I'd like to ask the interpreter currently on the Spanish channel to commence interpretation of the meeting.

For those just joining the meeting, live interpretation in Spanish is available, and members of the public or staff wishing to listen in Spanish can join the Spanish channel by clicking on the interpretation icon in the Zoom toolbar.

It looks like a globe.

I'm from Roseland.

I'm also a member of the Sonoma County Housing Advocacy Group, which came into uh existence almost 30 years ago in our effort to get more affordable residential rental housing into not just Santa Rosa but the entire county.

On today's agenda, there's an item.

Real property negotiations are occurring.

And as you know, with real estate, all this is kept in the dark until after the fact for the public.

But I'm here to at least advocate that whatever type of a real estate activity is occurring with this city-owned property, that there be housing, and that the housing should become affordable, rental, residential, and as many units as possible, and that you also look into having as many veterans get the opportunity to live on these sites, if possible.

Because I'm in the dark, I don't know what we're dealing with here, but these are just my dreams, if you will.

Did you know that there's a program called the Housing and Urban Development Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Voucher Program.

And what that does is it gives vouchers to veterans that are having difficulties finding housing, and it helps them, especially if they're currently housingless, homeless out on the streets, to get a voucher and hopefully get a place to rent.

One of the dilemmas is the vouchers haven't really been, if you'll excuse the expression, coordinated well between the city and the county, and it's the city that handles them for the entire county.

And yet, even Jeremy Newton, the chair of the housing authority, doesn't know exactly how many vouchers are available, and no one really knows the numbers, so that we can help the veterans.

And I go to these meetings and I bring this up because there are homeless veterans out there right now, and when the rain hits, they're going to be in a world of hurt.

Some of them are living down in a creek, Roseland Creek, which I volunteer to take care of.

So I bring this all up.

I know that the business people and the staffers aren't necessarily interested in all this at the time.

But you can actually use some of those vouchers on project-based situations in which you can verify ahead of time that you'll put 10, 15 vouchers into a project, and then that'll guarantee that veterans will get to live in those units.

And that's happened in a couple of places.

Up in Windsor, 55 units were put together, veterans getting to live there, and in some other places.

So whoever these folks are and whatever they're working on, keep veterans in mind and give them a chance for veterans to live in any kind of housing that might be coming forward on any kind of city land that might have some kind of a project to be getting done in the future.

And then last but not least, please avoid lawsuits from other folks.

I saw one of these guys out in the Roseland neighborhood the other day.

Take care.

Thank you, Duane.

Paul.

I can stand here and listen to the public comment, correct?

All right.

Thank you.

Paul, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mayor, staff, council members.

My name is Paul Parity, and I'm the founder of and CEO of Bahill Ventures.

Thank you so much.

That's good.

That's good.

Our Bahill team is really excited to be considered for the 733rd Street project.

Thanks for giving me a few moments today to express our enthusiasm and to share a few thoughts.

We started Bahill Ventures a few years ago after my 33-year career with Heinz, which is a global real estate company.

At Heinz, I led the development of major projects like Salesforce Tower in downtown San Francisco, the JP Morgan headquarters at 560 Mission and Sparra, a 35-story high-end apartment uh tower in downtown San Francisco, also.

All in all, I've worked on about 20 million square feet of commercial real estate development.

I'm really excited to put my experience to work here in downtown.

Santa Rosa is a wonderful place to live, and we're really confident there'll be great demand to live in the project that we've envisioned for this beautiful city.

I've had a home for 20 years on the other side of Trioni and Adele State Park, so I know and love this area of the world very much, and I'd be thrilled to build a project here.

The site has all the right attributes.

It's centrally located.

It uh is surrounded by all the downtown amenities.

It's large enough to deliver a sizable project, which will allow for lots of variety in the units and uh and amenities, some of which we'll make available to the public.

This is a really attractive development site, as I'm sure you know.

So our proposal to invest uh is to invest our own capital to design and entitle the project so that we advance it to a point where we secure investment partners to be able to build.

We won't rely on finding outside capital to fund the design and entitlement process, which allows momentum right from selection.

Our entitlement and design process creates certainty uh on the budget and schedule, giving our partners in the city confidence that we can commence construction immediately.

We'll design a community that will attract residents and thrive well into the distant future.

The high quality of the project will reflect the importance of the site.

Understanding the rental market is dynamic and still improving from some challenging years.

We've structured the purchase price to allow the city to benefit from future higher values.

We see this as the start of the long-term relationship with Santa Rosa and hope it'll be the first of numerous projects.

And I thank you for your time today.

Thank you, Paul.

Thanks for being here.

Are there any other members of the public who'd like to speak?

Please go ahead.

Uh good afternoon, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Matt Skelton, and I'm the vice president of acquisitions for the Groupie Company.

Um thank you for the opportunity to let us speak about our proposal in the 733rd Street RFP.

Um Group B is no stranger to Santa Rosa or Sonoma County.

We built built the BRICS 325 apartments over on Yolanda Avenue.

Um we are also the selected developer for the Sonoma Development Center, um, which we are actively working on entitlements right now, and we also have um an active residential project in Sebastopol.

Uh more broadly, the grouping companies developed more than 13,000 apartments, over 20 master plan communities across Northern California, and among many in fill residential for sale projects.

Uh we also bring direct experience in dealing in in uh downtown corn uh core areas, um, having several apartment projects in midtown Sacramento.

Um for this project, we brought in our partner, uh Visionary Home Builders, an affordable housing developer, uh, who has a proven record of success.

Uh visionary has developed over 30 apartment, uh excuse me, 30 projects of various types, totally um more than 2,500 units across uh various levels of of affordability.

Uh Visionary is also um brings extensive uh knowledge in uh securing federal tax credits needed for an affordable housing community and also a great track record when it comes to success in uh awarding uh state level subsidies such as ASIC and um and MHP.

Um together we uh we uh uh envision a large-scale development in the downtown core area.

We think it's a great place for an affordable housing community.

We see it as an opportunity to provide much needed affordable housing in the in the downtown core area here, and um and we are enthusiastic to for the chance to work with the city and the community uh to bring this vision to life.

Thank you very much for your time.

Matt, thank you very much.

Are there any other members of the public who'd like to speak?

Please, the mic is yours.

Thank you.

My name is uh Barra McSwin from LH Housing.

Uh thanks so much, uh Mayor and uh city members.

Um we're super excited about this downtown site.

Uh I think you have a great set of developers here.

Um we're we're very happy that I think whatever decision you make is gonna be a a really good one.

Um, but I'd like to make a couple points that make us a little bit different.

Um, first, I would say our focus is always on workforce housing, filling the middle, uh, the missing middle, if you will, the housing.

That's all we design for.

Uh that's all of our capital is focused on the 80 to 120 percent AMI, which I think is a great fit for your site downtown.

Um all of our designs are top quality.

We look to build out the housing as a class A, but aimed for workforce housing.

Uh the second point is that we are fully funded.

Um, we do not look for tax credits, uh, we do not look for any kind of subsidies.

Uh we uh manage pension fund money, we manage Korean capital.

Uh all of our partners are aware of this site.

We've talked to them there and like Santa Rosa.

So when we build a project, we are fully capitalized from the CAP stack from A to Z.

And we are ready to build on this day one.

And then the third piece I think that's really important is that you know we are a committed partner.

We like Santa Rosa.

We like the area.

We want to build on more sites down here.

We are not looking to uh refinance out or have to sell the asset or deal with traditional institutional capital where we have a three to three or five year time span.

Uh we have very, very long-term uh partners that want to stay here.

Umprofit partner, uh Decrow is a great property manager, and so once we build the project, we intend to have a very focused tenant-oriented management.

Um we want to be connected with the city on this deal.

We want to make sure that we deliver something that is positive to the downtown that uh re-energi energizes the downtown, creates uh um uh ground floor, uh food hall court play that that really kind of connects this project with the rest of the city, and we're really open to feedback, uh working with all the community members, uh you uh to make something make a lot of sense for everybody.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, and thank you again to all of you for being here.

Are there any other members of the public who'd like to speak?

Seeing none, we'll close public comment.

And before we uh recess, I will mention that item 3.4 is being continued to a date uncertain.

So I announced it earlier, but item 3.4 is being continued, so it's just items 3.1 through 3.3 today.

And with that, we will recess into closed session.

Thank you, everyone.

Welcome back, everyone.

The time is four o'clock, and we will reconvene.

Madam City Clerk, would you please call the roll?

Thank you, Mayor.

Councilmember Rogers, present, councilmember Krepki.

Here, Councilmember McDonald, here.

Councilmember Fleming.

Councilmember Ben Willows.

Here, Vice Mayor Alvarez.

President Mayor Stopp.

Here.

Let the record show that all council members are present.

Thank you.

We'll move on to item six, our report on closed sessions.

Madam City Attorney.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I have one report out from closed session.

Um I just lost it.

One second.

Okay.

By a vote of six affirmative votes with Vice Mayor Alvarez absent, council directed the city attorney to initiate litigation on behalf of the city.

Once formally commenced, the particulars of the action will be made available to any person requesting that information.

And with that, I have no other reportable action to report.

Thank you very much.

And now we will move on to item 7.1, our proclamation to celebrate Women's Equality Day.

And I'll turn to my colleague, Ms.

Rogers.

Thank you, Mayor, for allowing me the honor to read this proclamation.

And I would also like to point out that it is the first time in Santa Rosa's history that we've had an all female majority sitting here on the council.

So I am very proud to start with you guys.

Thank you so much.

Whereas on August 26, 2025, we mark the 105th anniversary of the enactment of the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which secured the right to vote for women.

And whereas in 1976, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors established one of the first commissions on the status of women in the state of California with the purpose of promoting equal rights and opportunities that enhance the quality of life for all women and girls, and addressing issues of discrimination and prejudice that negatively affect women in Sonoma County.

And whereas women constitute nearly 50% of our workforce, the majority of the students in our colleges and graduate schools, and an increasing number of primary breadwinners.

And whereas in 2024, 2025, Sonoma County, women working full-time earn 86% of what men earn, and women working in agricultural and service services areas, such as the majority of women workers in Sonoma Valley earn even less.

And whereas, even with the gains women have made, more work remains to be done in many areas that directly impact equal pay for equal work, including access to quality affordable child care, affordable housing, and comprehensive health care for women, including reproductive and mental health care.

Whereas the mandate for women's equality day in 2025 is to accelerate efforts to eliminate systemic barriers and biases that impede women's progress, emphasizing the need for swift and decisive measures to achieve gender equity.

Now, therefore it be it resolved that our mayor, Mark Statt, the mayor of the City of Santa Rosa, on behalf of the entire city council, in recognition of our community, do hereby proclaim August 26, 2025 as women's equality day.

Thank you very much.

And do we have Unan here to accept the award?

Oh, Melanie, is it you?

Great.

Melanie, the floor is yours.

Thank you.

My name is Melanie Jones Carter, and I'm the Vice Chair for the Commission on the Status of Women in Sonoma County, appointed by Supervisor Chris Corsey.

We would like to thank the council for taking the time to acknowledge the work done by so many impactful women in Sonoma County.

While the 19th Amendment was a major victory, women's equality day also serves as a reminder that the fight for full gender equality continues.

The day is also a chance to recognize the decades of activism and act advocacy that led to the passage of the 19th Amendment.

Women's Equality Day is a day for reflection, celebration, and continued commitment to advancing women's rights and opportunities.

The commissioners are advisors to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors and work to ensure that issues impacting women and girls are given the necessary visibility to affect positive change in public policy.

This year we have committees focusing on how women and girls in Sonoma County are impacted by homelessness, mental health issues, and immigration.

We have our next panel on immigration scheduled for 9 11.

We invite you to attend either in person or via Zoom.

After each panel is completed, we produce a white paper with suggestions and solutions.

Feel free to reach out to the commission if you ever have any need for issues that impact women and girls in Sonoma County.

Again, thank you so much to the council for this proclamation.

Melanie, thank you so much for your well, let's yes, let's applaud that.

Melanie, thank you so much for your work on the commission and on so many other boards in our community.

Uh before we invite you down for a photo, let's open this up to public comment.

Are there any members of the public who would like to speak?

Thank you, Dwayne.

We'll have that in the record.

All right, we'll close public comment.

And Melanie, why don't you come down and take a quick photo?

Thank you again, Melanie.

We'll turn now to item 7.2.

There are a few topics that can capture the attention of city council members right now more than property tax.

So we are delighted to welcome Diva and Alan to give us more information.

Thank you, Mayor Stapp, members of the council.

Each year we are given property assessment uh value information.

And we thought that it would be uh uh good to have Diva come by and give a presentation to the council and the community on the uh property tax information just for uh Santa Rosa.

So with that, I will turn it over to Diva.

Thank you.

Hello, Council members.

So uh as Alan said, I'm Diva Marie Proto, the county assessor.

So our annual just uh on a broader level on the county level.

Uh this year our 25-26 assessment role was just over 127 billion dollars.

The majority of that is secured value, which is what people typically think about land and structures, although we did have about four billion dollars in unsecured value, so that could be personal property, boats, aircrafts, things that aren't affixed to the land generally.

So that does represent a 5.44% increase over last year's value.

Most of that was in the secured value.

We had a very small change in the unsecured value.

And we did see a slightly higher increase in the unincorporated areas as compared to the incorporated cities.

Just a little bit about timelines.

So the values that are presented as part of this role are based on the values as of January 1st of 2025.

So we go through our processes, we're basing everything on the market value as of that day or the proposition 13 value.

And then we close our role on June 30th and turn that information over to the auditor controller treasure tax collector.

So they take the assessed value that we provide, they apply the appropriate tax rate areas, they determine the values, and then the tax collector actually sends out the bills and gets the payments for that.

So most people are familiar with the December 10th due date as well as the April 10th.

So in the case of the April 10th date, it's due actually over a year after those values have been set.

And then of course, we are working on role corrections and supplemental assessments on an ongoing basis.

So there are tax bills and notices being sent out for those.

And then since then we've had pretty steady increases in the assessment role.

And this is just looking at the actual percentages, again, some years of negative growth, and then we've had pretty consistent increases since then.

So in terms of the city, Santa Rosa's fairly in the middle, not the highest growth, but a 5.3% increase over last year.

So our lowest one was Cloverdale this year, and our highest was Sebastopool.

And this could be for a variety of factors.

So you can see that we had a slight decrease in assessed value in Santa Rosa for personal property.

And we did have a higher percentage in terms of what property was, what values were exempted.

So this could be something as small as more people filing homeowners' exemptions, and it could also be a low-income property that started receiving the welfare exemption.

So as I mentioned, there are several growth factors that relate each year to the role.

So proposition 13 is really our driving force behind the assessment role, and that means that property is reassessed upon transfer of property or upon new construction.

It's reassessed at the market value at the time of the event, and that's not necessarily the sales price, especially if there's an off-market transaction, but generally speaking, it tends to be the sales price.

And then the property assessments will go up annually, a maximum of 2%.

So if the CPI is lower than 2%, you're going to get the lower of the two.

So we are seeing slightly higher increases than some other counties in the Bay Area because of that.

We are making good progress on the backlog reduction.

So that is a positive thing.

And then we also just wanted to flag for people that proposition 19 is affecting things, but we don't have a lot of data on it yet.

So proposition 19 was passed by the voters in November of 2020.

And there were two big provisions for that.

One is a transfer of base year value, so victims of fire, or if people are older than 55, they can transfer their base year value anywhere in the state and do that three times, and they can keep their base year value as they transfer from property to property.

So we are seeing in Sonoma County people from the Bay Area, especially San Francisco's, Marin, Santa Clara, who have maybe owned their home for a long time transferring up here, buying a property and then bringing their low base year up here.

So we're not seeing the full value of that transfer.

On the flip side, we are also having people from Sonoma County leave and go maybe to the foothills, Sacramento area, places where it's slightly lower, and they're taking that base year value with them, and then that property may be reassessed at the current market value as of that transfer.

We're also seeing an increase based on the intergenerational transfers.

So in the past, a parent could pass property to their child with no reassessment of that property.

Now it has to be the primary residence of the parent, and it has to become the primary residence of the child within one year.

Otherwise, it is not eligible for that base year value transfer.

So we are seeing less eligible properties, which means that we're seeing more reassessments based on deaths or property transfers between families.

And I know it was absolutely fascinating, but that is the end of my presentation.

So if anyone has any questions.

That was fascinating and very important.

Thank you for taking the time to be here tonight.

I'm going to bring it back to council for questions, looking at my colleagues.

Oh, come on, people.

Ms.

Ms.

Fleming.

Thank you for that presentation.

I'm curious, and though, are you able to tell us about the I know this is not really within the scope, but if if you have it off the top of your head, the the percentage of property tax that's collected and how that's um distributed to the various jurisdictions, they get a piece of that?

I'm afraid I don't have that information.

That is really the auditor's office and tax collector as they do the um different tax rates and uh split all the revenue into the appropriate buckets.

Okay, thank you.

Sorry.

That was your question.

Right.

Fine.

I will ask a couple of questions.

Um you might not have the answer to these either, but what's the um what is the comparison between Sonoma County's tax base and say Napa's lakes, mendocinos.

Where do you rank in the North Bay?

We are, I would say below the kind of San Francisco, Santa Claras in terms of assessed values, they're larger, they have more properties, more people.

Um we're larger than I think like three times or four times Napa about um much more so.

NAPA's about 160,000, yeah.

Okay.

So we are and we're proportionally larger than NAPA in roughly that or larger and roughly that same proportion.

I think NAVA has they have some higher property values in some cases, so I don't know that it's completely proportional, but I would say in line with general yeah, I'm not sure we have we have done that actual comparison that you're speaking of, but we we do have a higher role value than they do.

So I'm well, I'm just I'm catching you off guard here.

I was just I was just curious to know how we compared.

Um in terms of growth rate, it looks like we've we tended to average in that five or six five or six percent when we're not in a in a great recession.

Is that the forecast going forward that that some something in that range is going to continue?

Uh we don't generally forecast, um, mainly because we don't know what's happening with the market.

I know there's a lot of uncertainty right now related to uh the commercial market to agriculture and vineyards.

So we are constantly looking at market values to see if we are seeing any type of a dip.

We have I would say a more varied economy than some areas in the Bay Area, so we haven't seen any dips at this point in time.

We've seen kind of maybe rumblings on the horizon of possible issues with vineyard values or with commercial values, but we don't have the market value necessarily yet to back that up.

But we'll continue to look at it.

Thank you for that.

And Alan, do you have any city-specific forecasts?

Yes.

So we um off the top of my head, no.

We do run around, I would say we're closer to three or four percent with our forecasting going out.

We use the information that comes uh from the county, uh, both the assessors information, but also a number of other uh uh factors that kind of roll into where our forecasting is, it is different than what uh diva's uh presenting here.

Um but yeah, around I would say uh we're we sit around three or four percent growth that we're looking at and um uh uh and and we really kind of uh go down and flatten out in our out years of our forecast.

So we really focus on the first couple of years.

Thank you for that.

Well, I don't think I have any any other questions, but I did want to say thank you again.

Um and actually before I give my thanks, let's do public comment.

Are there any members of the public who would like to make comment on this item tonight?

Seeing none, we'll close public comment.

Um and Diva, I'll just say thank you again for for stopping by.

Alan, thank you for arranging this.

Uh and diva, thank you for your many years of work, not only in this area, but on elections as well.

You have the toughest, least least or the toughest and most tedious jobs in in the county.

Much obliged.

So thank you very much.

We will move on to item 8.1, our capital improvement improvement program status update.

Director Hennessy.

Uh good afternoon, Mayor, Vice Mayor, members of council, uh, Dan Hennessy, a transportation and public works director, uh, here with some exciting updates.

The foremost of which is that I bring a co-presenter with me, our new deputy director of engineering services overseeing the Capital Projects Division, Krista Siegenthaler.

Uh no happier person in the city than me that she's here.

Um but I wanted to give Krista the opportunity to introduce herself to everybody really quick.

Good afternoon.

Um like Dan said, my name is Krista Siegenthaler.

Um I actually grew up in Santa Rosa, and I've spent the last uh 17 years working for Caltrans.

So I am very happy to be back.

Um excited to deliver projects for the city of Santa Rosa.

Thank you.

Somebody who knows what they're doing is finally here to help us.

So hopefully we'll we'll get some good work from Krista and some more improvements for the community members.

Um, this bridge.

Uh on Friday, the California Transportation California Transportation Commission approved an amendment to the state transportation improvement program, uh, which basically confirms our concept design construction timeline funding uh plan for this that says we're allowed to move forward.

Uh so that is all but one permission we need.

We have one form into Caltrans that says uh that allows us to bid the project.

That's a six to eight week timeline uh that we submitted a couple weeks ago anticipating approval last Friday.

So we expect in late September or October a bid plan set to hit the streets for contractors to take a look at.

Um we uh have out right now an RFP for construction management and inspection services for this project.

So we're full steam ahead and expect to award a contract on this before the end of the year and have a groundbreaking ceremony with all of you sometime next spring.

So uh I know it's been a long time coming.

Uh yeah.

A lot of work has been done for several decades over this.

Um I'm lucky to be the one that gets to present the good news, but a lot of people did a lot of stuff to make this happen.

Um to some smaller projects where we've had recent successful bids.

Um since I last spoke with you in early June, we've had seven projects um have successful bid opportunities, four of which are on today's agenda for your approval in the consent portion.

