The Santa Rosa City Council met on April 9, 2024, for a regular meeting that included a closed session, a study session on development impact fee waivers, a public hearing on recreation fee adjustments, and action on several major reports. The council debated a proposed right‑sizing of impact fees to incentivize affordable housing, adopted a five‑year economic development strategic plan, approved a community engagement strategy for the South Santa Rosa Specific Plan, and authorized a $3.06 million budget amendment for one‑time projects. A key decision was made to pursue a revised license agreement with SMART for the Jennings Avenue at‑grade bicycle and pedestrian crossing, rejecting both the original SMART proposal and the option to abandon the crossing.
Good afternoon. I'd like to ask the interpreter currently on the Spanish channel to commence translation of the meeting. For those just joining the meeting, live translation in Spanish is available, and members of the public or staff wishing to listen in Spanish can join the Spanish channel by clicking on the interpretation icon in the Zoom toolbar. It looks like a globe. Once you join the Spanish channel, we recommend you shut off the main audio so you only hear the Spanish translation. Pablo, will you please restate this in Spanish? Hello and welcome to our April 9th, 2024, Santa Rosa City Council meeting. Thank you, Mayor. Councilmember Rogers. Here. Council Member O'Krepki. Here. Councilmember McDonald. Here. Councilmember Fleming? Here. Councilmember Alvarez. Vice Mayor Stopp. Here. Mayor Rogers. President. Let the record show that all council members are present. Thank you. We will now proceed to item 3.1, which is our closed session for today. It is 3.1 conference with legal counsel about existing litigation. Madam City Clerk, can you please facilitate public comment on this item? Thank you. We are now taking public comment on item 3.1. If you're in the chamber and would like to comment but have not yet provided a speaker card or your name, please make your way to the podium. Option three is just not an option. Um their objections are illogical, their demands on the city are unreasonable. We don't just care about them building the SMART path. We want to see an interconnected active transportation and public transit network, which this crossing is a big part of. So again, I don't know what all happens in your closed session with the attorneys and whether the decisions happening there are happening later today. I'll be back for that. But please, option three is not an option. Thank you. The next speaker will be James, followed by Steve, then Janet. Yes. I am James Duncan. SMART's real property license agreement suggests that SMART staff believes that they can determine the safety of the Jennings crossing and whether the city can construct it or not. My research indicates that it can't do either. Article 12, section eight of the California Constitution states that a public body like SMART may not regulate matters over which the legislature grants regulatory power to the public utilities commission. Public Utilities Code sections 1201, 1202, and 99152 give the PUC exclusive authority to approve the location, the terms of installation, operation, maintenance, use, and protection. That is, in other words, the safety of railroad crossings. The PUC previously directed SMART to cooperate in good faith to reach a construction agreement for the Jennings crossing. But SMART's real property license agreement states it is not an agreement to construct the crossing. The administrative law judge at the PUC has more recently specified that the agreement to be reached between the city and SMART is a construction agreement, not a real property license agreement. The third option suggested by city staff constitutes abandonment of the Jennings Crossing. But the city would first have to fulfill all procedures and requirements mandated by state law before abandoning the Jennings crossing, which would involve notice and a public hearing.