Santa Rosa City Council Meeting Summary - April 9, 2024
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Santa Rosa City Council Regular Meeting – April 9, 2024
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.
Consent Calendar
- Items 13.1–13.9 were approved unanimously (7‑0) without discussion, including: a PG&E easement over Rincon Ridge Park; a $125,000 evaluation contract for the CHOICE Grant Program; rescinding and replacing a Homekey grant resolution for Caritas Center (up to $11.36 million); purchase of a 2028 Pierce aerial fire truck for $2,541,247.49; a $973,850 amendment for design services on the Highway 101 bicycle/pedestrian overcrossing; introduction of an ordinance converting Riley Street to two‑way; grant applications for Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons and North Dutton Avenue improvements; second‑reading adoption of wayfinding sign standards; and second‑reading adoption of an ordinance allowing scooters on public streets, alleys, and gutters.
Public Comments & Testimony
- On non‑agenda matters (Item 14): Multiple speakers urged the council to place a ceasefire resolution on a future agenda and to divest from weapons manufacturers supporting Israel’s military actions in Gaza. No council action was taken.
- On the Jennings Avenue crossing (Items 3.1 and 15.3): Several residents, including Eris Weaver (Sonoma County Bike Coalition), James Duncan, Steve Birdlebough (Transportation and Landuse Coalition), Alexa Forrester (Bikeable Santa Rosa), and Chris Guenther (Bikeable Santa Rosa), spoke in support of the crossing and urged the council not to abandon it (option 3). They argued that SMART’s opposition was unreasonable and that the crossing is essential for connectivity.
- On development impact fees (Item 4.1): Over 30 speakers commented. Many supported the Generation Housing “right‑size” fee proposal to reduce impact fees on affordable and workforce housing. Supporters included representatives from Santa Rosa Metro Chamber, YIMBY, Mid‑Pen Housing, Providence, First 5 Sonoma County, and Generation Housing. Several affordable housing advocates stated that every dollar matters in making projects viable. A few speakers opposed the waivers, arguing that fees should be uniform and that developers already receive significant subsidies. Michael Hilber opposed any waivers unless fees are uniform. Adina Flores and Ana Diaz raised concerns about conflicts of interest and questioned whether the policy would truly help local residents.
- On recreation fee adjustments (Item 16.1): Three speakers asked the council to consider low‑income families when setting fees, suggesting partnerships with schools and discount programs similar to those offered by museums.
Discussion Items
- 4.1 Impact of Development Impact Fee Waivers – CFO Alan Alton and Planning Director Gabe Osburn presented an analysis showing that waiving capital facility fees (CFF) and park development impact fees could cripple the city’s ability to fund infrastructure projects unless backfilled. Over the last three years, affordable housing projects contributed 41% of park fees and 35% of CFF. Four options were offered: (1) a full AB 602 nexus study (2‑year process, ~$350,000 consultant cost); (2) a pilot program with a defined backfill cap; (3) a waiver without backfilling, requiring an impact analysis; (4) a targeted approach focusing on missing middle housing. Council members expressed interest in a three‑ to five‑year pilot, with annual evaluation, focused on very low, low, and moderate income housing. Most supported exempting park fees from waivers. Council directed staff to prepare a policy based on the Generation Housing right‑size proposal, with a three‑ to five‑year term, and to report annually on outcomes.
- 15.3 Jennings Avenue At‑Grade Crossing – Assistant City Manager Jason Nutt and Assistant City Attorney Adam Abel explained the history: CPUC approval in 2016, but SMART had refused to sign a license agreement. SMART’s latest draft required the city to assume all liability for any incident at the crossing, even if caused by SMART’s ordinary negligence, and to pay all of SMART’s legal defense costs. The city proposed a revised agreement (Attachment 2) that limits the city’s liability to incidents within the crossing itself and requires the city to indemnify SMART only for concurrent negligence. Councilmembers overwhelmingly supported the revised agreement (option 2), with Councilmember Rogers noting that the CPUC has repeatedly affirmed the crossing is safe. A motion passed 7‑0 to direct the City Manager to negotiate and execute the revised agreement and notify SMART and the CPUC.
- 15.1 Five‑Year Economic Development Strategic Plan (2024‑2029) – Director Osburn presented the plan, built around three pillars: business growth, economic vibrancy and resiliency, and community investment. The plan was developed with over 600 survey responses and input from regional partners. Council adopted it unanimously (6‑0, Fleming absent).
- 15.2 South Santa Rosa Specific Plan Community Engagement Strategy – Staff presented a strategy emphasizing outreach to underrepresented groups, including door‑to‑door engagement and partnerships with community events. Council approved (6‑0) a waiver of Council Policy 000‑06 to allow staff to appoint county residents living in the plan area to the Engagement Advisory Committee, and accepted the engagement strategy.
- 15.4 Budget Amendment – One‑Time Project Funding – CFO Alton outlined $3.06 million in funding for 11 projects, including: HR system assessment, internal control audit, vehicle lifts, fleet electrification master plan, video security cameras, phone system replacement, permitting software upgrade, police radio upgrades, police data storage, and Doyle Park ball field upgrades. Council adopted the resolution (6‑0).
- Staff Briefings:
- 8.1 Earth Day Event – Staff announced the 15th annual Earth Day celebration on April 20, 2024, 12‑4 p.m. at Courthouse Square, featuring reusable foodware with a refundable deposit.
- 8.2 Community Empowerment Plan Update – Staff noted upcoming community outreach events for the Violence Prevention Partnership, Fire Department (Women in Public Safety Day), and Police Department (community police experience).
- Future Agenda Items:
- Councilmember C. Rogers requested a discussion on a senior overlay for mobile home parks (approved).
- Councilmember Alvarez requested discussions on a language translation policy and on buffer zones for cell phone towers (both approved).
- Mayor Rogers’ request to discuss temporarily closing portions of Fourth Street for bicycle/pedestrian use was approved 5‑1 (Okrepkie opposed).
- Councilmember C. Rogers’ request to develop a process to activate vacant parcels was approved 6‑0.
Key Outcomes
- Study Session (4.1): Council directed staff to bring back a policy for a three‑ to five‑year pilot fee‑reduction program (right‑sizing) focused on very low to moderate income housing, with annual performance reviews. Park fees to be excluded. Staff will also continue work on the missing middle ordinance.
- Public Hearing (16.1): Resolution RES‑2024‑038 adopted unanimously (7‑0), approving new and revised recreation and parks fees effective January 1, 2025.
- Jennings Crossing (15.3): Motion carried 7‑0 to direct the City Manager to negotiate and execute the revised real property license agreement (Attachment 2) and notify SMART and the CPUC.
- Economic Development Plan (15.1): Resolution RES‑2024‑046 adopted 6‑0 (Fleming absent).
- South Santa Rosa Specific Plan (15.2): Motion approved 6‑0 to waive Council Policy 000‑06 and accept the community engagement strategy.
- Budget Amendment (15.4): Resolution RES‑2024‑047 adopted 6‑0, appropriating $3,060,000 from general fund reserves for one‑time projects.
- Closed Session (3.1): No reportable action taken.
- All remaining consent items (13.1‑13.9) adopted 7‑0.
- Minutes of March 26, 2024, approved.
- Legislative update (17.1) received and filed: letters supporting AB 2257 (water/sewer fees) and S. 1430 (PFAS liability protection).
Meeting Transcript
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.
openpublica.com