Uh sorry in advance to the city clerk for having to read all that.

Um but that brings us now to uh 15 successful bid opportunities for the year.

Um when we talked last seven of the first eight that we had for the year came in under the engineer's estimate, and we were really optimistic that was a trend that might continue.

Um we're oh for the last seven.

All everything you see on here was over the engineer's estimate, somewhere between 15 and 35 percent.

Um whether that's a trend, we don't know.

And talking to contractors, they're guessing right now at their costs, and they're passing that uncertainty along to us and asking us to help them deal with it.

And uh we don't really have a choice but to if we want to keep moving.

So everybody's kind of just watching out for what's happening in both the labor market and the uh materials markets right now.

Um, but there's a lot of uncertainty happening.

Um I also wanted to note that last time we talked about the Slurry SEAL project in Northwest Santa Rosa.

That completed on Friday on schedule, uh some hiccups from residents uh trying to access their their driveways and properties and get out of their neighborhood, but everything handled by our team and and without uh much ado.

So as I mentioned, um we've done this will be with the approval today.

We'll have 15 projects awarded this year.

I just wanted to prep prepare a uh comparison to past years.

In the last uh three years, we have done 35 project awards total.

Um through today, we'll be at 15.

Uh, there are five more projects currently out to bid, and another 11 that we anticipate bidding before December.

So we this is cyclical.

Um there is there has been some strategy and some effort to make certain that things get done this year, um, and this won't happen every year, but we will have uh awarded 31 contracts this year compared to 35 the last three based on our tentative plans.

The most exciting part about all of this to me is that of the 16 remaining projects for this year and the 17 additional projects that we have for January through March of 2026, every single one of them is 100% funded based on what we know.

So uh you all made a clear uh ask of us to focus on deliverability.

We have done that.

Um, and everything that's on our books right now for particularly for transportation of public works and for water, we expect to deliver.

We have a plan to deliver, um, and I'm excited to share that news.

Those 20 projects that um are out currently or are um have already been awarded, some to just under 35 million dollars.

The remaining 11 uh are almost 70 million dollars of construction work.

So I think last time, Mayor, you asked if we how far into eight figures we were gonna get this year, and um I pretty confidently said far into it, but I was unsure.

I'm pretty sure we're gonna hit nine figures of construction contracts in 2025, um, and well into nine figures for fiscal year 25-26 as a whole.

Um, and if you'll remember our entire capital improvement budget is just over 75 million dollars.

So well over a year's worth of funding will be spent this year delivering projects.

Some of those projects that are coming in 21 uh at the beginning of 2026 include repaving projects uh on bicentennial and fountain grove, uh pedestrian safety improvements on Dutton Avenue, Corby Avenue, Hearn Avenue, uh paving on Third Street, Pearson Street, along with sidewalk improvements, uh paving on B Street.

There are water projects in the Myers Drive area, uh Robus Trunk Lining Project and a flood protection project out at the Laguna Treatment Pant.

For the rest of the year, a host of projects across departments.

Those that you see bolded there are from are led by Santa Rosa Water.

The italicized ones are for uh transportation to public works along with a couple of parks projects.

Um, but again, more than 70 million dollars worth of work still to come this year.

So far, this presentation I think has mostly been good news.

Um I wanted to uh also share that um we're gonna be late with the Bennett Valley Golf Course Irrigation Pond, and that is my fault.

Um we have had resource challenges internally.

There are a number of reasons why, but ultimately it's my fault.

I didn't prioritize things correctly.

Um this is not gonna get done this year.

Um we're looking for ways to make some improvements before the winter and doing some explor exploration of drilling for the fall to be prepared for the winter, but the pond itself will not be complete uh before this winter.

So we will experience another winter without that.

Uh I apologize for that.

I misallocated the resources to uh accomplish this project before the winter.

Um we have a plan.

This project will be bid this winter, December or January.

We will be constructing out there in the spring all of the issues that we've encountered, we've sorted through every time we've unpile unturned a leaf.

We've found more leaves to unturn and figure out what the next issue is.

Um so I did want to bring that back to you as a council funded project that uh we mess this one up, but mostly I mess this one up and um we'll get it done next year.

Um in with our new brethren uh from parks, um, we have been taking a look at their funding and their project plans to help deliver and help uh move through some additional projects.

So there are a host of projects that are currently in construction or out to bid right now.

Those are the ones that you see on the list.

Um that leaves another $50 million or so that is uh unspoken for in terms of ongoing construction.

Fourteen different projects have funding allocated to them, seven of which are anticipated to begin construction in the next 12 months, uh, which is good news.

However, the funding split between those projects, um, only four of them are fully funded.

So in the next few months, we are gonna be moving money around.

I will come back with an update to you about how that will work.

Um, but we have not allocated the resources correctly to deliver uh this year.

So similar to the discussions that we've had in the past about uh particularly transportation and public works project, we will have a similar discussion later this year at the next update to share how we move some money around and are getting more parks projects out the door.

Um the goal though is ensure those Measure M funds are spent.

Those are the those are the money that our community members are paying for parks improvements.

We're gonna get them spent.

Um I know that there is a uh real desire to see some improvements downtown.

And um a host of people from parks from planning and economic development from transportation and public works have been talking about what those opportunities are, what our funding sources are to make those happen.

Um we're talking about lighting, signage, play equipment, street art, um, any host of items.

Um in talking to that, um, there are some fairly um big picture changes being considered for things like Courthouse Square for some of our streets and in terms of how they operate and what they do.

Um and that team is is asking for some feedback from you, whether now or through the city manager um as you have time to consider this.

But you know, there are a number of things we could do quickly.

Um we can make decisions and go.

However, there are is almost certainly going to be interest around this, and we're uh wanting to know from you what level of engagement you're looking for from us, a full community engagement process, uh report back to council using our boards and commissions, or can staff make choices and go?

Um, you know, I know there's desire for action, but there's also a lot of interest in downtown, and um, you know, we're happy to make mistakes if if you authorize us to make some mistakes and and go, but we want to try to do as many good things as we can as quickly as possible, uh, but also understanding that there's a lot of interest in this.

Um so spending some of those parks fees, some of the ped fees that we have available, also some funds from transportation of public works to make improvements for uh signage and and play structures and things like that um in Juilliard Park and Courthouse Square and JG Way and and others.

Um so any feedback you have on that either now or through the city manager back to me would be appreciated.

Uh thank you for the time to make that update, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Dan and Krista, excellent as always, and welcome.

Looking to my colleagues for any questions.

Mayor, before you take questions, I do want to thank Dan for his transparency.

Um I know Bennett Valley has been on the list for a long time.

You know, our goal is not to hide the football.

Uh we want to come to you when we feel like you know things are delayed and we want to be very transparent.

So, Dan, I appreciate your transparency and know it is not your fault.

Um, but we do uh want to communicate with no surprises as we move these projects forward as well.

Thanks.

Thank you for that.

Looking again to counsel for questions.

Ms.

McDonald?

Thank you, Mayor.

And thank you for the presentation.

I appreciate your willingness to accept responsibility for something that started before you got here.

But um, but as uh city manager said, I'm I'm happy that you're gonna be focusing specifically on Bennett Valley and getting that out the door eventually, because I know that's been something we hear from constituents that it needs to be addressed.

I do want to also thank you for looking at the budget specifically on parks development to see how we combine our funds and not do these tenure projects and start to earmark and and we can see the proofs in the pudding right now that you have so many projects happening just within this year, and I just want to really commend you and your whole team.

I know that it's everybody, not just you doing the work to get these out the door.

So thank you for that.

One question that I do have is on the downtown park improvements.

Have we talked to the DAO and the businesses down there to include them in the discussion about what they want to see, what they want to have in the middle of Courthouse Square, so that it's not, you know, we're really attracting families and people downtown, but making sure that we're reaching out to them consistently.

Yeah, through this um reorganization process, we've done a lot of coordinating with the DAO recently in terms of maintenance responsibilities between parks and TPW, um, but also what are the types of improvements that we're considering?

Um so yes, I uh I I should have said that we are um working with them quite a bit on not just what needs to be there, but then also what happens after.

How does it get maintained?

How you know who does it serve um and making sure that we're all on the same page.

Great.

Thanks.

Welcome to the team.

Thank you.

Mr.

O'Krupke.

Yeah, um well, the slurry skill slurry seal schedule.

Um, do we ever consult with the school calendars as to when that will take place?

We tried.

We we messed it up, but we tried.

Okay.

Uh yeah, we did look at the calendars.

Um, I think one there was a change to the school calendar after we also misread one.

So yeah, we we messed up.

Okay.

Yes, uh maybe uh a reread uh and double checking would be good in the future.

Um I received some reports back on that.

Um and then um do you want direction now city manager?

Okay, yeah, I for me I think it would be great for to go through um the various boards and commissions to see what their uh um uh input is if we're already interacting with the DAO and the business community, then we can go that route and then come back.

I don't know, with a study session or report item or whatever it might be to get our input on it before final approval or what have you, whatever might be the easiest route to do that as long as it I mean I'm open to suggestions.

Um I know this has been a topic for probably the last two years to activate the square uh specifically for families.

So whatever the easiest way it is to provide feedback to us, I'm open to.

Yeah, uh I'm always a big fan of efficiency and doing things quickly, but I think um the square ever since the reunification has been a passionate issue for many people.

So um maybe slowing it down just a a little bit to to go through the process appropriately would be warranted in this situation.

I think uh slowing it down could still mean yeah in the next few months, not a years long process.

So uh appreciate that feedback.

Thanks, Councilmember.

Fantastic, thank you.

Ms.

Fleming.

Um thank you.

And my first question is around slurry seals.

Um every time these maps come out, you know, uh you gotta put on your helmet before you go in your email.

Uh you know what I mean.

And I'm just curious, my you know, I have constituents who are understandably frustrated by the terrible pavement conditions.

And you know, I I try to talk with them about the constraints for our budgets and whatever, but I'm just curious if you could give any guidance on like how do you how would you communicate with someone around like because it's not really appropriate for us to ask you to pave a specific street.

We can bring something to your attention, but you know, I mean it's it sets a uh you know it's not great governance to be like, hey Dan, I I need you to do this street over here for Jane, so you know she doesn't uh you know come for me in the middle of the night.

So how do you how do you think of that?

Um I put my helmet on.

Uh no, I um I think I am as transparent as we can be about what we need and how we're addressing it to the best of our abilities.

Um and if you if it would be helpful for me to provide some kind of form language about our capabilities and what we can't do, I could do that.

But I'm also happy to respond to constituents um as you get questions.

We you know, I think through the prioritization process we went through last year, we redirected a lot of funding towards pavement maintenance, and I think that will be seen over the next few years in terms of the work that's done.

But that to be seen on a on a scale at a city scale, that's a generational project.

I mean, that that will be you know, 2040 will be talking about the success of that if we stick on this course.

Um that's a long time coming.

Thank you.

And as for the downtown parks go, I think that I would conceptualize it on two tracks.

One would be for larger projects, we definitely want to get good community input.

But that said, there's a lot of smaller things that folks have been wanting to have done for a while, whether it's in upgraded electrical on the square or other types of things.

You know, I I wouldn't put anything like that through a process.

I would, you know, prioritize getting stuff done in general.

Um I also think that you know you have pretty good judgment and that you know community process is important, but it doesn't necessarily be need to be quite as exhaustive as say like rebuilding a neighborhood park or a community park.

Thank you.

Miss Ben Wales.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um thank you so much, Dan, uh, for a great presentation.

Um I just wanted to say um first off, um, it's very impressive how many projects you've got going compared to what we've done in the past.

So congratulations on that.

And also um congratulations on moving the pedestrian uh bicycle bridge forward.

I think that's really exciting.

As you said, um it's been in the making for a really long time, so I'm really glad to see that you're getting so close.

Um the only thing I wanted to uh comment, and I do have a list for downtown, uh, and I I uh talk to uh city manager often about it.

Um but the one the two things that I wanted to stress, I think were um community engagement, um getting more feedback.

I mean, I I do think it's important to talk to the DAO and and chamber and and obviously the merchants, I think all of those folks um and I know from what I hear um many conversations are going on in economic development and uh um and I think all of that is wonderful, but it uh but also when we think about what we want to see in downtown, it's really not what we want to see downtown.

It's what the community wants to see downtown.

So I think that's a piece that probably we need to invest more time in.

Um, and um as I said, uh I'll probably in terms of process give my list to uh the city manager and and uh we can uh talk about it more um because there's so many things that we could be doing, and I agree with uh councilmember Fleming.

There's some things that we can do quickly, and then there's some things that are going to be more long term.

So um with that, I just say thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Dan, you mentioned um that there might be areas where staff could have more discretion, and we could we could speed things along.

Can you give a few examples of what that might look like?

I think everything that we're considering right now can be could be handled administratively.

And so, you know, we're talking on this on the level of um you know, pedestrian scale lighting, um, purchasing play equipment for the square, uh public art in places like Gigi Way, um, maybe some monument signage at the gateways to downtown.

Um all of that is within staff's ability to do, you know, tomorrow if we had our ducks in a row.

Um but we also know that a lot of eyes are on downtown and there are a lot of opinions about what should happen and what shouldn't.

And so um that was that was kind of the origin for the question was how much should we use our judgment as staff knowing that there can be such strong feelings about downtown.

Thank you for that.

My instinct is always to devolve as many decisions as possible to the staff level for the sake of efficiency.

Um there are sensitivities down there, as my colleagues have have highlighted.

Nevertheless, just as a as a matter of principle, I'm always I'm I'm always eager to have staff have more leeway rather than less.

And I do think that the scale of projects that we're talking about are all things that could be undone if we make a mistake.

We're not talking about huge investments anywhere.

Um really, with the exception of Courthouse Square and potential place structures or rearranging of things there and how that might affect um larger programming.

Everything else is um you know, on the order of five-figure improvements, you know, real money, but um in the grand scheme of things.

And we already have regular discussions with DAO in particular, the chamber, other the local the downtown business owners.

There's already there's there are already established channels of communication to get their feedback when these decisions are made.

There are a lot of voices in the room right now, yeah.

Yes, many cooks in the kitchen.

Um well, thank you for raising that issue.

Uh and back to the back to the golf course.

Um thank you for being willing to to fall on a sword there.

Um, but as uh Ms.

McDonald mentioned that that issue has been decades in the making.

Um so thank you for for being willing to wait in literally and fix it.

Um and with respect to the plan that's in place right now, you feel good about our our chances of having um something something under construction by the spring.

Yes.

Okay.

We've waited through almost all of the uncertainty and have a plan to go now.

Excellent.

Thank you for that.

Uh and then finally, just thanks again for um the magnificent work on getting so many projects out the door.

The fact that we're looking at nine figures of work, what that means not only for the for the the the just the um the capital in the in the in our community, but then the the the the ripple econom or the economic ripple effects of the of those kinds of projects going out there.

It's outstanding.

So thank you so much for a positive report.

If there are no other questions from my colleagues, I think we'll go to public comment.

Are there any members of the public who would like to comment on this item?

Mr.

DeWitt, I see you're first to the podium.

Go ahead.

Yes, thank you.

My name is Dwayne DeWitt, I'm from Roseland.

Dan deliverability.

That's the nickname.

He delivers, he gets it done.

Man, there's so much stuff going on in Roseland now because of this guy.

Let's give him big thanks, seven-year-itch.

A lot of stuff wasn't getting done before he's here.

With that in mind, he mentions there's these major projects going on.

But it's been seven years since the annexation, and South Avenue is still really messed up in a bad way, and I'm hoping we can get that rebuilt sometime in the near future.

It's really encouraging to hear of the frequent problem, Hearn Avenue, pedestrian improvements may be coming our way.

It's good to see we'll get a traffic signal at Hearn and Burbank.

That's been talked of for a really long time.

Corby Avenue, it's dangerous.

As a matter of fact, Burbank Avenue is dangerous right now because no one abides by the speed limits of 25 miles an hour.

We've got schools there, Hearn Avenue.

You know what we actually call it?

Hearn Raceway and Burbank Speedway.

Those two roads are really dangerous.

And so that traffic light being put in as soon as possible is a really big improvement.

And I think that comes from Mr.

Hennessy stepping up to the plate and being that person to try to get these things done.

It's really important you also look into the fact that he's taken on the parks and recreation department under his department, and he's doing so much and getting so much done.

So he doesn't know me very well, and he knows that I'll rephrase that.

He might not know that getting a thanks from me could be held against him.

But I want you to know, sir, you are doing some stellar work that's really helping the most disadvantaged neighborhoods in Santa Rosa.

And so with that in mind, I'll be walking the streets where you talk about getting stuff done, and we'll be there to help you in any way that we can.

At the state level, we've been told that there's the possibility of asking for more funds from the state, even as the feds pull back by asking for road improvements on safety levels.

So we'll look into that more and constantly be cheering for uh well, let's just go with Dan Deliverable.

That's shorter and quick.

That gets it done.

Thank you, kindly.

Thank you, Duane.

Dan deliverable could stick.

Janice, we'll go to you.

City Council and Manager and staff, Janice Carmen here.

Uh I sort of um am thinking along the uh what uh Victoria had to say about the um asphalt roads improvement.

And I've asked um over time, and I asked specifically, I don't know, two months ago or something, either here at Planning Commission, about Calistoga Road being refinished, possibly all the way to the Napa line.

I'm revoking that or amending that.

And I'd like to see it go beyond um Maria Carrillo.

The uh stripping is very light, and you can hardly see it as you approach the school off of Calistoga Road.

Uh I also talked about the very poor uh Calistoga uh road uh being entered from highway 12, and that has been improved since I spoke, and that was about six weeks ago or something like that.

And thank you for paying attention to that because it was really, really dangerous, and it's still fairly dangerous because the island is really only about 18 inches wide, and it's very narrow, and there was actually homeless person trying to panhandle on that.

So you're turning the corner, there's all these things going on, and then there's somebody standing in the wee little spot in the middle of the road.

But um, I had also asked for a crosswalk that would be in front of the apartment building going over to the mall.

And uh there are still kids, skateboards, bicycles, and they're running across that road uh at all hours, daylight or darkness, it doesn't matter.

Sometimes I go to safe way late and they're out there.

Uh I saw an old woman with a uh grocery cart running across the street trying to get to the other side.

And I talk with people about this, and they say if if it went from the sidewalk on the other side of the road to the open driveway, or not to the driveway, but to the sidewalk on the other side of Calistoga Road, that that would take care of the problem, and and it should have something leading up to it that says caution or something like that, because it's pretty close to when you uh turn the corner on Calistoga Road.

Uh the other is um I I'm really happy to hear the presentations that I've heard so far today.

It sounds like the city has turned a corner and things are sounding like they're looking up all around, and I'm very happy to see this.

It's it's good news.

Um, the other is I've gone to many meetings since March or so, and uh I reported, I think it was to the planning commission how disappointed I was that after hearing the second pitch from Georgia Dare and Rachel on the town uh uh Courthouse Square downtown, someone asked if there was any money, and they were said they said there was no funding.

So that was a big disappointment.

The good news for me is that the Asawa seems to be in project and that that's moving forward, and I'm looking forward to that being in Courthouse Square.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you, Janice.

More to Peter.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Uh Capital Improvement Program.

I didn't hear all the stuff in the beginning, but uh I I I will say that I was earlier today at uh an emergency meeting with uh some county people, law enforcement and firefighters, and one of their greatest concerns was worried about losing their funding.

They're nervous about losing funding.

I couldn't know I heard that probably 20 times.

And I sought to ask them, but they didn't seem to be interested, and maybe maybe it's not the realm of the uh politicians, but really the people to encourage this, and that is how can we we be worried about funding when 78% plus of all the taxes that goes into the uh uh the Federal Reserve and the IRS and all these places comes out of California.

We provide almost all the money for this country.

We provide most of the food, and that we're being bullied about nickels and dimes for law enforcement for firefighters, for this, for that, and for the other.

And so they were also focusing on FEMA, and I guess someone got upset when I mentioned that this just simply a United Nations program that um uh has is not based on the US Constitution, it's not interested in maintaining the status quo.

It is a program to manipulate and uh um uh uh alter people's mindsets and also the landscapes by uh programs of uh disasters, whether they be natural or created.

But I also today was at a couple of two different um trailer parks, and I noticed so many empty trailers.

I mean, really, we were at two places there was I saw seven empty trailers, and I wasn't even looking, and I'm thinking why don't we use some of this money to purchase these for the homeless?

And why don't we have a program that was brought up in the 90s between myself and two Navy vets called the Homeless Mentor Program, where we put something forward but we got something back, and the idea was that the the homeless would be able to put 20 hours a week into gardening or cleaning or taking care of people that uh are uh financially between uh the the situations that they don't have the insurance so that we utilize what we have more intelligently and that the other part would be huge gardens, and I also mentioned to these people there today that um about the living cactus fences for firewalls.

Well, they deferred me to mitigation and I told them I've been to mitigation I've taught I've shared this with everybody.

I said, apparently you're not interested in fire prevention, you're interested in seeing fires happen because both sides are of the arena don't seem to be interested in one of the most common sense things available to all of us, which is also the most underrated food source that would save us money and homes.

Thank you, Peter.

Are there any other members of the public who'd like to speak on the capital improvement program status update?

Seeing none, we will close public comment.

Uh Dan and Krista, a final thanks.

Thank you.

So uh great great stuff.

Thank you.

Oops.

Oh, sorry, Ms.

