESTIONS, COUNCIL? NOTHING WANT TO PUT HIM ON THE SPOT ON. OKAY. DO WE HAVE CARDS ON THIS ITEM? IF YOU WANT TO FILL OUT A CARD, SURE.

GO AHEAD AND GET UP THERE IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND– >> [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] >> HOLD ON. THERE YOU GO. YOU ARE LILT UP NOW. >> ALEX CRONE HERE TO TALK ABOUT 5G INFRASTRUCTURE. UNDER GROUNDING IS A GREAT IDEA AND BAD IDEA TO PULL CELL PHONE TOWERS IN HIGH FIRE ZONES AND URBAN INTERFACES. >> GREAT. THANK YOU. SEEING NOTHING ELSE, MR. ROGERS. >> THANK YOU MR. MAYOR. I WILL MENTION JUST BY WAY OF CONTEXT I'M ON THE STATEWID ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE AND DID SEE THE RULE 20A DISCUSSION. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND AND I KNOW THIS ISN'T THE ONLY INTENT OF THAT LANGUAGE CHANGE THAT WE ARE ASKING FOR BUT TECHNICALLY THE VERY HIGH FIRE SEVERITY ZONES ARE DESIGNATED BY CAL FIRE AND TECHNICALLY EACH JURISDICTION IS SUPPOSED TO PATSS A ORDINANCE ADOPTING THAT DESIGNATION AS WELL AND I WILL POINT OUT THERE IS NO STATE AGENCY THAT ACTUALLY TRACKS WHO HAS AND WHO HAS NOT ACCEPTED THAT DESIGNATION SO I DO WONDER IN THE WAY IT IS-THE LAW IS CONSTRUCTED WHETHER THE RULE 20A IF THEY MADE THAT CHANGE TO THE HIGH FIRE SEVERITY ZONES IF THAT IS USEFUL FOR MOST CITIES.

WITH THAT, I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO CONSIDER TAKING A PSITION ON THE RESOLUTION-I'LL MAKE A MOTION WE SUPPORT BOTH RESOLUTION 1 AND RESOLUTION 2 AT THE LEAGUE GNERAL ASSEMBLY AND GIVE THAT DIRECTION TO THE MAYOR WHO IS OUR VOTING DELEGATE. >> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND. FOR CLARIFICATION DOES THAT INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE THAT WAS OFFERED IN THE PRESENTATION? >> YES, CORRECT. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. YOUR VOTES, PLEASE. THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU.

OKAY. WE HAVE NO WRITTEN COMMUNICATION AND ONE CARD FOR ITEM 17. ALEX CRONE. >> IS IT ON? THANK YOU. SORRY I KNOW YOU HAVE BEEN HERE A LONG TIME I HAD A LONG DAY MYSELF PROBABLY THE LAST THING YOU WNT TO HEAR IS 3 MINUTES OF SPEAKING. YOU ARE INCREDSABLE AND MAKING VERY IMPORTANT DECISIONS THAT EFFECT PEOPLE AND YOU HANDLED YOUR SELF IMPRESSIVELY TONIGHT. I DO MEAN THAT AND PROUD TO YOU HAVE YOU AS MY CITY COUNCIL. IN PREPARATION FOR A NOVEMBER STUDY SESSION ON THE FURTHER DEPLOYMENT OF 5G INFRASTRUCTURE, SINCE WE PUT A PAUSE TO THE ROLL OUT LAST YEAR SINCE THEN ALL OVER THE UNITED STATES CALIFORNIA THE WORLD THE RESISANCE FROM THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY AND SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY TO FURTHERING OUR ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE TO RADIATION HAS GROWN.

I HATE TO BE THE BEARER OF BAD NEWS, BUT THE REALLY SHOULDN'T BE A DEBATE. MICRO WAVE RADIATION FROM WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY IS BIOLOGICALLY HARMFUL. IT ISN'T LIKE NATURAL RADIATION FROM THE SUN, MAN MADE WIRELESS RADIATION IS FOR ONE POLARIZED SO IT HAS A CHARGE SO INTERACTED WITH OUR CELLS AND IONS WITHIN OUR SYSTEM NOT ONLY HUMANS BUT ANIMALS AND PLANTS, AND IT IS ALSO PULSED AND MODULEATED SO IT TURNS ON AND OFF THOUSANDS OF TIMES A SECOND WHICH IS MORE DANGEROUS.

THERE WAS A WALL STREET JOURNAL MR. TIBBETTS YOU WERE QUOTED IN THE FIRST FEW PARAGRAPHS AND YOU SAW THAT. YOU MADE INTERESTING QUOTE AND GOOD ONES. LT YOU DON'T WORK FOR VERIZON AND CITY OF SANTA ROSA AND NOBODY WANTS A CELL PHONE TOWER IN FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE AND THERE HAVE BEEN MANY CITIES IN CALIFORNIA THAT HAVE ADOPTED ORDINANCES THAT CUT OUT RESIDENTIAL ZONES WHETHER IT IS ON A UTILITY POLE OR CITY OWNED LIGHT POLE IT DOES WANTANT MATTER. THE FCC AND C PUC HAVE GUIDELINES THEY ARE NOT LAWS, AND THE CASE OUR CITY ATTORNEY REFERENCED LAST YEAR, THE 9TH CIRCUIT COUT OF APPEAL T MOBILE VERSUS SAN FRANCISCO THEY RULED CLEARLY THAT WE HAVE A LOCAL MUNICIPALTY POWER WHERE TO PUT THESE THINGS BASED ON ON HEALTH CONCERN AND SAFETY AND QUITE ENJOYMENT OF STREETS. SO, I WANT TO LEAVE YOU WITH AN ORDINANCE JUST PASSED IN JULY IN THE TOWN O FAIRFAX AND IT CUTS OUT RESIDENTIAL ZONES, PG&E LIGHT POLES KEEPS 300 FEET AWAY FROM CHILD DAYCARE SCHOOL, PLAYGROUND PARKS BALL FIELDS AND MEDICAL FACILITIES, 50 FEET FROM RE.

As found on YouTube

PEOPLE – SERVICES – IMPACT