Rogers.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, Director Hennessy, uh, I would like to say thank you and thank you to um your team for all the work that you guys are doing and to speak uh very quickly about Burbank.

Um Hearn, someone that travels that road practically every day.

Um it is definitely a problem.

So thank you so much for addressing it.

And I know that there are a lot of problem areas around the city, and it is very uh unfortunate for us that we don't have millions and millions of dollars to fix everything at one time, but to actually see the projects getting over the finish line is very exciting.

Um that stoplight is long overdue.

But I would like to also thank uh PD, because in the meantime, well, we don't have the stoplight, they have been in the area and really helping us with traffic safety.

Um I did want to bring that up.

And so when we put stoplights and things in that we know are gonna help with trap traffic safety, it also frees them up to do other work.

So it comes full circle.

But I did want to thank you and your team and also thank Petey.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Rogers.

Any final comments from anyone else on council?

All right, Danna Christo, thank you again.

We will move on to item nine, our city manager and city attorney's reports.

Madam City Manager.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor.

Uh, good evening.

Uh so the South the South Santa Rosa Community Based Transportation Plan is at an a transportation resource fair.

So this Saturday from 11 to 2, the city's Transportation and Public Works Department will be partnering with Sonoma County Transportation and Climate Authorities, Latino Service Providers, and Sonoma County Transit to host a community transportation resource for fair, and it's going to be at Taylor Mountain Elementary.

The event will discuss South Santa Rosa Community-based transportation plan.

They plan to hear input directly from our residents about how to improve safe sustainable transportation, specifically in our low-income communities.

Families can learn about local services, enjoy some activities, refreshments, and share some ideas to improve walking, biking, and transit services.

For more information or to provide some feedback, you can go to SRCity.org forward slash transportation fair 2025.

I'll repeat that.org forward slash transportation fair 2025.

And on another personal note, I would just like to thank this body for the support that they have provided to our staff last week.

We had a very tragic week.

We had a lot of events.

And it it is refreshing to work for a body that cares as much as you do about our frontline employees, the calls, the messages, whether you reached out to staff directly or to me.

I just want to express my appreciation on how you care for staff, and thank you for reaching out.

Thank you for that.

Madam City Attorney.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I do have a report out, uh monthly litigation report.

Um there was one settlement uh over $50,000 that was finalized in July, um, which was a settlement previously authorized by the city council in closed session.

Um in Wallace Francis versus City of Santa Rosa, plaintiff Wallace Francis sued the city for injuries sustained after plaintiff allegedly hit a pothole while riding a bicycle on a roadway.

The case was settled with the city paying $151,000 in exchange for a release of all claims.

Our caseload uh remains fairly consistent.

We currently have 35 um litigation matters with trial dates assigned to more than half of those matters.

Three matters are currently on the appeal following rulings in favor of the city at the trial court level.

We continue to try to resolve smaller cases with little or no cost to the city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll go on to item 10, statements of abstention.

Oh, excuse me, public comment on this item.

Any members of the public wish to comment on our city manager or city attorney's reports.

Seeing none, we'll move on to item 10, statements of abstention or recusal by council members.

Are there any statements of abstention or recusal this evening?

Seeing none, we'll go on to item 11.

Uh mayor and council member reports.

Are there any reports this evening?

Mr.

Krepke.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Just two quick things.

Um, last Monday we had the economic development subcommittee meeting and we uh uh covered a variety of subjects, but uh two of the most prominent ones were the upcoming release of the quarterly report for economic development, which we saw in draft form, but will be coming out soon.

Uh and then we saw a presentation on entertainment districts, um, which I think will be coming forward uh to this body in the future at some point uh as a study session.

And then um last week I spoke to the chamber, uh the Metro Chamber Advocacy Council and uh along with our chief economic development officer Scott Adair, um, just bringing them up to date on efforts for economic development, uh, not only in the downtown but throughout the entire city and some of the efforts we're undertaking.

And while I have the opportunity for our city clerk on item 11.1.2, it would be great to update that with the new name, the Sonoma County Transportation and Climate Authorities.

Thank you, Councilmember O'Kreepke.

We were waiting for final feedback from the SCTA on their rebranding.

They we had already been in contact with them, so we will do.

Perfect, thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Rogers.

Thank you.

Quick.

Um August 15th, I was able to attend the North Bay Black Chamber of Commerce State of Business Summit, which was very informative.

Um I was able to walk away with multiple ideas to support small businesses here in Santa Rosa while working with all the chambers that we have here.

So thank you.

Uh and just uh just three quick items for me.

Technically it belongs to the county, but it's right here in Santa Rosa.

The livestock option or auction this year raised over 2.3 million, which I believe was a record.

And attendance was great, in spite of the lack of horse racing.

So good luck, or th thank you, rather, to all of the uh the fair organizers.

Uh there are two city meetings to report.

We had the a meeting of the long-term finance subcommittee uh with Mr.

O'Krepke and Miss Ban Wellos.

Uh that met last week.

Uh budget discussions have already started for the upcoming spring, as people might remember from the budget discussions that went on um uh into perpetuity this past year.

We have a we have a deficit of about 17 million that we need to close, and so we are already in discussion for how we do that, both um from a combination or from a combination of finding new revenues and also figuring out how the the city can work more efficiently.

Uh and then last week we also had a meeting of the uh Sonoma County Mayors and Council Members Association.

Uh this is the the gather the the um the group of all nine Sonoma County cities that meets to discuss issues that are common to all of us.

Um as always uh we discussed items like homelessness, uh homelessness services, how we can provide these more efficiently, uh emergency resilience.

Uh and our um our our city had the opportunity to present to the board our success uh rooting out bad actors who have massage therapy establishments in the city.

Um for those of you who've been paying attention over the last year, a group of community members uh prodded the city to look more carefully at the massage therapy establishments that were forming, um, made us realize that these were in many cases illicit and that the city was unintentionally supporting human trafficking.

Um and thanks to a lot of work from our police, from our code enforcement, from our planning and economic development team, really from every team in the city, uh, we made some changes to our ordinances that have given our law enforcement and code enforcement our teams the ability to go out and shut down bad actors in this industry and make sure that Santa Rosa is not unintentionally aiding human trafficking in this county.

Uh at the gathering last week, we shared the we shared this success with the other cities and encouraged them to join in with this effort because we have to we have to do it as a county.

Um again, just an example of the kind of issues that that group works on, and uh Santa Rosa was proud to be a leader last week.

And that concludes my report.

Anything from any of my colleagues.

Oh, Mr.

Okrepki.

Sorry, I forgot, but I think I'd be remiss if I didn't bring this up.

Um I just want to uh take this opportunity to thank uh somebody I think a lot of us have uh up on this dais and the electors before have had an opportunity to uh interact with, and that's Steve Jackson uh in the drive.

Today, uh I think right now, as a matter of fact, we're in the middle of his last broadcast.

And for the last 17 years, many of us and many of our uh our predecessors had the opportunity to speak to him about what's going on in the city and in the community.

And uh he's been a great opportunity uh uh uh uh a great uh means to communicate to uh a lot of people.

So I just want to take this opportunity to thank him for all he's done for the community uh and for even us lowly elected.

Thank you for that.

Excellent addition.

And with that, looking at the time, we're just after five, uh, and we have a full agenda for the rest of the evening.

We're gonna we're gonna go on to our first public comment for non-agenda items.

Yes.

With with all due respect, I apologize for interrupting.

We have um people signed up for public comment on the mayor's and council members' reports.

Oh, yes, I was I always forget this one.

Yes, for those who had comments on the mayor's and council members' report, please step to a podium.

Are there any members of the public who wish to comment on the uh mayor's and council members' reports?

Yes, yes.

Peter, go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor.

I was really glad to hear uh the uh topic addressed regarding trafficking, and I um very glad to hear that a lot of progress has been made, although I do believe that um as I've shared before with you, Detective James Rothstein's human compromise.

These are very long-term uh thousands of years old uh organizations, uh trafficking and you know it's good to have them addressed and and taken out, but they're very, very uh uh good at just switching into other arenas.

So I hope that the uh concentration and focus is can is continued in that realm.

Um so over here on Sloma Sonoma Clean Power.

I want to say that um, you know, it seems to me that uh the UN it's a United Nations program to terminate PG ⁇ E, which is uh one of the largest uh working operations in the country, and it's filled with uh honorable hardworking um professionals, and that the Sonoma Clean Power is no more clean than the the PG ⁇ E, and that uh the fact that we continually be uh divided and swayed to think this, that, and the other.

Um I think that uh we should be utilizing our common sense and spiritual strength uh to cease being bullied into being divided in all these different topics all the time.

And regarding the homeless, uh this is the home area of Luther Burbank.

And uh I'll ask you again, and it's it's not really them, it's not the people on the podium, it's you out here listening.

Why are there not 5,000 more gardens?

Why are there not 10,000 gardens?

How can there possibly be a safe way in stores like that in the land of Luther Burbank?

You know, we stop paying mortgages and rents and faux full funnel all our money into a program where we start a thousand and two thousand football field-sized greenhouses, and all of a sudden we're growing the best food in the world.

We're not being charged for stuff from China or what have you.

Uh it's not poisoned, it's not irradiated, it's right here.

And um it's just a beautiful opportunity for us to be you know focusing in that direction, not just thinking about it, but actually talking and doing it.

There's all these empty fields, there's all these ways to do this.

The psyops propaganda that's utilized by by the behind the scenes uh groups are are continuous, which is why dialogue between the people needs to help.

And as I've said many a time, a true freedom strike where we shut everything down, which is on its way, will not only free law enforcement to work for us and free the U.S.

Constitution for the first time, but it'll free your political workers, your statesmen and stateswomen to be free of those unseen strands of United Nations telling them what to do or how to speak or what to say.

Because I gotta believe the real power of government is local.

It certainly isn't at the state, and it absolutely isn't at the at the national level.

That's thoroughly corrupted.

Right here, we got people that want to make a difference, but it's up to us to give them that opportunity.

Thank you, Peter.

Are there any other members of the public who'd like to speak on this item?

Uh I don't think so.

No, we're still we're just on mayors and council members' reports.

So seeing no members of the public, there's no other members of the public looking to speak.

We will close public comment on this item.

Uh and we are going to jump ahead.

Did you wish to speak on this on the mayor's and council members' report?

Okay, the floor is yours.

Excuse me, I am Esmeralda Paris Sanchez.

I have been struggling with being able to get housed because of a credit score being uh 529.

I'm looking at different locations that have been denying the uh the fact that being able to get housed.

Has there been any movement for homelessness to be able to get different resources, not necessarily on Luther Burbank, but different resources for them to be able to get housed because you still have over 50 over 100 people being homeless with their children, being able to get housed is a struggle around Sonoma County.

So we're unable to get into a discussion here in this context, but I will look to our city manager to see if we have any of our staff here that might be able to answer some questions offline.

Yeah, thank you.

If you could leave your name and number uh to the young lady at the top of the stairs, we can reach out to you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, final call.

Any other members of the public wishing to speak on uh on this item on the mayor's and council members' report?

All right, we will officially close public comment then, and we will go on to we have a packed agenda, and we're gonna go on to our first public comment on non-agenda matters, and from there we're gonna go into the public hearing section of our of our agenda this evening.

But for right now, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on items not listed on the agenda?

Again, these are for items not listed on tonight's agenda.

Uh sir, go ahead.

Yeah, hi.

My name is Troy Warren.

I'm trying to get a building permit to build an ADU at the back side of my house.

I've been trying for over six months now.

It was submitted on uh February 13th of this year.

So my understanding was supposed to take 60 days.

That was um it even says on the state website or the uh the city website.

This is just for an initial plan check.

60 days.

Well, it's been 187 days, and it hasn't completed the first plan review yet.

So that's why I'm here.

I'm just here to be sort of a squeaky wheel to get this thing rolling.

Well, thank thank you for taking the time.

Um, and as with the last presenter, why don't you leave your name and number by the table and somebody from the city will contact you?

Thank you.

Uh we've got a list here.

Let's go uh from Duane DeWitt to Robert Koppak.

May I use the overhead projector on the other side?

We might as well name that after you, Dwayne, of course.

Should be on.

How's that going?

All right, can you see it?

Nice.

Hello, my name is Dwayne DeWitt.

I'm from Roseland.

I'm here to express gratitude today to the recreation and parks department to the people that came out to the Roseland neighborhood and did work to save it from fires.

Contrary to what you might have heard, there was no clear cut there on that land.

They cleared out what's called flammable, fire prone ground cover and brush, and they limbed up the trees starting on the 6th of August, and then again on the 13th of August.

This was found on the 14th of August when a fire was started again by transient vagrants that roll through there and are now camping in the creek.

So to just abuse you of any falsities, the homeless are still having problems.

They're still living in that general area down in Roseland Creek.

But city staff needs to be congratulated for all their hard work.

Especially need to commend Park Superintendent Castro.

There was uh also Tim Finnegan and Lorenzo and others who were out there working so hard doing good things.

Whatever kind of emails you folks got was based on uninformed misinformation, incomplete assumptions, and it kind of rallied all you folks up.

It shouldn't have been that way.

It should have been nothing but commendations to all that staff.

Especially, you gotta give this guy Dan Delivers a good good cadoo because he's up there getting it done, whereas other people in recreation and parks just let it go.

I mean, sour for for decades, actually, in the neighborhood.

So we got something going.

This piece of wood was on the 13th, picked up that night.

Fires were started out there.

We're still going out there to clean stuff up.

This is a big piece of wood, folks.

They cut the trees themselves.

Those people go out there with saws.

They are still building fires out there.

So it's still a fire prone area, and we're hoping you'll work with the Roseland School Board on the other side of Burbank Avenue at Roseland School District and Rams Accelerated Middle School to clear that part of the creek out and make this all a really nice area.

It can only happen if you folks coordinate.

The school district is a kingdom unto itself.

It can play its own game.

But if you folks approach them and say, let's stop fires throughout this area, really good things will happen.

And basically, you can't say enough other than the power of what you see with your own eyes.

These are big fires, these people are lighting up in there.

At night, you can see them.

It's dangerous.

Thank you again to all parks and recreation staff.

Thank you, Dwayne.

We're gonna go to Robert and then Peter and then AJ, and then let's use both podiums so we're efficient with our time.

But Robert, you're up next.

Hi, Robert Kopk, I'll try and keep it brief.

I filed an official complaint against the Santa Rosa police.

Just got a reply today for four years of a drug dealer operating with a lot of mayhem across the street from me.

They claimed they were doing something about it.

Well, after he committed a second murder, they raided his house.

He had 341 pot plants.

He had psychedelic mushrooms growing in there.

He had some kind of powder the cops were talking about that couldn't decide if it was cocaine or or uh mushroom powder.

Fire department opened up this safe with uh diamond tooth saws, and they found a bunch of guns.

This is in a nice family neighborhood.

The police claim they were doing something about this guy for four years of reports and phone calls, with all that in his house.

That's not good.

Something needs to be done about this out of control police department, and I need to know from somebody in Santa Rosa when I hear from the OIR group that oversites the police in Santa Rosa, so I can decide my next move.

Because I'm getting a dance.

I filed an official complaint, and they gave me another dance of nothing but I won't say it.

They're claiming they they were taking care of this guy, arresting him, doing this, that, and the other, and he had a house full of all these drugs and guns in a family neighborhood.

Somebody let me know.

I emailed you a detailed email today to all the city council.

Somebody let me know when I hear back from the OIR group that you selected to oversight the police so I can decide my next move.

You can tell by what's going on in this room today with the traffic, this, that, and the other, there's not a whole lot of control in this town.

It's the worst town I've ever lived in in Northern California.

It's ridiculous.

Please let me know, and I'm hearing from back from the police oversight group, so I can decide my next move.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Robert.

We're gonna go on to Peter, AJ, and then Alexa.

Peter, go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor.

So I'll start off with through the eyes of law enforcement.

The things that they are handcuffed and not able to do.

90,000 law enforcement in California, 320,000 bar lawyers, British attorney registry.

I thought we got rid of the British.

They handcuff law enforcement, and then the public blames law enforcement because the lawyers handcuff them.

Be clear of what you're seeing and how you're dealing with it.

Through the eyes of a child on the Oakland port, one of hundreds every month that comes over with their parent, their mother, usually, and other children to be trafficked.

They're secured, they cannot be touched by law enforcement, they can't be touched by the longshoremen because the repercussions will be severe.

The power to change all that is not on the dais up there, but in the stands here, because you we are the ones, we are the ones that are funding this and pretending we don't see what's going on.

We have more power than them, but we're looking to them to do what we think this should happen.

The power is with us.

Through the eyes of a mother that loses her child to ice or her husband or what have you.

This this is going on all over the place.

The eyes through the eyes of a mother had a with a blown-up child in her from Gaza, and Dr.

McDonald the Green Beret still in prison after 40 54 years.

So I finished with this.

I am Peter, I am calling forth your strength and power.

Rosebud rosebud, rosebud flower from this very flower of life.

I ask, I task, I command, I pray.

Send to me your light as my wife, being capable and kind and loving, most beautiful, filled with spirit as she doth hear it.

Yes, being spiritually dutiful.

Sweet angels of light, I pray, restore her sight.

Archangels as well, be ye clear, do tell, do tell, for no angel born in hell can ever break that Satan's spell.

Therefore, I am commanding.

I am Peter, I am commanding till every knee to earth remanding by setting the world free via the 40-day freedom strike prophecy.

Good Lord Almighty appease us this prophecy through Peter by Jesus.

I say you hear it, it is so it is done.

The power is with us.

The churches have you waiting forever and a day for what the power is already in your hearts.

My authority comes from on high, and that highness is in your hearts.

Let it go, let it flow.

It's time for us to be the show.

I see, and you will see between now in this full red blood moon, a most beautiful tune as the power of the Christos light is set free, and the whole world will see, and a lot of that power is in the likes of ye and me.

Blessings.

Thank you, Peter.

We'll move on to AJ, Alexa, and then Victoria.

AJ, are you are you near a podium?

Alexa, why don't you why don't you go first?

Hi, City Council members.

As you probably know, last Thursday, 19-year-old Natalie Fisher took her dog for a walk, but did not make it safely home.

She was hit by a car while crossing West Steel Lane, and she died over the weekend from her injuries.

I did not know her.

What I know about her, I learned from the press Democrat, including that she was a student at SRJC where I teach, and even though she wasn't my student, I think I I think of all the students at SRJC as my students.

Her death was not an unpredictable anomaly or an accident.

It was the predictable results of streets that are designed to prioritize speed and convenience of drivers over everything else, including the safety of those outside of cars.

Baked into this street infrastructure that we have inherited is an assumption that fast flowing automobile traffic is so essential to our collective prosperity that it is worth literally sacrificing our children to this great public.

This narrative is not only empirically false, as is demonstrated by the the jurisdictions that have made different decisions, it's also, I think, personally morally abhorrent.

I know you guys care.

I've been coming here advocating for street safety for three and a half years, and I know you all care.

But I do not have the power or authority or resources myself to right the wrong of our street infrastructure.

In my own neighborhood, a couple streets over patio court, there was speeding, and my neighbors took action on their own.

One of them's a construction worker, he had access to a temporary speed bump, he installed it, the cars slowed down, it was great for two days, which is how long it took your city staff to remove the temporary speed bump.

The city can remove citizen level led traffic calming measures in two days, but it takes five to ten years for the city to install them.

Again, I know you all care, but we have to move faster.

I don't have the power, but you all do.

We have to move faster to ensure that no more of our citizens died.

Because I am here tonight, my 17-year-old has volunteered to walk our dog, and he will walk our dog across a street like West Steel Lane this evening.

Is he safe?

Am I bearing irresponsible by letting him do that?

We need to move faster.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alexa.

Victoria.

Hello.

My name is Victoria Yanis.

And I'm a member of Homeless Action Exclamation Point.

My address is 801 Tupper Street, apartment 201 in Santa Rosa, California, 95404.

Homeless Action Exclamation Point is an organization that is an unincorporated association of people concerned with the poorest of the poor in our community.

And unfortunately, we have to use the homeless name.

A lot of people don't like that.

But we do because we've been around a little while.

With City Council regarding homeless.

Now we know this has all been amplified by your president number 47.

Um I would like for the City Council to take some sort of um public stance against the treatment of human beings in this manner.

Or are we going to mirror what's going on in our nation's capital?

I'm very upset.

I don't know what to do.

All I can do is get up every morning, put the bandan on my head in case anybody wants to tussle.

I'm ready.

Even with a broken arm.

But I'm here to show that we're still here, homeless action.

We're gonna be watching what's going on with the city in response to number 47.

And we ask that you please have compassion for poor people's what they are.

Thank you.

Thank you, Victoria.

Are there any other members of the public who would like to speak on items not listed on the agenda?

Seeing none, we will close this item and we're gonna go into our public hearing section of the evening.

We are gonna start with with item 16.2.

We know that there is that a lot of you are here for um item 16.1.

We are going to make things efficient for staff with just a couple of quick items before we get to the main show for the evening.

So, item 16.2, our public hearing on the placement of annual stormwater enterprise charges on the Sonoma County property tax role.

I believe we have Nick and Claire presenting.

Welcome to the Mayor Staff and Council members.

Uh, my name is Nicola and I'm a research and program coordinator with Stormwater and Creeks.

With me is Claire Myers, Stormwater and Creeks Manager.

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the placement of annual stormwater enterprise charges on the Sonoma County property tax roll.

Um the stormwater enterprise was created by council in accordance with Title 16 of the City Code in 1996, provides funding for implementation of the city's national pollutant discharge elimination system or NPDS permit, uh stormwater permit, as well as activities such as creek restoration and stewardship, flood protection, public education, storm drain maintenance, and stormwater quality testing.

The calculate assessment is based on equivalent equivalent residential unit or ERU and considers the size of the parcel, amount of impervious surface, and land use of each parcel.

The current ERU fee is $42.46, which was approved by council during the 2025-2026 budget process.

In order to simplify the payment process for property owners and minimize collection expenses, is requested that these charges be collected on the Sonoma County property tax rule on the city's behalf.

The charges have been collected annually on the tax roll since they were established in September of 1996.

It is in the best interest that of the city that those parcels not billed by the county due to the charges not meeting the county's $10 minimum to bill and or parcels with known incorrect ownership.

Contact information shall not be separately billed by the city, as the cost of separately billing exceeds the potential revenue.

Any charges not collected will not affect other parcel charges.

Today's public hearing, in accordance with Title 16 of the City Code, will adopt the stormwater enterprise charge report, approve placing the charges on the county tax rule for collection, and allow the public the opportunity to protest the method of collecting the charges.

It is recommended by the Board of Public Utilities in Santa Rosa Water that the Council by resolution adopt by two-third vote the stormwater enterprise charge report and approve placement of the stormwater enterprise charges on the Sonoma County property tax roll to be collected by the Sonoma County Auditor Controller Treasurer Tax Collector at the same time and in the same manner as Sonoma County property taxes are collected, unless those charges do not meet the county minimum of $10 and/or parcel owner contact information is known to be incorrect.

And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you both.

There's nothing that sets the pulse racing like past their tax charges.

Thank you for putting this presentation together.

Bringing it back to council for questions.

Please let there be some.

Your report was comprehensive.

Thank you so much.

All right, public.

Now's your chance to weigh in.

We're going to open the public hearing on this item.

Is there any feedback on the uh the stormwater assessments?

Thank you, Dwayne.

Lead us off.

I'm an advocate for Roseland Creek and have been for many decades.

I do believe that stormwater assessment charges could be helping the creeks better, so that any of the funds that you get this year, would you please look to see how you might be able to get those funds to help with the upkeep, the maintenance, the management of the actual creeks where the stormwater goes to?

Many of the uh creeks have signs nearby that say ours to protect.

But that's not really happening that much on some of the creeks.

And you'll see on some of the stormwater drains that there'll be a sewer cap that'll say flows to the creek.

Much of this debris going to the creek comes in with stormwater.

So we'd like to see you folks find a way for allocations to go to help keep the creeks clean so that when the water goes out to the Laguna de Santa Rosa, it's not polluting there and then further polluting the Russian river.

It could happen with these stormwater enterprise funds.

You just got to find a way to pull that little bit of money out.

Thank you for your time and once again for all your work on this.

Thank you, Duane.

Janice Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Janice Carman.

Uh the insurance rates in many places in Sonoma County were raised after the fires, and to the point where it was so distressing that many people put their houses up for sale.

Then in the meetings that I've been going to, there were at least two meetings where FEMA showed up, and FEMA was mapping for flood zones.

So the flood zones were not uh just to see what's flooding, and they said we were the first city that was supposed to be doing this.

But um they're mentioning uh flood protection.

It's already uh, according to the FEMA um flood zone mapping, it's already going to be required that they pay that people pay extra taxes if they are in the designated flood zones.

So to me, this sounds like a double whammy, and I say no.

So thank you.

Bye-bye.

Thank you, Janice.

Are there any other members of the public who would like to weigh in?

Saying none, I will close.

Oh, I see one.

Hello again, I'm Esmeralda Paris Sanchez.

I am actually on 734 Boyd Street.

Uh it's a property that I would like to overview the water on.

Um, as well as the tax.

Is that gonna be putting in for the people who are doing the labor into the water cleaning?

Uh learning how to recycle the water would be also a convenience because um we do have a lot of pollution.

Uh we wouldn't like to have the community have a clean environment.

So having the water be purified and recycled would be an awesome route.

Um cleansing Sonoma County.

The taxes have been uh something that I would like to overview as well, being uh a high 10 percent.

So I don't know um where that's coming from, but within the water, um I feel like a lot of the water sacred and it should be cleansed, and the fact that it's at a high tax um should be overviewed.

That'd be all.

Thank you, Esmeralda.

Are there any other members of the public who'd like to weigh in?

Okay, all right.

The floor is yours.

And they're working on the creek to make it better for our neighbors and make sure that we don't uh get flooded.

But they're doing a great job, but I just want to let them know that when they finish.

When they finish their job, um in one year, two years, everything comes back.

So my area got flooded one year because they come and do a great job, but I'm always walking around, and they're saying that they're not cleaning up because there's species in there that are very important for our environment.

I say that is true, but we have to take care of us, we the people.

So please, if you are cleaning the creeks and making it better for all of us, please go back in a couple months and clean up.

It doesn't matter what kind of species are in there.

I'm just saying the creeks are very important because of fires, especially here in Santa Rosa.

So I hope you think about that by clearing out the creeks and forget about what's living in there.

My opinion, of course.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Ventura.

Any other members of the public wish to weigh in on stormwater assessments?

Seeing none, I will officially close public comment and bring it back to my colleague, uh, Mr.

Krepke for a motion.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I will waive reading of the text and adopt it uh to adopt a resolution entitled resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Rosa approving and adopting report for proposal to place stormwater and drainage charges on Sonoma County property tax rule for collection with county property taxes fiscal year 2025 to 2026.

Second.

We have a motion and a second by Ms.

McDonald.

Any final discussion?

Madam City Clerk, would you please call a vote?

Thank you.

Councilmember Rogers.

Aye.

Councilmember O'Krepke.

Aye.

Councilmember McDonald.

Aye.

Councilmember Fleming?

Yes.

Councilmember Ben Wellows?

Yes.

Councilmember or Vice Mayor Alvarez is absent.

Mayor Stapp.

Aye.

Let the record show this passes with six affirmative votes.

Thank you very much.

And we're going to go on to item 16.3.

Our public hearing on the submittal.

Stay with me now.

Submittal of substantial amendment to the home investment partnerships American Rescue Plan allocation plan to the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Urban Development and approval of a second amendment to the grant agreement with Catholic Charities Home R program.

And I think we have Choy and Kelly here to do the presentation.

This is going to be good.

And joining me is my manager Kelly Kaikendall.

Tonight we will be presenting the substantial amendment to the home ARP allocation plan, along with a second amendment to the grant agreements with Catholic charities.

Prioritizing supportive services as a most effective way to prevent homelessness.

These funds were awarded via competitive requests for proposals process.

In November of 2023, Council approved two grant agreements, one with committee on the shelter list known as COTS in the amount of 711,375.

It was fully funded, and COTS has expended all those funds as of June 30th, 2025.

A second contract was awarded to Catholic charities in the amount of 1.6 million.

This was a partial award due to the amount of home art funds that were available.

That contract has been amended on one occasion to extend the term to June 30th, 2026, 2026 to allow Catholic charities to fully expend those home ARP funds.

Substantial amendment.

Staff also identified 100,000 in existing home ARP funds to reallocate from city administration to supportive services.

This requires a substantial amendment per HUD regulations.

And the repurposing of these funds aligns with the city's original intent for the use of the funds.

This slide outlines the original allocation of Home ARP funds plus the amended allocation the and the additional funds, the $4,095.

As I mentioned, we'll be moving $100,000 from city administration and planning to supportive services and then providing the additional home ARP funds to uh Catholic charities, which I'll touch on in the next slide.

Staff recommends awarding the additional Home ARP funds and the reallocated funds and the total amount of 104,095 to Catholic charities uh existing um Home ARP program.

This will be a second amendment to their grant agreement.

Uh the total contract amount will be just over 1.7 million dollars.

They'll be required to expend the funds by June 30th, 2026, and they will continue to provide supportive services to persons experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness.

As required with a substantial amendment, uh we conducted a 15-day public comment period from July 31st to August 14th.

It was also shared through Sonoma County Homeless Coalition contact list to inform our community stakeholders.

And concluded with tonight's public hearing.

All right.

Ready for the recommendation?

This is a good one.

It is recommended by the housing and community services department that the council by resolution authorize the middle of the substantial home amendment to home art plan to HUD.

Two accept the appropriate additional home ARP funds in the amount of four thousand ninety-five dollars and reallocate a hundred thousand dollars in home art funds from city administration and planning to sub-recipient supportive services and nonprofit operating costs.

Three, authorize the city manager or their designee to execute in a form approved by the city attorney any forms or documents required by HUD to implement the home ARP funds.

Four, authorize the chief financial officer to increase appropriations and then that amount of four thousand and ninety-five dollars.

Five, approve the second amendment to the grant agreement with Catholic charities to increase the amount of agreement by 104,095 for a total of 1,719,539 dollars for the period of January 1st, 2024 to June 30th, 2026.

And finally, six authorized the director of housing and community services to execute the second amendment.

We thank you for your time.

And we are happy to answer any questions.

Thank you both.

There's a lot of great work behind this.

Bringing it to council for questions.

Seeing no questions from my count for my colleagues, I'll ask just one.

Um obviously, this is just one, it's it's one slice of the city's efforts to um provide housing and reduce homelessness in our community.

Can you give just a couple of of top line facts about the the success that we've had over the last 12 months based on uh with particular reference to the point in time count?

Oh, you caught me off guard.

I'm happy to answer any questions specific about the Catholic charities contract and how successful that has been.

Um we have made significant progress in addressing homelessness in the city in Sonoma County.

Unfortunately, it don't have the specifics of the recent homeless count.

There's some preliminary data that's out, um, and we anticipate the final results um probably in the next month or so.

So it am I correct that the whispered number is something on the order of a 23% reduction year over year?

Yes.

We're we're seeing a continued, there was a slight increase last year, um, and then we've seen another decrease this year.

So trending downwards, and that's due in part to the city's continued investment in homeless services and you know collaboration with our county partners.

So I didn't uh my apologies for catching you off guard.

I did want to highlight for all the folks here tonight that there really are there's some there are some success stories behind the the somewhat dry contract numbers that we're discussing here, um but the organizations that were highlighted, in particular cost and Catholic charities are doing great work, and we've got innovative partnerships with the city, and it seems to be making a pretty a pretty significant real world difference.

Um, and so in spite of the the very dry numbers under discussion tonight, uh there is some fantastic work.

Uh and I wanted to thank you both uh for for um at least giving us a little picture of that.

Uh and with that, let's open it up for public comment.

Are there any members of the public that would wish to wish to speak on this amendments?

Yes.

Victoria.

Um I'm grateful for whatever we have now because I don't know what's around the corner, and I'm very scared.

We need some um city council about what's going on with us in this time of I think it's a right wing revolution going on to tell you the truth.

So I don't say give you a lot of revolution anymore.

I say give you a lot of assistencia.

Long live the resistance.

So I'm very grateful.

I want you to know about the services.

But at the same time, I've spent my life as an advocate for poor people.

You know, having a legal career and legal aid and everything.

Um the major problem that we have had with, and I'm on the leap board, which is part of the coalition on the homeless from the department of health.

So what we see is um organizations getting funded, namely one is Catholic charities, and before any funding is done, or in any review of services, I think it would behoove you to look at the grievance process.

Is it even working?

Because these organizations wield great power over homeless people, whether they're gonna have somewhere to sleep, or if they're gonna be out in the fishbowl getting picked up by the cops and thrown in jail, because that's what's happening now.

So please look at the grievance process when somebody's thrown out from somewhere.

Did they get a proper review of their situation?

Or is it just a kangaroo act that's put on for approval of funding?

Due process of law, civil rights of the homeless.

These are concepts that people don't even have.

So not just Catholic charities, the grievance process for people getting thrown out or the exiting procedure.

Nobody wants to call it what it is, an eviction to the gutter.

Thank you.

Thank you, Victoria.

Again, the public hearing is open.

Are there other members of the public that wish to speak?

Please go ahead.

Again, I'm Esmeralda Paricio Sanchez.

I'm overviewing the documentation, and I feel like I have to disagree with the District of Housing and Community Services to execute the second amendment.

Now I disagree with this because there is a lot of corruption, not only within the government, but within the fields of labor as well.

There's discrimination.

There's people who say, I'm not gonna house you because I don't like you.

I feel like at the time it's uh Duolingo and Heart and Limb, strong with the strength of the race, to command to obey to endure all nations and races.

Understand you are in the United States of America.

There is all kinds of different people, unique mentalities, different personalities, different waves of beliefs.

I don't feel like they should all be dependent on HUD for any resources to be able to get housed.

There's not just HUD, there should be more out there to be able to sustain or help anybody who needs assistance to be able to get housed, whether it's someone going through human trafficking or an elder who is having trouble crossing the street, or falls down on the ground and isn't able to pick up their own balance.

There's a lot of um elderly abuse, there's a lot of infections and housings.

Um pest control needs to be overviewed in Cinema County with a lot of housings that are unsanitary, not only for the elders, but for any living human being who is drinking water from a fountain or water hose.

All of that needs to be overviewed, and something needs to be taken in action immediately.

There is funds out there, there is income being brought in.

There is a lot of stuff that is not being said, and it needs to be overviewed and took in action.

Accepting the laws within the first, the second and the third amendment.

So following through, I would say I disagree with executing the second amendment.

I feel the need of them being able to overview and speak up for their own words and their own choices of beliefs.

First, third amendment are really to be taken into consideration when it's a lot of government corruption and no one is actually taking action to protect those who are going through human trafficking, and rather you know, stack it up on their income instead of actually helping the next door neighbor who needs assistance to be able to get housed.

Or even respecting their privacy as they are sleeping.

Um that needs to be overviewed in throughout the whole county, throughout the state of Sonoma, Napa, throughout the state of California.

I feel like the lack of communication needs to be overviewed, and people need to start helping each other out.

Thank you, Esmeralda.

Are there any other members of the public who would like to speak?

Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and we'll bring it back to uh Miss Ben Willows for a motion.

Thank you.

Okay, we I'm going to waive reading of the text and adopt resolutions entitled Resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Rosa authorizing submittal of substantial amendment to the home investment partnerships American Rescue Plan Allocation Plan to the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development and Increase appropriations in the home appund 22.

Sorry, I can't see that.

69.

And resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Rosa approving the second amendment to grant agreement for the home investment partnership American Rescue Plan Program with Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Santa Rosa doing business as Catholic Charities of Northwest California in the amount of 1,719 and 539 for the period of January 1 2024 to June 30th, 2026.

I get that amount right.

We have a motion and a second by Ms.

McDonald.

Any further discussion?

Madam City Clerk, we can call the vote whenever you're ready.

Councilmember Rogers.

Councilmember O'Krepki.

Aye.

Councilmember McDonald.

Aye.

Council Member Fleming.

Yes.

Councilmember Ben Wellos?

Yes.

Vice Mayor Alvarez.

I hope not here during the presentation, but have read the notes and voting aye.

Mayor Stapp.

Aye.

Let the record show this passes unanimously.

Thank you.

All right.

Now we can move on to our main show for the evening.

Thank you all for your patience.

It's item 16.1, our public hearing on the appeal of plan the planning commission denial of the elm tree station project.

And so we will begin actually with uh some ex parte disclosures.

Are there any ex parte disclosures from council?

Uh let's start with Mr.

with actually Ms.

Rogers.

I met with both the appellate and um gas stations.

The group.

There we go.

Correct.

Okay.

Mr.

Krupke.

Uh I've met with representative for the uh applicant.

Um the uh opposition to the application, the organization with the applications, the act with the organization opposing the application as well as visited the site and have nothing further to disclose.

Ms.

Fleming?

I've met with the appellant and the or the applicant as well as the appellant.

Vice Mayor.

I met with the applicant as well as uh email transmission with both parties as well as residents of district seven.

Uh I too met with both the applicant and also uh opponents of the application um and have nothing further to disclose.

Ms.

Ben Willows.

I met with uh the appellant and also the um I think it's CONGAS.

Um and I also watched the planning commission meeting.

Thank you very much.

Uh and I'm gonna look to our city attorney just for a second to make sure that those those disclosures pass muster.

Um I would suggest that each council member um make a statement, assuming it's true that um everything they've discussed is uh contained in the materials and that the all decisions will be based on evidence in the record.

Uh can we can we do that en masse or does it require that every council member goes down the I I think you could each say um yes, I can affirm what the city attorney just says, and that would work.

Um Ms.

Rogers.

So I I met with the applicant and the appellate.

I think I said the appellant and then said con gas again.

So um and everything I discussed was uh uh public record in nature and can be found anywhere.

Mr.

Krepke, we can go right down the line.

I can affirm what the city attorney just said.

As can I also affirm what the uh city attorney just uh stated.

I also affirm the city attorney's remarks.

I can affirm what the attorney uh city attorney just said, and for the record, I didn't meet with anybody, so all the information is public record because I'm here tonight.

Ms.

Van Wheelis.

I can affirm what the city attorney just said.

All right, thank you.

Uh and with that, we're gonna go on to the staff presentation.

Connor Jessica, hello.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Mayor Staff and members of the council.

Um Connor McKay, Senior Planner here to present the Elm Tree station appeal.

So a project description.

The project includes um six fueling pumps, four electric vehicle vehicle charging stations on lot one.

There are also two general retail components, one approximately 3,500 square feet on um on lot one and approximately 400 square feet on lot two.

Above the retail on lot one, there is a proposed uh multifamily residential unit of approximately 900 square feet.

Um I would like to note that none of neither the gas station nor the general retail components of this project propose extended hours of operation.

So they would only be allowed to operate from 6 in the morning to 11 p.m.

in the evening.

Finally, there is an outdoor amenity space um that is publicly accessible, privately maintained.

That is um part of the pathway connection to the Joe Rodota Trail.

Um we have received quite a bit of comments related to the interface of users of the users of the Joe Rodota Trail and patrons of the gas station use.

So um I'll respond to those comments and summarize those when we're looking at the site plan.

Um here is a project location map.

The project is located um to the west, nearly the western um boundary of the city along Northright Road adjacent to the Joe Rodota Trail, as mentioned.

Um it's also near the intersection of um highway 12 and Fulton Road, which turns into Northright Road on the south side of Highway 12.

There's quite an extensive project history.

Um this is a slice of it.

There's a more comprehensive version of the project history in the planning commission staff report, which is included as attachment 24 in your packet.

Um, just for the sake of not reading off the slides, I'll highlight kind of the bolded and more important um project history um events for this project.

So the project was first reviewed and denied with prejudice by the planning commission in 2007.

The project that at that point included a zoning code amendment in addition to the um entitlements that are requested with this project.

Um the project does not include a zoning code amendment anymore.

Um, so that is how the project has changed over time.

In 2013, the project as you see today was approved by the planning commission.

Um those approved that that approval subsequently expired.

We received new applications for this project in December of 2021.

Um the council subsequently adopted the ordinance um that prohibited new gas stations.

Um that ordinance also allowed gas stations that were currently in the review process to proceed through the review process.

Um we've also received public comments related to the gas station ban and um the effect of that ban on this project.

Um I will discuss those um, I believe later in the presentation as well.

Um so here we have the site plan.

Um as you can see the bottom left of the screen, the the project would this project site would be accessed um by cars to the gas station from the southwest side of the project site via uh northright road.

As I mentioned, there are a couple of pathway connections to the Joe Radota Trail.

The main pathway connection is on the northeast boundary directly adjacent to the trail.

That trail traverses along the eastern project boundary where users of the trail can stop in that public amenity space, like I described earlier.

There's also that 400 square foot small retail space that the applicant envisions as maybe being an ice cream stand, some other kind of small retail offering to both patrons of the fresh food market and the gas station, as well as users of the trail.

As we continue down the southeastern portion of the project site to the southern border of the project site, the pathway continues.

And there are other developments and similar land uses along the Joe Rado Trail and very similar adjacency.

So there's not really necessarily basis to expect additional conflicts than the then what already exists at those land uses and operations.

So the general plan land use designation is retail and business services.

Staff has reviewed the project to be consistent with both the General Plan 2035 and the General Plan 2050, which was just adopted by this council on June 3rd of this year.

Moving on to the zoning code.

So this project site is located in Plan Development District 435.

The policy statement for that plan development allows service stations with a major conditional use permit.

Like I mentioned, this project was allowed to proceed through the review process when the gas station ban was enacted, and part of that process is it requires staff to analyze gas station projects against regulations that uh relate to gas stations at the time of application.

Um so those are uh namely this zoning code section along with these um kind of three topics.

Um we've received public comments about um section three here, specifically related to the Blue Star gas operation.

Um as you'll find in section four of the planning commission um staff report summary of public comments.

We responded to that um prior to the planning commission hearing, um, explaining our research analysis and findings related to the Blue Star gas operations.

Um just to kind of summarize that the Blue Star gas operation received design review approval in May of 1997 and has maintained continuous operation since then.

The project description at that time of approval was office space and retail sale of propane appliances, accessories, and limited retail sales of propane.

Um this definition therefore constitutes a fuel dealer, um, which is defined by our zoning code as a retail trade establishment that sells fuel, oil, butane, propane, and liquefied petroleum gas, bottled or in bulk to consumers.

Um, like I said, this is all outlined in detail in your in your staff report, but I just wanted to um bring your attention to that specific regulation of the service station's zoning code and offer that explanation to the public in attendance as well.

Moving on to the environmental review uh performed uh pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.

This is another um issue where we've received quite a bit of public comment.

All has been provided to you and responded to you comprehensively.

But as part of the project that was approved by the planning commission in 2013, there was an initial study mitigated negative declaration or ISMND that was prepared and adopted when the project was approved in 2013.

Um this iteration of the project has prepared an addendum to that 2013 ISMND.

Um it included updated technical studies that review um new thresholds and new standard new standards of significance pursuant to CEQA.

Um and there's also they've also um applied uh previous mitigation measures to this project to be consistent as well.

Um for this slide.

Um this is similar to the project history.

This is a small slice of the public comments, a summary of the public comments that we've received.

There is a um comprehensive summary in the planning commission staff report, and then also you've received many emails that have been entered in the public record as well.

Um here, like I said, this is a small size slice of kind of the general um uh consensus and topics of uh and themes that we've received um from the public about this project.

Um the vast majority of public comments that we received are opposing the approval of this um project.

Um I also want to um bring your attention to the letter we received from Holder Law Group um yesterday.

Um we reviewed that yesterday and today and provided a memo to the council in advance of this meeting.

Um we have a copy here and there's a copies there, and they're available for the public as well.

Um and we're happy to respond to any of those those claims and any of our responses to those claims as well in the in the um staff question portion of this hearing.

Um so this is um quite an interesting one, so uh in somewhat of an unusual fashion.

So staff's analysis has not changed since our original analysis that we provided um to the planning commission, which was we found our analysis found that the findings to approve the project could be met.

Um so in that in that regard, we prepared a draft resolution of approval for the planning commission, but both to adopt the addendum and to approve the conditional use permit.

The planning commission um adopted a resolution of denial at that time, and that is why you'll see a also a draft resolution of denial, and that is a mere image of the resolution that the planning commission adopted to deny the project.

Happy to answer any questions about that as well.

I know it's unusual, um, but for with that, it is recommended by the planning and economic development department.

The council consider the recommendations of the planning commission and city staff in either one by two resolutions, accept the appeal and adopt an addendum to the um tree station initial study and mitigated negative declaration and approve the conditional use permit for the Elm Tree Station project, or two, by one resolution, deny the appeal and uphold the planning commission's denial of the conditional use permit for the Elm Tree Station Project.

And I'm sure there will be plenty of questions, and we are happy to answer those.

The applicant also has a presentation as well, but I'd be happy to answer any questions for staff if you have those at this point.

Thank you very much for that very succinct summary of a of a complicated matter.

Uh I'll bring it back to council for questions.

We'll start with Mr.

Okrupke.

Yeah, a couple of questions that may lead to other questions.

Um if I recall correctly, um this was seen by both Planning Commission and City Council as part of the gas station ban, and was and was recommended by the planning commission and then approved by council to be exempt from that.

Is that correct?

This application.

The the gas station ordinance itself was reviewed by the planning commission and the council, and the gas station ban ordinance included the provision that allowed any gas station in the process to proceed through the process.

This was one of those two projects.

Um just as an aside, the other project uh withdrew.

So this is the only project that is considered to be exempt from the gas station ban ordinance.

Okay, and then um you touched on something really briefly, and I'm wondering if you could expand on that.

You said that you have to review this project under the circumstances at the time.

Is that correct?

Yeah, so as part of the gas station ban ordinance that allowed gas stations to proceed through the process.

The understanding is that the regulations that were in effect at the time before the gas station ban that regulate gas stations would still apply to the projects that were deemed exempt from the ban.

Okay.

Um then uh you you mentioned the memo um that your team put together and and gave to us, and one of the things that I wanted to talk about in there was the um the the timeline of events.

So um one of the question, one of the terms that comes up frequently in this memo is substantial changes.

Um there were no substantial changes to this application that would trigger multiple kinds of reviews, is that correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Um that's from 2013.

Yes.

All right.

So 2013, uh, 12 years ago, a lot's gone on since then.

In these kinds of approvals for whether it be industrial, retail, housing, is this timeline uncommon for applications, reviews, approvals, and and and those matters?

I wouldn't say it's entirely uncommon for the timelines like this to occur to certain projects depending on what the what's being proposed, regulatory backgrounds, things like that.

I don't know if you have anything to add to that.

I mean we generally don't see you know projects that have uh a timeline that has this much time in between it.

Generally speaking, you know, there's a project is submitted and within a year, maybe a year and a half, it's before a body to be reviewed.

Um in this instance, you know, we had a project that was approved, the timeline expired, uh, and they submitted virtually the same project again to go through the process.

Um in reviewing the applications and all of the evidence that was provided, um, the original environmental document um in consultation with the city attorney's office.

Um we were able to bring forward the addendum that's before you that identifies that there were no substantial changes.

All right, thank you.

Vice Mayor.

Thank you, Mayor.

A couple questions as well.

Uh thank you for answering the the the question of why did it come back before planning commission and now city council?

Uh was were there any moratoriums placed on gas stations prior to 2020 or even prior to 2022 that would have impeded an application moving forward?

No.

And in regards to um the distance from this gasoline station to other ones surrounding it, do we have an approximate distance?

Yeah, the nearest gas station is located approximately 1.5 miles away.

It's pretty close, it's pretty equidistant between the closest one uh towards Sebastian Pool and um one in the city uh in Roseland.

Have you looked at other parts of the city and look what the approximation is between their gasoline stations and any other gasoline station?

I have not, um, but we could get that information for you.

Very well.

Do we have any numbers with maybe the yearly amount made of the residents of this area compared to others, uh whether it be Southwest Santa Rosa or district seven specifically?

And the reason that I asked this is I I am from this area.

I've lived there for over 40 years past, so I understand what the neighborhood looks like and what the makeup is, so I definitely want to take that into consideration because I do see an equity value here, and I definitely don't believe that actually I will reserve comments, but nonetheless though, I would just want to make sure that services are provided here are provided elsewhere equally.

So that's why I pose these questions, and I hope that you can get back to me with when the distance of uh the nearest gas station compared in other parts of the city as well as what the yearly income of of this neighborhood may be, and this neighborhood being South Wright Road, as well as Lady Finley and the surrounding streets.

So we do have an answer to the the median income.

Um so this information comes from the U.S.

Census, just for context.

Um so for this census tract, the median income is $97,760.

Um, and as compared to the county of Sonoma, which is 102,840.

So uh for this census tract, it's about five percent lower than uh the rest of Sonoma County.

Would that five percent be pretty much a uh stable number throughout Santa Rosa as well, or is this neighborhood even lower than the five the five percent even lower than let's say the east side of Santa Rosa?

So all we were able to get was for the the full county, so I'm not sure about just the city of Santa Rosa, but for the county it's the five percent.

Okay, very well, thank you.

That's it for now, Mayor.

Thank you.

Other questions for council, Miss Ben Willis?

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I just wanted to um make the distinction about the whole um issue of uh the this particular project being uh exempt uh and just ask uh even though the project is exempt, which meant that it could be brought forward at this time, that does not mean that it would be automatically approved, right?

Yes, just wanted to make that distinction.

Thank you.

Other questions?

Ms.

McDonald?

Thank you.

Thank you for the presentation.

Um my question was along the lines of the timeline of when they told they were exempt from this and they were gonna move forward after the gas station ban that was um that was put in place in September of 2022.

Would now about be that time on a project for them to want to break ground, because it seems like that's fairly quick for them to get in that process.

I understand it started way before that, but they were basically told in September 2022 that they could move forward with the project.

Not that we'd approve it for sure, but that they would be able to do to the exemption that was in place.

Is that right?

Yes.

That's right.

Okay.

I think that's it.

I just wanted to clarify the timeline and perhaps what this business had been told during that 2022, because I think that's pretty important when I'm looking at a timeline that we told one of the potential businesses they could move forward due to an exemption.

Thanks.

Thank you.

All right.

I think we have um nicely highlighted some of the key issues in this discussion.

I'm gonna leave my questions to some of the presenters to come.

Um and if there are no other questions for um for Connor and Jessica right now, I think we move ahead to um uh a presentation from Karen Weeks, our planning commission chair.

Karen, are you here?

Karen, welcome.

Okay, ready for me?

We're ready, Karen.

Go ahead.

Okay.

Uh good afternoon, Mayor Stapp of Vice Mayor Alvarez and members of the council.

As mentioned, my name is Karen Weeks, and I'm the chair of the planning commission.

I'm here today to provide you some context as to why we were unanimous in rejecting this conditional use permit application.

On an April 10th, 2025, we reviewed the request for a conditional use permit for the Elm Tree Gas Station.

As you know, especially for those of you who have been on the commission, our um responsibility is to implement plans, ordinances, and policies relating to land use matters.

We carry out your policy.

At this meeting, we reviewed the proposal consistent with the existing gas station ordinance.

There were six of us present, and we were unanimous in our decision that approving this proposal was not consistent with the city's policies.

We could not affirm the findings presented by staff, such as the proposed convenience store dwelling unit in consistency with enhancing major entry corridor and the underground tanks on top of seasonal wetlands and within the water table.

But probably the finding that was the most problematic was related to health and safety.

We reviewed the background in the original city council action and relied upon the voluminous reports cited in that item regarding health and safety risks associated with gas stations.

There were also there were no new reports contradicting those original reports regarding health and safety.

Also, uh few of us reviewed the video of the original September 2022 council item and it reinforced our understanding that the two gas stations in process at the time of the ban were not automatically approved based upon the old regulations, but could proceed in the process based upon the new regulations.

The council at the time could have exempted them from the new ban and could have held them to the previous regulations, but they did not.

And there was no implication that that was the case.

Once again, our action was consistent with the current ordinance approved by the council, and we are enforcing your policy, which was put in place for a reason.

And I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you, Karen.

Uh questions from counsel for Karen.

Seeing none, although there may be some later, so don't move, don't go too far.

Uh I won't.

Let's let's open the public hearing, and we're gonna start with an with the appellant presentation from Jean Kapolchek.

Jean, you've got you welcome, and you have 10 minutes.

Thank you, Mayor Staff.

If the there we go.

Okay, I'm thanks.

Okay.

Mayor Stabb and members of the City Council, Jean.

Okay.

Jean Kapolchog, 1500 Manzanita Avenue, Santa Rosa, representing the applicant, Mongo Dylan, who is with me this evening.

Before beginning my formal presentation, I would like to address what may be the council's major concern with this project, that is the potential for groundwater contamination.

You've been told by the opponents that the proposed project, which includes a gas station, will be developed in a census track rated in the 96 percentile for groundwater threat.

This is a true statement.

However, what is not told is over 50 percent of Santa Rosa, including all downtown, all of Fountain Grove and lands east of Channel Drive, is also in the 96 percentile.

Therefore, the information presented by the opponents is meant to alarm rather than inform.

So what is the threat?

Drilling down into the data, we find that there was one contaminated site in the vicinity of the project site, stripe in SEAL.

This site was fully cleaned up and the file closed in 2022.

The next closest site is on Finley Avenue, approximately one mile to the southeast.

This site is part of the former Naval Air Station.

The entire formal NAVA air station is undergoing remediation.

Wells have been installed to monitor the effectiveness of this cleanup.

This is not an active threat.

The project has undergone a site-specific phase one environmental site assessment.

No contamination was found.

The data has shown that there are no leaking underground storage tanks in the vicinity of the project.

Leakage from failed single-walled underground metal storage tanks is the main source of groundwater contamination.

Single walled tanks are now outlawed in California.

The project proposes a reinforced doubled walled fiberglass tank equipped with a monitoring alarm.

Should the inner wall of the tank be breached, the lamb goes off.

The fuel is trapped in the space between the inner and outer walls of the of the tank, thereby preventing any leakage.

And now I'd like to move on to my PowerPoint.

Second slide, please.

The project before you is a mixed-use project consisting of two parcels, retail commercial and park parcel.

The project is the same project that was approved in 2013-2014.

It is the same project that withstood an appeal of its subdivision, and it is the same project that was exempt from the gas station ban.

Next slide, please.

The entitlement process for this project is long and complicated.

Next slide, please.

Approved in 2013, AB 116 grants a two-year extension, entitlements good to 2017.

Next slide, please.

In 2018, the city determined that the approvals had expired.

So we filed new applications.

Had we stayed this course, more likely than not, this project would exist today, we wouldn't be here.

However, in 2018, the city changed its mind, determined that the approvals had not expired, and issued a letter extending the conditional use permit and design review.

Next slide, please.

However, in 2021, the city changed its mind again, determined that the conditional use permit and design review had expired.

We filed new applications.

Next slide, please.

On to the appeal.

As far back as 1984, the zoning code prohibited gas stations adjacent to residential zone parcels.

The blue gas parcel adjoins residential and did so at the time of their application and their installation.

Furthermore, blue gas never applied for a propane dispensary in their application.

Next slide, please.

The Planning Commission found the project to be in inconsistent with several urban design policies.

The design review is entrusted to find projects consistent with the urban design element of the general plan and the city's design guidelines.

The project was found to be of superior design by the design review board.

Next slide, please.

The project was found to be auto-centric.

Much to the contrary.

Next slide, please.

On this slide, and perhaps you can see it a little bit better.

If you look at the green arrow coming off the Joe Redota Trail, you can see that the access has been provided to the back of the parcel, and then it comes out to the side.

It bypasses the entrance in the excess exit ways of the use.

So it's actually a safe alternative than going forward across the parcel frontage.

Next slide, please.

Moving on to environmental concerns, traffic.

The project is not a traffic generator.

Three traffic studies completed for the project concluded as much as 70 percent of the trips would be existing passerby trips.

Water quality, this issue was somewhat touched on in my original in my early earlier remarks.

The site is not a contaminated site.

The project has received its 401 certification from Regional Water Quality Control Board, and further regional water quality control review and building department oversight will be required at the time of building permits.

Next slide, please, please.

Both air quality and GHG emissions have been thoroughly studied.

A detailed health risk assessment was prepared that specifically analyzed the potential health risks for locating a gas station in the vis in the vicinity of residential development, no significant impacts.

A GHG memo was also prepared in 2024, no significant impacts.

Both reports found emissions below Bay Air Quality Thresholds of significance.

The Planning Commission denied the project because it was a gas station.

I think I would prefer to end my presentation here and give Martin Hurts uh an opportunity to address this issue.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Martin Hirsch.

I'm attorney for the applicant.

I want to touch on uh two items that were discussed briefly, um, but I feel that I have something to add.

The first is the uh topic of the exemption.

Um, as you all know, the the gas station ban ordinance was passed in September of 22.

It included exemption language that is found in Section 10 of that ordinance and states that applications for a new gas station use that were deemed complete prior to the effective date of the ordinance were to be exempt and may continue to be processed.

That language makes this project exempt from the ban because the application had been deemed complete uh at that time or prior to that time.

Um what that means is this project can cannot be denied simply because it includes a gas station use or certain elements that are typical of gas stations like underground storage tanks.

To deny this application on the basis that it includes an underground storage tank is equivalent to denying it because it is a gas station.

That's not what was intended by including the exemption in the ordinance.

The same is true of the policies that were discussed in the ordinance.

Um those cannot factor in and should not factor in uh as a reason for denial here.

Um the idea is that there was a protection built into that ordinance to protect my client and denying on the basis that this project has a gas station use or elements typical of a gas station would trample on that protection.

Thank you, Martin.

All right.

Uh thank you for that for that presentation.

I'm going to bring it back to counsel for questions of the uh the applicant.

Mr.

O'Krupke.

My apologies, Mr.

Mayor, but I I this may not be just for the applicant, because I think there's some clarification that I need on this, and that's what was told to whom about what an exemption is.

Because what I hear is staff saying exempt means viewing the project as a point in time, so pre-September 2022, right?

I've heard Chair Weeks say that they used the gas station ban, that the exemption was only for the application to move forward, not for the merits of the application.

So my question to the applicant is what were you told what the exemption meant for your application?

I don't know that we were necessarily or specifically told anything.

Um but my review of of the language and the ordinances as I explain.

Um it does not make sense that the policies expressed in the ban would be grounds to deny any anyway.

That microphone is not very sensitive, so you have to lean way in.

Thank you.

Uh it it doesn't there's an inconsistency there if the um policies put in place to support the gas station ban were then used to deny a project that was exempted from the banana.

Other questions from counsel vice mayor?

Well, along the same lines, the word complete, we heard it used up on the di or up there by the lawyer.

Uh at what point was this project considered complete as you stated if at any time the project was con the second the third time around the project was considered complete December 2021 staff would would that be a factual statement?

Yes, it's December 17th of 2021.

It was deemed complete.

Mayor, that's all I have for now.

Thank you.

Other questions from counseling my question uh revolves around the issue of the expirations.

Could someone, whether it's either the appellant or staff, uh give me a little clearer picture on the um the um declarations of expirations and then the retractions and then the the redeclaration.

Um did I did I understand that that process correctly?

Jean, did you want to take a first shot at that and then perhaps staff can respond?

I'd be glad to.

It goes back, it goes back to the application of AB 116.

So what what occurred as I mentioned is the projects were approved 2013, 2014, therefore they're good till 2015.

AB 116 extended the applications to 2017.

In 2018, and AB 116 was applicable to a subdivision, and that in the project included a subdivision.

The policy is if a project is bundled, conditional use permit, design review, subdivision.

If one is extended, the whole package is extended.

In early 2018, the city decided no, that use permit and design review had expired and spun off the subdivision.

And then that's why we have all the detail about certificate of compliance, which I won't go into.

The city took a second look at it and then decided because of the disruption in services having to do with the tubs fire, that the application was in fact still alive, is because it was a delay in terms of review and moving forward.

So that's when they wrote us a letter in 2020 in 2018 saying that our entitlements hadn't expired and brought those entitlements forward.

Had the city stuck to that position, then we would have had subsequent uh extensions through the uh emergency ordinances, the relief ordinances.

But this instead in 2021, the city looked back and said, whoops, we made a mistake.

AB 116 didn't apply to your subdivision.

And it was at that point that the whole thing unraveled.

Thank you for that.

And I'll look I'll look to staff now as well.

Is that an accurate summary of what happened here that there was some ambiguity around how to how to move this project forward?

So uh unfortunately I was not um in uh working in the development interview section at that time, so I was not privy to the back and forth.

But I can say that um I know that there was some confusion, and I don't know if uh our assistant city attorney or director can help out.

Good evening, thank you.

Uh my recollection of this is that uh when we took another look at this in I believe it was 2018, that the previous assumption that AB 116 had extended the tentative map was incorrect, and so that state extension had not applied to the project, so therefore the um entitlements had expired, and thus led to the discussion with the applicant of submitting new application materials since it had in fact expired.

Do you have more?

Yes, and I I will add to that.

Um first off, um thank you, Mayor, Vice Mayor Gabe Osmer, director of planning and academic development.

Um as we pieced together the history in this, it was also associated with the tentative map.

Um under state law, there's certain allowances for the timelines of the tenant map around that time frame.

There was quite a bit of legislation that was extending those, um, and that was granting more time for developers to act.

And how the department handled the associated entitlements is they were all packaged with the tenant and map.

So as the tentative map expired, the associated entitlements expired along with that.

Um what I recall is there was a lot of conversations and tracking with state law and understanding whether the tenant of map was alive or not.

Um and as mentioned, it was determined at that time that it wasn't, and then the staff made the determination that the associated entitlements died along with the map.

Okay, thank you for that.

This really is a complicated process.

Um back to the question that that uh Mr.

Mr.

Okropke was was touching on.

I just want to make sure I understand.

So there was that there is that last clause in the ordinance, the the um gas station ban ordinance, which does allow um the any applications in process to continue.

Would it have made any sense at all to have that to have that clause in there if those gas stations were going to be subject to the gas station ban?

That's a good question.

Um so I mean I I've got the language right here, and um if it would help, I can read it verbatim.

I think it's kind of been stated, but um, so the the way that the language currently reads is any application to permit a new gas station land use that has been deemed complete for processing by the effective date of this ordinance is exempt from this ordinance and may continue to be processed and considered by the appropriate review authority.

So I think the the council in that in adding that language to the ordinance uh was recognizing these two applications that were submitted, they were deemed complete, um, and uh and should have the opportunity to go through the process.

Thank you for that.

And I'll look for to our city attorney as well, since I know that we've been reviewing in our city attorney's office.

Uh is that upon uh legal review, is that the is that the interpretation as well I think that the the language is what it is.

Um I think that the ban itself, the across the board ban clearly did not apply to applications that were in and processed um up until that point.

Um I think the question of you know, looking at this project without a ban in place, I would see that there could be an argument that a policy level could apply, but it that's different than an all out and out ban, the out and out ban would not apply to this project.

Thank you.

Uh and speaking speaking more generically, when the city if if the city does not follow its ordinances closely, does it or does the city open itself up potentially to litigation risk in terms of making decisions like this?

Well, certainly um anyone can file a lawsuit about almost anything that doesn't make it meritorious.

So I'm assuming the question is about meritorious lawsuits.

I think certainly, you know, arguments could be made here.

Um, and certainly I could see how this would get into litigation that we would need to um but probably you know um get guidance from the court should we want to apply this.

So um I think there are arguments the city could make, but do I think this would be the subject of litigation?

Yes.

And I I know we have to be careful about how we speak on these matters, but I did at least want to uh put it out there for the public that the city is is really dotting its I's and and crossing its T's on this matter uh because when we make commitments or when we pass ordinances, there are there are legal ramifications, and we need to take that into account as we're making the decisions here from the dais.

Uh so again, to all the public who are here, rest assured that there has been uh endless review uh of uh you know down to the letter of what our ordinances mean and what what um projects the standard that projects have to be held to.

Uh that ends my questions.

Anything else, Ms.

Rogers?

Thank you, Mayor.

I had a uh question about health and safety, and I don't know who would answer this.

But when we're talking about the double walled tanks, um how long have those been in use versus the older tanks that um had a higher concern for leakage?

I don't know how long they've been in use.

I know that um I believe it was in 2021 that single wall tanks were outlawed in the legislation actually requires them to be removed by December 2025.

So the in this project, it's not only just a double wall metal, it's double-walled fiberglass with steel reinforcements and the two walls with the space in between.

Okay.

Um it's an assumption on my on my um behalf that as of 2021 new gas stations were built in different parts of California.

So what is the percentage of spill from the double lined tanks?

Is there do we have any numbers on those yet?

I have no information on that.

I I apologize.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for council vice mayor?

You beat me to my question, but I have a little bit to add to it, or actually ask of it.

The single-walled, what's the life expectancy of those and what's the life expectancy of these double wall tanks?

I am not an expert on uh tanks and tank construction.

So um what I what I know is that with the double wall tanks, there is a monitor alarm, and that alarm will go off as soon as there's any leakage of fluid from the first tank into the space in between the two walls.

So to me that gives you the assurances that it's not gonna go undetected and it won't go to the point of breaking that second wall.

So I heard that there's rebar as well as a monitoring system, but I don't think that it'll be there'll be a point to ask you what its performances in an earthquake scenario then because more than legging you don't have that information, do you?

I do not.

I believe we may have someone on Zoom if I could just uh speak with my client.

Do we have the fire marshal on Zoom at all?

Yes.

Can you please promote the fire marshal?

One million.

We do have a tank expert on Zoom.

Gene will promote your expert here in one second.

Can I get the person's name for promoting?

I think we have uh Deputy Chief Loenthal.

Strong.

Michael Strawn.

Good evening, uh Mayor, members of the council.

I mean, it's Paul Lonthal, Division Chief Fire Marshal of the San Rosa Fire Department.

Uh the single wall tanks uh as the applicant advised uh have been banned.

Uh we have one remaining tank left in the city, uh all new tanks uh under the San Rosa Fire Department's authority as a CUPA, which is a certified unified program agency.

We as the CUPA regulate the installation and maintenance uh and inspection and testing of all gas stations throughout the city of Santa Rosa on behalf of the state of California.

Uh there are about four different coupas in the county, uh, and we manage uh and permit the installation again in uh of those tanks.

Uh so from an installation standpoint, they would follow all the newest guidelines.

Uh that was actually one of the things we worked on through the development of the ordinance.

Is some of the initial language uh was likely the potential of preventing upgrades if they were not required, but we uh worked on that language and to ensure that uh any existing tank, regardless of whether there was a need and or any uh new tanks hell have the ability uh and or requirement to be installed with the double wall tank, the sensors as uh described uh and all the inspections uh through our agency through the mayor.

I want to let the appellant know there is no one by that name on Zoom.

He's indicated that he can't log on.

My clients can contact him with him now.

I apologize.

Well, we resolve that technical issue, uh Ms.

Ben Willows.

Thank you.

Um I have a question for Chair Weeks actually.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um just I just wanted to clarify.

Um I I think when you made your presentation, you you may have said that the prime I don't know if you said I don't want to put words in your mouth at all.

Um, if the primary was the primary reason that the planning commission denied the project due to the gas station ban, or were there not other reasons?

And if you could talk about those a little bit.

Sure.

Um yes, I think what what I said was that even if the ban hadn't been in place, we would have been hard pressed to find that to make the finding for health and safety uh reasons because of all the reports and all the research around the harm that gas stations can do.

So, yes.

Yes, and then I also wanted to ask, and I don't know if you know the answer to this.

Doesn't uh the city also have an emergency climate action uh I don't know what it's called policy.

Plan.

Thank you.

Plan.

I mean, I know I sit on the climate action committee, but just given that I thought I heard that as another reason as well.

Yes, um, that would have been that okay.

Thank you, Ms.

McDonald.

Thank you.

I'm not really sure who this question goes to, but since um Chair Weeks actually talked about uh health and safety, and I'm not sure who who might be best to answer this.

One of my questions was around climate and our climate issues, because one of the things we're hearing is the impact on our climate.

But is there anything or data that we have around cars that potentially line up at gas stations at idle and the impact that that has on our community and on our ozone and and our climate?

Can you answer any of that?

And and the reason I asked this question is if there's fewer stations in certain parts of our city, uh, would it would it be that those gas stations that are in those areas, we might have more cars lined up.

I I can attest to Costco, where the cars are lined up, um a significant line of cars idling.

And so I just wondered if you had any information on that.

Um yeah, I wish I had a bit more information about the queuing and things like that.

If there's uh larger queues at certain gas stations and kind of the global impact of that, I do not have that information.

Um there is uh traffic study that was performed for this project that, as you'll note, um noted uh pass by trips, and if there's a gas station that is farther away from where people live or where they work, and it's a larger um trip to get there, that's probably more of a destination type trip.

And I'm probably at this point talking out of my wheelhouse about traffic engineering.

Um we do have WTRANs and our traffic engineer from the city here to talk about that.

Um, but I think I think what we should think about as terms as it relates to the the review of this development project is the types of reports and analysis that was performed specifically related to this development and not necessarily the global impacts of um gas station locations throughout the city and the associated impacts um with car emissions and GHG emissions and things like that.

Thank you, Ms.

Rock Ms.

Rogers.

Thank you.

I did have a question about electric uh vehicle charging stations.

How many of those uh are in my district?

So within the vicinity of the proposed station.

I do not have that information handy.

Um we may be able to give that to you.

Okay, I'm pretty interested.

Myself as well.

Mr.

O'Krupkey.

Yeah, um something count Councilmember Ban Wellis jogged said jogged my memory um in this comprehensive memo that we received today.

Um the uh climate action plan and climate emergency resolution were addressed in it.

Can you um uh there was a a claim by the holder group that it was contrary to those, and then there was a response.

Can you sort of summarize that?

Or I can read it.

Um I'd be happy to summarize if you thank you.

Yeah, so um, as I kind of mentioned my last response to Councilman McDonald, um, the project is required to um complete certain reports and there's certain analysis that are performed for compliance with the Santa Rosa Climate Action Plan that takes the shape of a new development checklist, which is included as um attachment 15 in the in the packet, and you'll see specific measures of the climate action plan and how the project implements or does not implement those with an associated discussion.

Um so the way that we ensure project development projects are consistent with the Santa Rosa Climate Action Plan um as we as we uh analyze the project against that checklist.

I will also note that with the adoption of the general plan 2050, the green that included a greenhouse gas reduction strategy that also has specific development measures in that um staff has analyzed the project against those measures as well and found it to be consistent.

Okay, and then can you address the the climate emergency resolution yes?

I will have to look at my notes for that one.

Um so the city's climate emergency resolution um that established community-wide goals to contribute to a countywide climate emergency mobilization strategy and to collaborate with the regional climate protection authority to integrate climate change into policy decisions.

That resolution does not necessarily contain any regulation or policy itself that would preclude the um review and approval of this project.

Any other questions from council?

Good questions.

All right, members of the public.

Now is your time.

Uh many of you have already submitted your names.

So before we begin taking uh or hearing from the public, um, first a note of thanks to the dozens of people who have reached out to us on council to all of you who have made the time to be here in person tonight.

It is not convenient to come here.

This is clearly an issue that stirs up a lot of strong emotions, and believe me, all of us here on the Dais have felt that.

Uh and I hope that you heard from our ex parte disclosures and from the questions tonight, I we've gotten the sense that we have put our heads or we've gotten our heads into the details of this issue.

Um we've read the letters, we've had the conversations.

We are looking forward to what you have to say tonight.

We're glad that so many people are here.

I as a as a gentle reminder, I will say that you are not required to take all three minutes during your public comment.

It is perfectly appropriate to say that I agree with the person who came before me, or to be very succinct with the with the comment that you have to make.

Um, but whatever it is, we're certainly eager to listen.

So we are gonna start off.

I'm gonna go right down the list here.

Um, and if you can again be waiting up by the podium when your name is called, uh, and be and use both podiums so we can make this very efficient.

We're gonna start with Katie, Jack, and Tyler.

Katie, Jack, and Tyler, you're our first three, and I'll keep calling out names.

Thank you.

It's gonna be Katie, you're up.

Hello, my name's Katie Rikowski.

I am from district seven.

I live in this neighborhood.

I have the interesting challenge of driving through this intersection every day.

Um I hope you'll bear with me.

This is my for my second time speaking before you guys and coming here.

My first time was was the first hearing a few months ago.

Um I know a lot of people are gonna talk about a lot of different aspects of this issue.

I just want to come to you guys and let you know what it's like.

As just a member of the community.

I'm not a part of a big organization.

I can't pay for lawyers to come here.

This is time away from my family.

Um it was really cool to speak in front of you guys last time and feel like the people I voted for, the people I encouraged my community members to vote for.

Um stand up and actually hear what we had to say, and and fight for something that is more than what we have today.

Um hearing that this all might be undone kind of broke my heart.

It made me wonder who I elected.

I I try to really critically look at every proposition, every individual running, and give them a fair shot, see who's funding them, see what their history was, and I try and find leaders and invest my faith in them, encourage the elders I work with, the natives that I work with, the first time voters I encourage to do the same.

And to hear this could all be undone on weird technicalities.

I can tell you as the experience of a constituent that to me there's no difference between the term uh quickie mart and grocery store.

Um, that calling a patch of grass at a gas station a park isn't gonna make a difference to me when it's in my community.

I I I would really like for you guys to take a moment and think on the last time you went for a picnic at a gas station.

Um I understand that the threat of litigation is real, but we elected you guys to be brave.

And that's what I'm asking you to do here is plant trees whose shade you will never enjoy.

Because there are so few corners of this country where that's still happening, and it's one of the things that makes me very proud to be a member of this community.

I thank you for your time, and I I hope you really consider this issue.

Thank you, Katie.

We'll move on to Jack, Tyler, and Panna.

Or at least my spot in line.

Thank you, Allie.

Step up.

Thank you so much, Jack.

Um, my name is Allie Hole.

I live in the neighborhood in District 7 near the proposed site.

I'm here with three of my four young children, and I'm here on behalf of all of the families that live in the area.

Our concern is mostly with the health and environmental impact of this project.

Um, you've all been made aware of what those concerns are, so I don't need to inform you any further.

But I hope that my presence here and my very well-behaved children.

Thank you.

Um, it just shows the the feeling of the neighborhood and how important um our voice is for this project.

Thank you.

Thanks for coming out to Net Alley.

Uh it's we're moving on to uh Tyler and PANA.

Oh, Jack.

Jack, is that you?

There we go.

Jack, and then we'll go with Jack, then Tyler and PANA.

All right.

Hello, council.

My name is Jack James.

I'm a resident here in Santa Rosa, District 5.

Um, I don't own a car myself, so I bike to work each day, so I have plenty of experience along the Joe Rodota Trail, so this project directly impacts me.

Um, just due to traffic concerns and uh all the other health uh benefits and uh disadvantages that it may pose.

Um top of all that, I I feel like this does not need stating, but we are in a climate emergency.

All five of the mass extinction events that we know of were caused by a rapidly changing climate.

It is well known and recognized by a majority of the nations and scientists globally that we are entering a sixth of such events, the Holocene extinction.

With max mass extinction events averaging 82% of species going extinct.

This is the single greatest threat that humanity has ever faced.

I feel like this doesn't need stating, but the city of Santa Rosa and you are representatives have recognized this emergency as well.

The city's climate action policies and strategies recognize the imperative to act and demonstrate a continued commitment to reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

The city continues to actively implement greenhouse gas emission reduction measures to reduce emissions to meet local, regional, state reduction targets.

So I feel like it doesn't need to be stated that in the year 2025, we need strong leaders to move us forward.

Whereas this gas station is taking us back.

We are only five years away from Santa Rosa's goal of carbon neutrality in 2030.

Mayor Stapp, Council members, are you to be intimidated by this litigation?

Knowing that you may fall on the wrong side of history.

Please don't go against the recommendation of your your own rulings in terms of the climate action policies, the commission that you have appointed, and your very constituents.

It doesn't need to be said, but deny this approval, please.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jack.

Tyler, Panna, and then Alexa.

Sorry, I would also like to defer my time for someone to go before me.

Derek.

No.

Can we get the mic on?

Derek, you're good to go.

Just lean in.

Okay.

Yeah, uh, well, I'll be brief and I'll I'll give you your time back.

Um, I'm also here just to voice my opposition to uh this proposal for many of the reasons that have already been established.

I was here at the planning commission meeting in April, spoke then.

Um I think what's being lost too in some of the rhetorical gymnastics around when the Hermit was issued and the chronology and whether that entitles someone to develop a gas station in Santa Rosa is uh a deeper and more fundamental question of is this good for Santa Rosans?

Is this good for our younger generation?

I fail to see how a new gas station in a time of climate crisis uh meets that definition.

Um, sure, there are plenty of equity issues in Santa Rosa, and I really hope that they are addressed.

I think there are other ways to address those than dressing up a gas station in the disguise of an altruistic project, which this is clearly not.

Um I really hope and urge that the council uses their discretion uh to determine whether this is in fact a project that is good for Santa Rosans, not for lawyers, not for developers, but for all of us.

Thank you.

Thank you, Derek.

Uh Tyler, back to you.

Hello, hi, Tyler.

I'm a district seven resident, as I said on April 10th.

Bill Clinton, in his 1997 address to the North Carolina state legislature, said this new time that we are moving into, that coincidentally will be part of a new century and a new millennium will give more people in this state and this nation the chance to live out their dreams than at any point in human history.

Only if we take advantage of it, if we seize our opportunities and deal with our challenges, because I know that to achieve the vision that we share for America, we all have to do our part.

And even now we can see the vistas of the future.

The point I want to make today is we cannot afford to be complacent if we have been given an opportunity almost unique in human history to fashion a future that will embrace everybody.

We cannot and dare not blow that opportunity.

This gas station will not embrace everybody, and it is not a part of the vision of the future, I believe that we are trying to work towards.

This city council banned the construction of new gas stations in 2022, and this proposed gas station seems in opposition to the goals of the city, county, and state.

And as a city and county, we are working towards carbon neutrality by 2030, and 60% of our emissions come from transportation.

As a state, executive orders by both Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom set ambitious goals of no gas cars on the road by 2045, a goal only achievable if we are willing to try.

This proposed gas station is not just unnecessary, it is not just a step backwards, but it will be a bad investment in our future with your names on it.

All this while the EPA is being gutted, and this city council, in its decision to ban new gas stations, cited the severe risk of ground pollution and brownfield sites.

If this gas station is allowed to be constructed with the EPA and its precarious state, we risk creating a mess that we aren't sure that we can clean up, and doing so will cost millions of dollars in reclamation.

The public does not want this, your constituents do not want this.

And as Obama said in his 2009 town hall meeting in Shanghai to a crowd of college graduates excited for the future, at the end of the day, prosperity goes beyond material pleasures.

It transcends material concerns.

It resides in the quality of our lives and in the health and happiness of our families.

It is present in the strength of our relationships and our trust in the community.

This gas station will hurt people.

It will hurt families and it will hurt our communities.

It will not improve the health or happiness or the trust this community has and desperately needs now that this city council will protect them, both now in the short term and in the long term.

I urge you, please do not overturn the decision to deny the conditional use permit.

Thank you.

Thank you, Tyler.

We'll go to Panna, Alexa, and then Laura Gonzalez.

Can you hear me?

I can hear that.

Okay, this is Woody Hastings.

Pana Lossie is a healthcare expert, and she had to depart just about 10 minutes ago.

Um so since Pana has had to leave, would it be possible, uh, Mayor, for me to take her place and go now?

Would that be already sure?

Woody, go ahead.

Sure.

Thanks so much.

Really appreciate good good evening, Mayor Staff, Vice Mayor Alvarez, and Council members.

My name is Woody Hastings, and I'm the co-coordinator of the coalition opposing new gas stations.

Thank you so much for the opportunity to comment.

I'm here today to urge you to deny the appeal and support the planning commission's unanimous decision on April 10th.

At that hearing, over 20 Sonoma County residents, many of them uh Santa Rosa residents spoke in opposition to the project, and no one spoke in support of the project.

Now there are many other people here tonight that need to leave uh early.

We've got parents with kids and such.

Um, and um who came because they care, but they'd prefer not to speak.

Um so I'd now, if it's okay, I'd like to just ask all those in the chamber who are supporting the planning commission in their uh April 10th decision uh to deny the permits uh and uh to to uh deny the for you to deny the appeal to please um to please stand, just show who we are here in the room.

Okay, well, I think you can see that uh we've got you know a lot of community members here, divert you know, a lot of different community members here that care about this.

Um, I want to clarify one point.

I'm gonna step on my own comments because I want to make something clear about why we are even talking about the exemption, and it's because it is in the uh resolution from the April 10th meeting.

The clarification I would like to add is that it's not about the ordinance, it's not about the ban, it's about the findings, and they clarified, they recognized that that could be a confusion.

Are you talking about the ordinance?

They were exempt from the ordinance.

Well, here's the deal the ordinance had findings, findings of fact.

And those facts are facts, and they are facts about gas stations.

And they remain, they remained yesterday, they remain today, and there's no getting around that.

So it's not about the ordinance, it's about the findings.

Um, one of the neighbors couldn't be here tonight.

I want to um read her letter from April 10th because we in our letter, in our lengthy letter from uh from the coalition talks about a potential canam contamination of uh of of under of residential wells, and it's not just the tanks below, but there's micro spills every single day and other uh ways that spills happen.

And from Ariel Muir uh Muirhead, who lives right nearby, we recently bought our first home off Chico Avenue, right near the site.

We discovered our well is only 40 feet deep, and most people in our area have shallow wells.

Everyone on our street is required to have a city sewer service because our septic tanks are already contaminating our water.

We're concerned about this plan for a gas station right around the corner from us.

We're afraid that runoff and leaks will start to contaminate our drinking water.

When this matter comes before you, please take the health and well-being of our local community into consideration and reject this proposal.

One last thing.

2024 was the hottest year on record for the entire plan.

Woody, thank you.

We'll go on to Alexa, Laura Gonzalez, and Holly Pierce.

Alexa, go ahead.

Hi again.

I'm Alexa Forrester, and for the purpose of this comment, I am speaking on behalf of Bikeable Santa Rosa, which I am a co-lead for.

We are a campaign of over a thousand Santa Rosans who use bicycles for transportation.

And I just want to address the question of safety.

I hope that you will take our word for it over the appellants about what we want from our bike infrastructure as people who are actually out there riding around.

And we do not want this gas station.

Um, gas stations are we are pro-business, we are pro-Santa Rosa business, we are pro-development, we are pro-housing.

But this particular kind of business generates an incredible amount of in and out traffic that puts us in conflict with the cars.

Um and that's even if they're passed by cars, they're still turning in and across our paths.

So I just wanted to clarify that the people who ride around on bicycles daily in Santa Rosa do not want this project.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alexa.

Uh Laura, and then Holly.

Good evening, Council.

I'm my name is Laura Gonzalez, and I live in District 7.

I live about five minutes from the area, and I'm opposed to the Elm Tree Station.

This project is being marketed as a fun family place to hang out and have a picnic.

And as someone else pointed out, who goes to a gas station to have a picnic?

And I want to know how will yet another gas station benefit my working class neighborhood.

Newsflash, it won't.

There are two other Chevron stations in the area, one on Stony Point Road near Highway 12, and one at the entrance to Sebastopol.

There are over a dozen other ones within a three-mile radius.

This is obviously not a gas station desert.

One of the selling points of the project is for us fresh produce and other food.

There are various small stores in the area, two within half a mile.

I can't help but wonder if fresh produce is a developer's way of getting around the zoning code that prohibits convenience stores at that location.

The developer has stores all over the county, and none of their other stores have fresh fruit.

I live near the um the MD convenience store that's on Fulton and West Third, and I was just in there a few days, and they just have a few overly ripe bananas there.

But they did have lots of alcohol, which brings me to another point that is my understanding that this area there cannot be sale off sale of alcohol.

Will that happen?

Um, not to mention Food Max is nearby, so anybody who really wants some fresh produce and food and lower prices would go to Food Max.

Why would they go to a gas station?

I have no faith that the project won't affect traffic.

As anyone who's driven in the area already knows, traffic at Highway 12 and Fulton Road, right road, is a mess.

It's congested, um, especially during commute time.

The fact is Elm Street Station is not needed, and the permit should be denied.

Thank you.

Thank you, Laura.

Holly, Wayne, and then Terry Shore.

Good evening, Council members.

My name is Holly Pierce, and my husband and I live have lived for 32 years on Providence Court, which is within walking distance of where the Elm Tree station is proposed to be built.

I'm not an activist.

I only learned about this project through the public notice in the press Democrat.

I'm not a public speaker, but this is an issue that will affect my neighborhood, and so I must speak up.

From a neighborhood resident standpoint, I have concerns about this project.

One is that traffic at the intersection of Highway 12 and Fulton Road is all very congested.

Situating a gas station there would only further interfere with traffic flow with what motorists what with motorists slowing to turn left into the station.

As for another gas station in the area, I'd like to mention that there are already gas stations that we use conveniently situated to the east of both Stony Point and Dutton Road exits.

So I have no need for a mini mart.

Could somebody raise their hand if you did?

Thank you.

Would it be possible for me to show you?

Is this the thing that doesn't?

Yes, one moment, I'll turn it on.

Thank you.

Oh, take the light off of it.

Yeah.

Okay.

This is a picture of the MD market owned by the applicants within a mile of where they want to put the new mini mart.

I'm not interested in a store that looks like this representing my neighborhood.

I was at the Planning Commission's meeting in April.

Speakers in opposition to this project made many good points.

Tonight, as a resident living close to the site and site in question, and having a personal stake in your decision, I'm hoping you will uphold the resolution.

Thank you for listening.

Thank you, Holly.

We'll move on to Wayne, Terry Shore, and then Kate.

Thank you very much.

My name is Wayne Yamagishi.

I'm a 30-year resident of District 7.

I've lived approximately I live approximately a quarter of a mile away from this project.

Every day I travel that intersection.

On the dais, you mentioned that many of you have already visited that location.

I'm wondering when you have done that, because if you did it any time between the hours of eight to nine to ten, or during the lunch hour, or even in the afternoon, you will notice the length of the commute and the traffic that that's congested the intersection.

I fear that the ingress and egress of the Joe Rodota Trail for the bikes that was uh explained earlier, does not just come from the Joe Rodota Trail, it comes from that whole intersection.

And if you were entering or exiting a gas station or any kind of retail outlet, I'm sure that you would understand that turning looking left or right for different traffic that would go through, as well as other kinds of pedestrians or bicycles, really does pose a danger.

It was less than 10 days ago that there was an accident right at that gas station towards Sebastopol that you you mentioned, and that person was leaving uh a produce stand, turning um uh east, and was head-on collision with another one.

It was very thankful that no one was injured.

They did have to go to the hospital for uh different um evaluations, but that is in the middle of that was a turning area, and so even with that, it doesn't take long for one of those occurrences to happen.

This evening you're going to be confronted with a very difficult decision, and one in which I I'm feeling understanding about your position that you're in as far as potential litigation, but I think that your responsibility to what could happen in injuring others, not just with accidents, but with also the climate issues that are happening.

I don't think that we can uh be able to, we mustn't be able to acknowledge what's what's um gonna be in our future.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Wayne, uh Terry, Kate, and Karina.

And let's make use of both podiums to keep this moving.

Uh Terry, is that you?

Go ahead.

Uh yes, good evening.

Uh my name is Terry Shore.

I am representing the Sierra Club Sonoma group.

Uh, good evening, mayor staff, council members and staff, and members of the public.

The Sierra Club Sonoma group represents thousands of Santa Rosa and Sonoma County residents who care deeply about climate health and the City of Santa Rosa's ongoing commitment to addressing the climate emergency.

We strongly urge you to deny a conditional use permit for the development of a gas station at 874 North Wright Road in Santa Rosa and to deny the appeal.

The City of Santa Rosa does not need a new gas station in a seasonal wetland near a busy intersection in a community already impacted by car and truck emissions from fossil fuels.

There are several key reasons to deny the appeal.

One, the toxic compounds in gasoline and diesel are hazardous to people's health.

I'd also like to note that a development such as this is discretionary by the city council.

It is not a right.

There are many other reasons for denying the gas station.

That has been spelled out by the Planning Commission, by the public, and many organizations.

Ultimately, I would remind you that reminders said that Sierra Club strongly urges you to support the Planning Commission's denial of this gas station and stay the course on your commitments to the environment and a healthy community in Santa Rosa.

Thank you.

Thank you, Terry.

Kate, Karina, and Susan.

For the time and careful thought you're putting into this matter.

My name is Kate Steen.

I live and pay taxes in Santa Rosa.

As a retired litigator, I've noticed that many elected bodies suffer from a symptom that I call fogs or fear of getting sued.

Their attorneys advise them that their actions present potential legal risks.

Elected officials who do not have legal backgrounds to analyze those risks often get cold feet about pursuing any action that might result in a lawsuit.

But the risks of litigation are on both sides.

In a letter to the council, Congress's attorney has effectively written the brief that will enable the can the city to prevail in any litigation that may be brought if this appeal is denied.

You are on solid legal ground.

You have nothing to fear from a lawsuit.

You are right to be concerned about risks in this matter.

The greatest risk to the city is that by permitting another gas station to be developed, you are buying the city a brown field for which it will end up on the hook for the cost of mitigation once the gas station closes.

As underground storage tanks or USTs age, their risk of leakage increases.

They become difficult to insure in the private market.

If not insured privately, state funds provide UST insurance.

Currently, more than 10% of these state funds are insolvent.

California is moving definitively away from fossil fuel vehicles.

Over the next 10 to 20 years, thousands of station operators are going to walk away or go bankrupt as demand decreases and their storage tanks reach the end of their useful life.

It has been denied again and again because it is a bad idea.

Bad ideas are not like fine wines that improve with age.

They are more like milk or fish.

The longer they hang around, the more they stink.

Thank you, Kate.

Karina, Susan, and Rich Tice.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is Karina.

I am a current student in my second year at Santa Rosa Junior College, studying nutrition science and public health.

I live in Sebastopol, and I am urging the city council to affirm the Planning Commission's April 10th denial of the permits and deny the appeal for this new gas station project.

As a young person, I am deeply concerned about the climate crisis and my generation's future.

I believe that building new fossil fuel infrastructure in 2025 just does not make sense.

A new gas station would contribute to increased greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, as we all know, which goes against the city's climate action plan and the climate emergency resolution number 20202 targeted at improving air quality and reducing reliance on fossil fuels.

In addition to fueling climate change, there are health and safety concerns.

The proposed site is incompatible with cyclists and pedestrians enjoying the Joe Redoda Trail, and it would expose the immediate and surrounding communities to a host of toxins.

Human exposure to these types of contaminants threatens the public health, safety, and welfare of the immediate and surrounding communities.

I have been actively participating in Climate Action Night at Santa Rosa Junior College for the past four years, both as a student presenter and behind the scenes.

Climate Action Night is an evening where Sonoma County College and High School students share Science Fair style presentations about pending climate-related California legislation and local campaigns.

At the last climate action night on April 24th, 41 students filled out postcards.

I can show you all agreeing that the council should uphold the planning commission's decision to deny this gas station project.

These are the postcards right here.

And I wanted to thank you all for the lead for your leadership on this important issue and all of the good work that you do in agreement with the existing policy.

Thank you, Karina.

Susan, followed by Rich.

Thank you for being concerned about a lawsuit and protecting our money, but we are in perilous times.

Our rights and our institutions are falling by the wayside because universities, media outlets, law firms, and more are refusing to fight back against lawsuits.

We are losing too much.

Don't be part of that.

In this case, it is our health and the health of the planet that is at stake.

Years ago, during a drought year, when the first rains finally came, over several days, I saw egrets searching for food in the median strip of Highway 12 near the site of the proposed gas station convenience store.

With the first rains, the oil sheen could be seen on the highway.

Because there is a depression there, water collected there, contaminated by our use of fossil fuels.

Earthwarm under gaudy light, zen still egret, radiant medium strip, stoic, invisible, luminous, joy-borne bird betrayed, belly empty and crisp grass.

Drought dried season turns liquid late.

Oil bright rainbow rainbows blooms slick and sear.

Lightning flash neck leaps, snapshut, gulps, runoffs, five-limbed frog, waste harvest.

How else to tell this?

Regret comes late.

So many ways to be dangerous.

How else to tell this?

Regret comes late.

So many ways to be dangerous.

Please consider the health impacts of this decision.

Regret will be too late.

Please join the commissioners you appointed and vote no on this gas station.

Thank you.

Thank you, Susan.

Rich Attila, and Cher.

Is Rich here?

Oh, I mean, I'm sorry, Rick.

I'm Rick Tys.

Hello, what do I do to turn this on?

Talk closer.

Okay.

I'm Rick Tys, I'm for former plan Santa Rosa Planning Commissioner.

Um, who was fired 30 years ago for supporting uh more affordable housing and opposing big bug stores in order to support local business.

Uh but anyway, I also went on to found the Leadership Institute for Ecology and the Economy to train and educate leaders to create public policy for sustainable future.

And I'm very proud to say that Woody Hastings is a fellow of the institute, and what a great job he's done in leading us in this effort to understand why one gas station makes a difference.

I also serve for 12 years on the board of trustees of Sonoma Academy and chair their billers and grounds committee and oversaw the building of the Janet Durgan Gildan Gild and Commons, which was extremely green.

And in April of 2021, the Living Building Challenge certified it the first carbon-free building in California, and one of the few in the United States.

It went on to get many, many other certifications made for uh being green and sustainable, including Lee Platinum International Living Future Institute, the National Institute of Building Science, and the American Institute of Architecture.

I know how difficult it is to reduce carbon, and I really appreciate the work that the Planning Commission has done to support the climate action plan of the city.

We need to do more.

I hope you will stand up and support them by refusing this appeal.

Thank you.

Thank you, Rick.

Attila, Cher, and Laura.

Is it ready?

Yeah.

Yes.

My name is Othila Nagy.

I'm in Santa Rosa.

This is uh for the city council as well as the city attorney and the city manager.

Um I know that there's discussions about making this decisions about this, but I trust the research and finding of the Planning Commission and uh their uh unanimous decision, and there's a good reason for that, and there's been a lot of information put out tonight why this should not go on uh permitted.

Um so I'm just gonna add that you are a task as a city council with the decision to affect everyone in this city, and I encourage you to vote according to good sense and reason.

Uh don't be influenced only by those who bottom whose bottom line is profit without regard for the environment that everyone must share, every one of us here.

So think of the future generations, just like the young woman who was here a little while ago.

You know, she has to grow up with the decisions that are being being made by our generation here and yours.

So think of the future and whose lives are affected by good or bad decisions made today, and I do I hope that you make good decision today, and you know what that is.

Thank you.

Thank you, Attila.

Cher, Laura Nye, and Santeep.

Cher, go ahead.

Good evening, Mayor Mayor Stopp and Council members.

Um my name is Cher Ennis.

I've lived in Santa Rosa for 50 years.

Um I in the late 80s, early 90s, worked for a local business that was called Petroleum Engineering.

What we did was design and oversee the building of new gas stations.

So I have some technical expertise in tanks, double wall tanks.

Um I appreciate that there is that annular space between the two tanks, and there is a monitor monitoring system that theoretically will let us know that there has been a breach.

What I want to say is how many gas stations do we already have, and when the big one hits, how many of them will fail?

We don't know that.

But there's a 99% chance, according to the USGS, 99% probability in the next 30 years for an earthquake with a magnitude of 6.7 or greater, which is certainly enough to break both both tanks.

At that point in time, and this is getting a little dysp dystopian.

The electricity will likely be out, so it doesn't matter whether there's monitoring going on or not.

And it will take months for all of the current gas stations to be looked at and to be dug up if necessary.

Why would we add just one more in that chain of events?

I hope you will listen to what the planning commission said and what many of the people here are saying.

We don't need another gas station.

Thank you.

Thank you, Cher Laura, Santeep, and Javier.

Laura Nish, N E I S H.

I'm the executive director of 350 Bay Area, and 350 Sonoma is one of our local groups, and I'm also a resident and live near Memorial Hospital.

So I'll I'll keep it brief.

Thank you for your patience.

Maybe we can all take a dig big deep breath to re-energize ourselves.

A little concerned about some of the procedural comments, and just wanted to highlight something Terry Shore said, which is this is not a ministerial project.

This relies on the judgment of the Planning Commission and this uh August Council right here.

So this is a decision that you can make based on the evidence before you.

And I think that that's really important to call out because a couple of comments have seemed to imply that you will be forced somehow to make a different kind of decision.

So the other thing that nobody has brought up is that there is decreasing demand for gasoline in Sonoma County.

And I'm actually been consistently surprised that local um operators of gas stations haven't kind of come out against these new applications in in force.

So as demand goes down, all you're doing is cannibalizing the existing owners, um, some of which are huge, safe way in Costco, and but some of which are kind of mom and pop operations.

So just on the demand uh side alone, there there literally is no need for this gas station.

And then the other thing I just want to underscore that other people have pointed on no matter how well you build a tank, there is always, always, always leakage between the the big tanker trucks that fill up those tanks, and as everybody here knows who has filled up a car, there's always leakage there as well.

And I get the prize for being quick.

Thanks.

Thank you, Laura.

Santeep.

Is Santeep here?

Uh we want to is it Javier?

Santeep?

Sandeep.

Sandeep.

It's your it's your turn.

Hello, good evening, everyone.

My name is Sandeep Sharma.

I live near that vicinity where they are putting a gas station.

Um everybody's talking about the environment pollution.

Uh, but what's the alternate of uh uh gas?

It's a lithium.

And uh there are only two ways to get a lithium.

One method is the lithium-rich water, they clock collecting a pound, and then they evaporate it.

And the second one is uh getting it from the rock mining, and both of them causes the habitat destruction, and they cause contamination, use of lots of uh fresh water.

And uh the another thing is the lithium factory, which operated all the electric cars.

It's very difficult to recycle them too.

And there is no lots of options to recycle those uh lithium battery.

Um and there's only small amount of that batteries are recycled.

And recycling is much more expensive than mining of a new material, lithium too.

So there are advantages and disadvantages of everything if you think about that.

Um, but it's a convenient place for the people who live around that vicinity, especially the old people and you know, the working class people who want to grab a cup of coffee and go for a work.

So I support that project.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Santip.

Is it Javier?

Javier, welcome.

Yeah, I'm also a community member in Roseland, and uh I'm an amateur biker, so I'm not very professional, but you know, even five, seven miles is a lot for me.

And uh it'd be nice to have that little community market.

That'd be a great little stop on the Joe Roder Trail.

I've written that many times into Sebastopol.

And so for me, it's very convenient.

You know, it's right off the trail, beautiful spot.

I can just stop by rest a little bit if I wanted to.

Um so yeah, the the market would be a great little location for me to you know get some rest, hydrate, get a snack or whatever.

Um I think it's a I don't think it's gonna add too much traffic.

Everyone that's already there is gonna go in.

So in my eyes, I don't see that being a bigger issue.

And same with like the reports as well.

So uh all in all, I think it's a great project for the community.

There's not really a fresh food market like that nearby.

You know, like um the Santa Rosa JC has the community market there.

There's Pacific Market in Northern Santa Rosa.

Like we just don't have that in Southeast Santa Rosa, so I think it would be actually great.

Food Max isn't like it's great, you know, it's affordable, it's good, but like this is a community market that would have more healthier options than the alternatives.

So uh I am in support of this project.

Thank you.

We'll move on to Kyle, Vanessa, and Carla.

Kyle, Vanessa, and Carla.

Thank you.

I would like to echo everything that Jag Vier said.

It would be really great to have a food mart that's right off the trail that we can stop at and get hydrated on our bikes.

Um, and I just don't see there being that much of an issue with one more gas station.

Um it would be extremely convenient for anybody who's driving on that road rather than having to go to the Chevron.

I'd rather prefer to support a local business and um some local business people.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kyle, Vanessa, Carla, and Matt.

Hi, my name is Vanessa.

As a member of this community, I would like to express my support for this development of the gas station.

Um I believe this gas station will bring a lot of uh employment and um it would increase the tax revenue also uh for our city.

Um so I do believe also that uh what Sandeep had mentioned in the past, um, it's very important to look up.

Um so I am I do approve this project.

I I go for it.

Thank you, Vanessa.

Uh Carla, Matt, and Nicole.

Hi, my name is Carla.

Um I'm from Santa Rosa, born and raised.

So I honestly do think the gas station is a good place for it to be there.

Um I used to live around the area, and I honestly don't like going to um, for example, Chevron right there on that little shopping center and shell.

Um, just because I feel like there's just a lot of people, and I kind of like little um I kind of look for more like cadence spots of gas stations to put my gas in.

Um I think it's very convenient to, like I said, have the gas station there.

It's right between the four intersections, going to Sebastopol and going on 12 or Fulton.

Um I I honestly think you should trust the process and take a chance.

And I I support the project.

Thank you, Carla.

Matt, Nicole, and Laura.

Laurel, rather.

Hi there, uh Mayor and uh council members.

My name is Matt Cowley.

I'm a resident of Santa Rosa, and I'm here representing Sonoma County Conservation Action.

I'm here tonight to strongly urge you to affirm the unanimous decision.

Uh the April 10th decision of the planning commission to deny the conditional use permit for the gas station on North Wright Road.

And reject the appeal filed by the developer.

Um that six zero vote by the planning commission wasn't made lightly.

It was it was the result of extensive public testimony, careful analysis, and deep understanding of how this project directly conflicts with Santa Rosa's general plan, zoning laws, and our climate emergency declaration, which is especially important.

Sonoma County residents overwhelmingly support the new the city's ban on new gas stations, and that includes environmentalists, healthcare workers, local businesses, and every day residents, many of whom live nearby um the proposed gas station, and would be most affected by this uh project.

Uh the proposed gas station would be located at a flood-prone seasonal wetland immediately adjacent to the Joe Rhoda Trail, uh, near multi-family housing and to that other propane facility, putting two highly flammable fossil fuel operations side by side.

As been said many times by many of the speakers here, we are in a climate emergency, not a theoretical one, but a declared emergency.

We've seen the wildfires, we've seen the floods, the heat waves.

We cannot keep building fossil fuel infrastructure and expect a livable future.

Gas stations leak, as been said over and over again.

They pollute the air and the groundwater, they emit greenhouse gases, and they propose and they pose risks to frontline communities who have long borne the burden of these the environmental harm.

We know better.

The planning commission knew better, which is why they unanimously rejected the salvated project.

And uh they know that it doesn't reflect our current science or our current values.

Approving this gas station would undo that hard-won progress and signal that Santa Rosa is not serious about this about their climate commitments.

But affirming the denial will send a powerful message that our city stand by its stands by its principles, uh, by its people and by its uh transition into a healthier and more resilient future.

Uh council members, we are asking you to finish what the planning commission started.

Affirm the decision, reject the appeal, and stand by the community and say loud and clear no more gas stations in Santa Rosa.

Thank you.

Thank you, Matt.

Nicole, Laurel, and Jenny.

Thank thanks to everyone for being here and sitting through this long meeting, missing your dinner.

Um I'm Nicole Sauer.

I live on right on the edge of the laguna, and I commute through the past the proposed site daily on my way to work.

In fact, I drove through that intersection on the way here today to this meeting with my tank on empty.

Um I'm here, I made it, I still have gas enough to get to a gas station after this meeting.

Um, I walk on that trail on the weekend with my friends and their kids.

Um the kids usually ride bikes or scooters.

At the commission meeting, we heard neighbor after neighbor talk about why we don't want or need this gas station in our community, the biggest reason being that it is a safety hazard on multiple levels.

The intersection is extremely busy.

Adding car interactions going to and from a gas station will only increase the inevitability of an accident of a fatal collision with a biker or a pedestrian.

It is a known air and water pollution hazard in an area prone to flooding.

And its location right next to a propane gas station will exacerbate problems if a fire is caused at one of these two gas stations or starts nearby, making it difficult or impossible for neighbors to leave the area and for emergency personnel to respond to this threat.

There are plenty of gas stations already existing in our area to serve our diminishing needs for gasoline.

If this business owner really wants to provide food or housing to the community, then they could simply build an apartment or a grocery store without adding to the risks that I just described.

Again, I'm not the only person who's voiced these concerns.

Our points have been well documented and would be ignored now at the risk to the lives and health of your constituents in the imminently foreseeable future.

If these consequences are not the bottom line, and instead we choose to focus on potential lawsuits, please note the consideration being given to lawsuits that could happen as a result of denying this proposal should also be the same consideration given to lawsuits that could happen as a result of future deaths and disasters if the city council knowingly now chooses to forgo those concerns.

So Mayor Stapp, City Council, if your mind isn't already made up before hearing our comments, your constituents' comments, please remember that just because the proposal can be approved doesn't mean that it should.

Safety was a primary concern of the planning commission when they denied the proposal, and the council should uphold its decision for the same reasons.

Thank you.

Thank you, Nicole.

Laurel Jenny and Laurianne.

Hi, good evening.

Um I am a resident of uh district five district seven.

I live in the neighborhood just north of the proposed development.

My kids uh go to Wright Elementary School.

I have one in second grade and one in TK, and uh I'm very active in the school.

I'm active with the Safe Routes to School Program.

I would love to start a walking school bus going from the neighborhood to the north down to the school.

And I just want to point out that the path that goes around the proposed development looks really good on paper, but people, especially kids, are not going to take that detour out of their way around the development.

They're just gonna cut straight down.

And uh I'm also uh on the Vision Zero Advisory Committee, uh, Vision Zero uh advocates for a people-centered approach and taking into account what people actually are going to do and actual human behavior, and so I would um you know urge you to keep that in mind as well, that safety consideration.

Um, and not to mention what everyone else has already mentioned about how this neighborhood does not need them their gas station.

Uh what we would really love is a place to gather.

Uh, we'd love a coffee shop, ice cream shop, um, really anything else.

Uh, a mini me tote food park would be great.

Uh we would hang out there.

We're not gonna hang out at a gas station.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Jenny, Laurianne, and Joe.

Good evening, council.

My name is Jenny Blake, and I'm uh coordinator, co-coordinator of the coalition opposing new gas stations.

Um, I wrote to the planning commission about the inconsistencies between this project and the 2035 general plan.

And I've just been reviewing the 2050 general plan as well, which was adopted in June this year.

It's excellent and inspiring.

It emphasizes community health, safety, and the quality of life.

It recognizes the reality of the climate crisis and its impacts, and that 58% of Santa Rosa's greenhouse gas emissions are generated by the transportation sector.

It focuses on reducing vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions.

It emphasizes discouraging traffic by automobile in favor of public transportation and safe, connected, low stress, active transportation for all ages and abilities, including safe routes to schools.

As we've been hearing this evening, this gas station would be exactly contrary to those policies laid out in the general plan.

The general plan also emphasizes protecting waterways, wetlands, ecosystems, and natural areas, sinking two large fuel tanks into designated seasonal wetlands in an area that floods in winter, and developing a gas station adjacent to land zone for multi-dense density housing is contrary to these efforts.

There are also many references in the plan to protecting the community from hazardous materials.

How does the square with putting gasoline storage tanks, pipes, and pumps, plus deliveries by tanker to fill the tanks with potential impacts to local residents along with the safety hazards of situating the tanks in a geologically sensitive area?

In particular, one thing stood out to me, which is policies to do with protecting residents by uh protecting air pollution and concern about asthma.

According to the American Lung Association, gas-powered vehicles are a major source of air pollution and greenhouse gases that drive climate change.

Burning gasoline and diesel fuel contributes particulate matter, smog, forming nitrogen oxidized oxides and volatile organic compounds as well as carbon dioxide into the air.

These pollutants can cause asthma, flare-ups, lung cancer, heart disease, and even premature death.

So, how does this square with putting in a new gas station?

Lastly, there is a requirement to ensure meaningful public engagement and giving people the opportunity to develop and implement plans and projects that improve community health.

Also, ironically, there's a lot in the plan about protecting about cleaning up brownfield sites from contamination, including petroleum.

Why create a new site now when the emphasis should be on clearing up the damage done from existing ones?

Thank you.

Thank you, Jenny.

Lori Ann, Joe Boswell, and Kevin Mary.

Lori Ann Barber, and I want to thank you for your patience this evening, as so many of us are speaking.

I am actually speaking not for my I'm I'm going to read partial part of a letter from a fair number of physicians, and one of them was here earlier and could not stay.

So we, the Undersign Local Healthcare professionals write to express our dismay that the City of Santa Rosa is entertaining the notion of permitting a new gas station at 874 Northright Road, just within the Santa Rosa city limits.

As health care professionals committed to safeguarding public health, we are writing to express our deep concerns regarding the negative health impacts associated with gasoline stations in general and this particular proposal specifically.

There are several highly toxic chemicals in gasoline.

These harmful compounds which can escape into the air include benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene.

Of these, benzene is the gasoline constituent most harmful to human health.

Adverse health effects of benzene include cancer, including leukemia, anemia, increased susceptibility to infections, and low birth weight babies.

When babies are born at low birth weight, they have weight, they have a higher risk for a range of complications.

There are another couple of paragraphs, but in the interest of time, I'm gonna skip to the end.

It has come to our attention that the environmental review upon which your decision will be based was completed in 2013, 12 years ago.

Much has been learned over the past 12 years about the human health impacts of exposure to gasoline and diesel.

Instead of calling for a new environmental review, we call on you to simply reject the proposal.

California is on a transition away from using dangerous fossil fuels towards much cleaner and safer electrification.

Approving a new gas station in 2025 is an unhealthy deviation from the positive path to healthier forms of transportation.

And given the concerns noted above, we urge the commission the council to deny or to deny the conditional use permit to stick with what the planning commission did.

And this is signed by uh 12 physics, 12 local physicians and six nurse practitioners and nurses.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Lori Ann.

Uh Joe and then Kevin.

Is this thing on?

Okay, perfect, it's on.

Um I've only lived in Santa Rosa for about five years, but my mom, both my sisters, and their kids all live in Santa Rosa.

So I'm not quite as qualified as everybody here, but I just wanted to give kind of the other side because everyone's making good points, but everyone's also making the same points.

Let me just tell you quickly why I'm for the station.

Um can we guarantee for sure that there'll never be another gas station open in Santa Rosa?

That's my question, because I feel like most of the points here are made against gas in general and gas stations.

One, I'm not sure if this room is completely um emblematic of all the residents in Santa Rosa.

And you know, I think sometimes the loudest voices in the room um are the ones that prevail.

I'm very much pro-environment too, but I don't see everyone protesting all the gas stations.

And the reality is in Santa Rosa at some point another gas station is gonna open.

The reason why I'm for this one is because it's not one of the blood-sucking corporations like Chevron, Shell, and all those people.

I don't think everybody in Santa Rosa has an EV.

Unfortunately, the reality is people still have gas cars.

A lot of those places are convenience stores.

This is not supposed to be a convenience store.

This is supposed to be a community-based store.

And there's a lot of chains of, by the way, all around these places.

I don't think that any of us are pro-chain.

And like I said, can we guarantee for sure another gas station will never open in Santa Rosa?

I don't think the council can make that call.

I don't think anyone can make that call.

So in some ways, I feel like isn't this the lesser of two evils?

I wouldn't want a Chevron opening there.

I wouldn't want a shell opening there.

Like I said, I haven't seen the data on how many EVs there are in Santa Rosa versus gas cars, but I look at the gas stations all the time, and they're very congested.

Again, I really appreciate what everyone's saying here about the environment, but we also have to look at the reality that we're gonna need some gas stations that are much, much better than others.

So that's my opinion.

And I just want to say there's another side to the story, and there's a lot of people in our community, and unfortunately, a lot of them are not here.

So I really respect the people who are here, and that you're speaking up loudly.

That's so important.

But I also just want us to look at the reality of the situation.

If we can guarantee another gas station will never ever open in Santa Rosa, then that's fine.

But I don't think any of us can make that call.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Joe.

Kevin.

I just wanted to say I support the same things that Joe just said.

I heard Kyle and Carla, I'm in support of this gas station.

Um I've lived here about 10 years or so, and that area has always kind of been bare to me.

Um, and I think the proposed site plan by the planning um, I think is a net positive.

Um thank you.

Kevin, thank you very much.

All right, Janice.

Thank you, Mayor Mark.

Um Janice Carmen.

Um I was present at the uh Planning Commission meeting, and it was one of the most outstanding meetings I've ever been at.

All of the commissioners were so on board and they were so uh present and uh questioning about everything they seem to be able to think about during the uh commission um hours that we spent there.

And uh they they did a fantastic job, and I thought that was going to be the end of it.

And then when I found out uh very shortly after that it was appealed, I started trying to find out how could this be appealed.

And it's this long later that I just found out in the last few weeks that it was coming uh before the city council.

Um I had been told it was going to go back to zoning and you know, other places.

But anyway, those are all side issues.

The thing is that there are many people that have come here tonight.

I think it is amazing that so many people showed up.

And when uh it was announced that this meeting was going to be this week.

Uh I was at the um design and review, I think it was last week.

Uh maybe it was a it was the planning commission.

Anyway, uh they didn't say the time or the place or anything like that that would be helpful if somebody you know wanted to know.

And so I talked about that, about always saying time, place, and you know, um you know which meeting it is, because there's a lot of different kinds of meetings.

But anyway, uh there's so many people that spoke out and often with with good science and background and climate and the young people have been incredible to show up tonight with their current uh exposure and their uh heart and passion about uh declining to allow this gas station uh to happen.

And I I just want to say that it's been a long night for everyone, and I hope that there is no question uh that remains that anybody thinks that there's an if in this situation.

The thing is this is the future of tomorrow, and there may be another gas station somewhere, but this location at the meeting, the planning commission, they talked about fumes, fumes around that little park that was supposed to be being built.

Uh they talked about the apartment above the uh convenient, or they could they were calling it that at that time, the store.

So there were other uh things that they were discussing that I haven't heard here uh tonight that were concerns, and uh the traffic, uh the bicycles, or it's something we didn't discuss at that time, the bicycles.

But all of these things had been discussed, and I think they made the right decision, and I hope you follow and deny uh this gas station being built.

Thank you.

It's a Janice.

Are there other members of the public who'd like to speak?

Approach a podium.

Let's use both.

So if you've got your hand up, we'll start at the uh the podium uh to my left here.

Yeah, can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay.

Good afternoon, City Council.

Actually, good evening.

I gotta get out of here.

It's my bedtime.

I'm a little old lady, and it's past my bedtime.

Anyway, my name is Chris Thompson, and I live in Oakmont.

Please affirm the April 10th unanimous decision from the planning commission to deny the permits for this project.

As a retired first grade teacher, I am concerned that the proximity of a benzene emitting operation such as a gas station may adversely affect the brain health of the young children who will be attending right charter elementary school, which is just 2,700 feet from the gas station site.

This is on top of the safety issues for these children as they try to navigate around the cars that would be present using the gas station.

It is clear we are witnessing yet another time, the struggle between a safe clean planet for our children and the ruthless greed of fossil fuel billionaires.

Let's put our priorities where they belong on our children and their future.

And by the way, if we're afraid of threats of litigation from the gas station suing Santa Rosa, well, maybe the people of Santa Rosa will sue the gas station.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

And I also am from Oakmont.

Um first I'd like to thank the city council for all the work you do.

I know you guys put in hours and hours that we don't see.

And um I also know the city council here has a legacy of doing strong work on climate.

Um, however, there are those that would like to pretend that the future of our country and the world is based on fossil fuels.

Donald Trump, the oil lobby, they're spending lots of money in Sacramento and in Washington to make sure legislation gets watered down.

You have a chance tonight to make a decision.

A decision whether you're standing with the fossil fuel companies and building out more infrastructure, or whether you're saying no must.

And I think it's really important that you take a stand.

Twelve years ago, when this proposal was put together, it was a different world, or at least we thought it was.

Then the place caught fire and caught fire again.

Why?

Because of climate change.

And tonight, you guys have to make a decision whether you're going to support building more infrastructure for fossil fuels or saying no.

I encourage you to say no.

The planning commission has given you lots of reasons to say no, but it's up to you to make the decision.

Again, thank you for your work, and I hope you say make a good decision tonight.

Thank you, Tom.

Are there any other members of the public?

Please go ahead.

Yes.

Is this on?

Am I audible?

Yes.

Hi, everyone.

My name is Rajvere.

Um, I'm gonna try to keep this as um succinct as possible.

I've heard a lot of really great arguments on both sides.

And what I want to say is um there's a need for a gas station because we have fuel vehicles, right?

A lot of that is due to the fact that we are still selling and operating fuel vehicles.

I would love to see some picketing around a Ford factory where they're making selling F-150s.

Same goes for, you know, tobacco causes cancer.

Grew after the tobacco companies and not the small business that's you know trying to make a living for themselves.

So let's focus more on do we want to bring in a small business, support a um a local business versus a big ExxonMobil.

So that's all I'm gonna say.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next podium.

I'm Marla Charbonneau, and I'd like to read a letter from a member of the community that couldn't be here this evening.

Dear member, dear members of the Santa Rosa City Council, my name is Annie Fowler.

I am a recent graduate of UC Berkeley and a current student at SRJC with hopes to work in water treatment for the city of Santa Rosa as a way to give back to the community.

I have grown up in Sonoma County for most of my life and went to school in Sebastopol in Santa Rosa.

I've used Highway 12 countless times to get to and from school and have always appreciated the open landscape and peaceful surroundings.

This has been my home.

Why are we putting money into another one when we could be investing in our infrastructure, schools, and more sustainable projects?

I see that the construction of the gas station would also include park-like amenities, benches, and picnic area and a bike path.

Why not just construct these things alone rather than add them to another gas station proposal?

I am writing because I cannot attend in person for today's hearing since my class conflicts with the agenda time slot.

However, I want to state that I strongly stand against the approval of this construction.

We have much more pressing and important matters at hand in another gas station, especially in this area, is the last thing we should be funding.

As a member of this community, I urge you to deny the applicant's appeal for this permit.

Thank you for your time, Annie Fowler.

Thank you.

Next podium.

Hello, my name is Dwayne DeWitt.

I'm from Roseland.

I grew up right around there, belonged to the Sbastpool Grange.

Been going up and down those roads all my life.

You're faced with a decision here where you have to act a bit like Solomon.

So how about a fuel station without the gas?

People have been talking about the future.

No one's come up with a different way to get around in wheeled vehicles except for the electric vehicles.

So maybe have this be all the things that the proponent proposes with an electric fuel charging stations, which are already a part of the proposal, and just say no gas.

That's simple.

You know, I got to thinking that the young people might buy more electric vehicles if you made them loud.

If you put some kind of system on there that a young guy with all his hormones could step on the gas, and all that noise would just come bubbling out of that electric vehicle.

Anyway, you get the drift of this.

The young folks want a different world.

I'm all good with that.

And I think let's just make it a fuel station and put in the electric uh chargers.

Oh, yeah, and you gotta have solar panels on all of the buildings and a windmill there.

Did you know when I grew up here we had windmills?

That's how you got your water out of the ground.

It was pretty cool.

Anyway, we've advanced beyond that, and I'm hoping that we'll get some good solomonic decision from you folks tonight, which will be really cool.

And uh with that in mind, whoever holds this against me, oh well, that's life.

Thank you, Duane.

Any other members of the public wish to speak?

Yes.

Hi.

Um, I'm June Burchares, and I was at the Planning Commission's meeting in April.

And I'll let you know, you know, we've heard a lot of great stuff about the vision like Duane just had, and the commissioners, I wouldn't say that all of them were on board for all that.

The reason they denied this was because of the very specific rules in the code and the zoning code and and what's required to approve a conditional use permit.

And to do that, you have to make like six findings.

It has to be consistent with the general plan.

They could not find it consistent with the general plan.

It has to be consistent with zoning code.

They could not find it to be consistent with zoning code.

It has to not be a detriment to health or not be a detriment to safety.

And you have to meet each of these.

And if you don't meet even one of them, if you can't find it meets the standard on one of those, you're required to deny.

And at the meeting, they wondered is Blue Star Gas a gas station or not.

They decided it was a gas station.

And it was in the first resolution of the findings.

Then they got wondering what's the implications there, maybe besides just that determination.

And they talked about it and they decided to pull it out of the findings.

And your own staff said, Yeah, you can pull it out.

You don't need it, because you only need one finding.

And you got about a dozen findings there.

And you're really gonna go against the commission and try to knock down every single one of them.

Some of these you might say, yeah, maybe you think that you could put a gas station right next to a residential code, or maybe you're not worried about the underground storage tanks being a safety risk.

But if there's one thing that you're kind of worried about that requires you to deny, if there's one thing that you know it doesn't meet it, and I'll tell you one right now.

They the proximity to residential, you got a legal argument there, it's shaky.

But I'll tell you, if you if there's a they're in the mixed use, you have to be compatible, and your staff doesn't give you the full rules of compatibility about minimizing hazards between compatibility and a gas station and a house right there is the ultimate incompatibility.

You hear the health studies.

We know more than we knew in 2013.

2013, they didn't know that that's incompatible.

Now we know it's incompatible, and it would have been incompatible a year before the gas station ban.

It's not because of the gas station ban, it's because it just it is unsafe and it doesn't meet these rules.

And they they saw some of the science in the gas station ban, so they threw it in.

Maybe they shouldn't have.

It doesn't meet the health and safety standards that you are elected to uphold by law.

Thank you for your time, and I know you're gonna do the right thing.

Thank you.

Are there any other members of the public who wish to speak?

Go ahead.

Wonderful.

Good evening.

My name is Ariel, and I'm a bilingual dietitian at a local nonprofit running from work.

I'm mostly serving low-income community members here in Santa Rosa, many who are my neighbor.

I'm here to express my strong opposition to the proposed gas station.

We are here because we care about Santa Rosa.

It's health, its people, and its future.

I helped to submit the health care letter on behalf of 18 health care professionals in Sonoma County, all strongly opposing this project.

Some of our most vulnerable community members live so close to this project.

Some who are concerned to speak today because of their political climate that we are in.

I'm deeply concerned about what this project can mean for our community's health, especially when it comes to our water.

Water is life.

When I served in the Peace Corps in Guatemala, I couldn't drink the local water due to contamination.

I never want to experience that in our community here.

My family bought our first home on Chico Avenue, less than half a mile from the proposed site.

We were excited to grow our garden, build community, and enjoy the beauty of Sonoma County.

But even when we were closing on our home, we learned that the area had been switched to city sewage because the well water was becoming contaminated by septic systems.

Our well is only 40 feet deep.

Shallow wells like ours are per particularly vulnerable to contamination, even without a major spill, small fuel leaks happen every day from underground tanks, pipelines, and from people just topping off.

Just last week I saw someone spill gas onto the pavement when we're turning the nozzle.

It happens all the time.

So what happens to all these small spills?

Research shows that just 10 gallons of petroleum can contaminate up to 12 million gallons of groundwater.

And we live in an area prone to earthquakes and flooding.

If an underground tank or pipe ruptures, the consequences could be long-lasting and devastating.

I've also spoken with several neighbors who are deeply concerned.

Many of my patients are also my neighbors, and they are already face several health risks due to social determinants of health, poverty, chronic illness, limited access to health care, and language barriers.

They cannot afford another environmental burden, especially one that's preventable.

According to the research, this area already ranks 96 percentile for groundwater threats nationwide or statewide, adding another source of contamination.

Beyond the environmental impacts, this project would create safety risks for those using nearby bike trails, myself included, including traffic, fuel deliveries, and congestion.

When this proposal comes before y'all, I hope you prioritize the health and safety of our community.

Please reject this project.

We need clean water, safe neighborhoods, and development that reflects long-term care for the people who live here and the visions for our future.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other members of the public who wish to speak?

Seeing none, we will officially close the public hearing and bring it back to council for more questions.

Looking at my colleagues, uh Ms.

Rogers, why don't you kick us off?

I did have a uh follow-up from one of the public commenters.

Um will there be a license to sell alcohol at this market?

Um thank you for the question.

I meant to include that in my presentation.

They um would not be permitted to sell uh neither alcohol nor tobacco products at the either of the general retail spaces of the project.

Just if I could just clarify that.

So the the current project proposal does not include that.

If they wanted to propose it later, it would need a major conditional use permit.

So we'd come back to the planning commission for that.

Um I'd also like to ask a follow-up um from one of the commenters about uh right school.

Is this a part of the going by this gas station?

Would that be a part of like a safe route to school?

Are there a lot of uh children coming off the Joe off the trail to go to the charter school?

Um Director of Transportation Rob Sprinkles gonna answer that.

Thank you.

Hi, Rob Sprinkle, uh traffic engineering.

Um the question.

The it depends on the route.

Um, as uh one of the members of the public mentioned, they come from the north side of highway 12.

So if they are coming across highway 12 and going towards right school, then they would cross in front of the school.

If they're coming off the Joe Arota Trail, they would have the option to use the bypass trail that's being proposed.

Does that it it it does, but um I'm thinking like is it a safe route to school, right?

Like is it traveled frequently where we would be able to see is it traveled frequently by students that are coming from the other side of highway 12 and or well, there's nothing else backing up to the trail, right?

Correct.

So I think as the member of the public mentioned, it would it would be if you are on and I think right school is a charter school, so you can have anywhere students from anywhere going to it.

Okay, thank you.

Vice Mayor.

Thank you, Mayor.

We we heard a lot about our our carbon emission goals as well as our Southwest Pacific goals and general goals.

Approving this project would never negatively affect our goals.

Approving this project would never negatively affect our goals, how, if at all so I would say that the uh staff looked at this proposal um and uh analyzed it against the General Plan 2035 and the climate action plan in the in effect at that time, as well as the General Plan 2050 and the greenhouse gas emission strategy that was recently adopted by adopted by council and and staff's review of both of those documents found the project to be consistent uh with the goals and policies within those.

And although I believe this question has been asked prior to today, but I will ask it again.

Is there any proof that these double-walled tanks have leaked since 2021 when they were being required by law?

Are there any known incidents?

Do we know if if uh Paul Lowenthal is still on the line?

I believe Paul is thank you, Paul.

We've popping on zoom now.

Uh thank you, Councilmember, for the question.

Uh no.

Uh to our knowledge, we have no reports of any leaks uh that have taken place since then.

Again, we have a pretty aggressive uh not only enforcement program but an inspection program that does uh engage with our gas stations around the city of Santa Rosa pretty regularly uh through our Coupa program.

Thank you, sir.

Ms.

McDonald.

Thank you, Mayor.

I just had a quick question, a couple quick questions.

Um do you know, because they were talking about how many feet this is from right school about 2300 feet.

Do we have any idea how far our rest of our gas stations are in vicinity to our school districts?

Or schools, not even school districts.

I do not have that information handy.

I do have a map of all our gas stations throughout the city, and I could turn on the school districts layer and kind of do a rough uh analysis based on that the visual image, but I couldn't definitively respond to that question at this time.

Yeah, just thinking about like Steel Lane School, there's a gas station on the corner next to Beg Lots, there's a Safeway gas station.

Those I don't know how far 2300 feet are, but I do everything by football fields, so I'm guessing it's probably closer than that.

Just to go back to safe routes to school.