Good afternoon.

I'd ask like to ask the interpreter currently on the Spanish channel to convince 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.

If you are on your cell phone or tablet, locate the three dots, tap them lightly, and put a check mark on your preferred language.

Click then to activate and begin the interpretation.

Once you join the Spanish channel, we recommend you shut off the main audio so you only hear the Spanish interpretation.

Claudia, will you please restate this in Spanish?

Yes.

Thank you very much.

Back to you.

Thank you.

Welcome everyone.

The time is 2.30, and we will call our regular meeting to order.

Madam City Clerk.

Thank you.

Councilmember Rogers.

President.

Council Member O'Kepkey.

Councilmember McDonald is absent.

Councilmember Fleming.

Councilmember Ben Wellos.

Here.

Vice Mayor Alvarez.

Mayor Stapp.

Here.

Let the record show that all council members are present with the exception of Councilmember McDonald.

Thank you.

And actually one clarification.

Is Councilmember McDonald coming on now to discuss her remote participation or would that happen later?

It's my understanding the council member will appear later, but she's not available at this point in time, and so she'll be coming in when she comes in.

Thank you.

And so that there's nothing else we have to we need to announce right up front here.

Not right up front.

We just need to make sure that for sure she is coming, and if she is, then we can announce it at that time.

So thank you very much.

We'll move on to item three, our announcement of closed session items.

We've got four today.

We've got item 3.1, conference with legal counsel regarding significant exposure to litigation.

Item 3.2 conference with legal council regarding significant exposure to litigation.

I have item 3.3 conference with legal council regarding or regarding existing litigation.

On item 3.4, we have a clarification.

All right.

So item 3.4 conference with real property negotiator.

And remind me of the change there, Madam City Attorney.

So the agency negotiator will be uh Jill Scott, not Stephanie Vol Volkovic.

I know I just butchered your name, Stephanie.

I'm so sorry, but it will be Jill Scott.

Thank you very much.

Alright, we'll throw it open to public comment.

Mr.

DeWitt.

Thank you, sir.

My name is Duane DeWitt.

I'm from Roseland.

Regarding 3.2.

It's important that the city's harassment, discrimination, retaliation, prohibition policy and its prevention is upheld.

Yet at the same time, it's very important that you balance this in such a way that the city is not held liable for expensive claims that might not be as um justified as one might think.

Some people feel they get harassed just if you disagree with them, even as you're as polite as can be.

I try to always be polite to all of you, even when you disagree with me.

Thank you kindly.

With that in mind, what's really important here today is the matter of three point four.

All of you are too new to realize that the purchase of this building was a boondoggle in the first place.

It should not have been purchased.

It's been held by the city without being able to be used, and it's actually lost value because the city did not maintain the building as well as they could.

Two addresses.

Thank you, Dwayne.

Seeing no other members of the public present, we will close public comment and we will recess into closed session.

Thank you.

Um, I'm Thank you for your patience anyway, everyone.

We will reconvene an open session.

Madam City Clerk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Councilmember Rogers?

Present.

Councilmember Okropke.

Councilmember McDonald is absent.

Councilmember Fleming?

Councilmember Ben Willows?

Here.

Vice Mayor Alvarez?

President.

Mayor Stapp.

Here.

Let's the record show that all council members are present with the exception of Councilmember McDonald.

Thank you.

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

Madam City Attorney.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I do have one report from closed session.

Um, the council voted with six affirmative votes and council member McDonald absent to authorize the city attorney to number one, defend an appeal by UPS from a six hundred and fifty six thousand dollar approximately judgment in favor of the city, and number two, to seek appellate review of the trial court's order denying the city's motion for cost of proof of sanctions in the case of Palaio versus Utility Partners of America, LLC.

In that case, the city sued UPA for indemnity under UPA's contract with the city.

Space research and prioritize the safety and best interest of our children.

Now, therefore, it be resolved that our mayor, the mayor of the city of Santa Rosa, Mark Stapp, on behalf of the entire city council in recognition of our community, do hereby proclaim November to be Family Court Awareness Month.

And do we have Miss Stifler here to speak on behalf of the uh the family just or family court?

Oh, please.

You know, you're you're close to the mic right there.

Why don't you uh make your way down?

Thanks for coming out tonight.

Uh oh, we'll we'll turn the mic on for you.

And feel free to have a seat.

Make yourself make yourself comfortable.

Good evening, and thank you to the Santa Rosa City Council for recognizing November as Family Court Awareness Month.

My name is Emily Stifler, and I am a domestic violence survivor and an advocate for family court reform.

And this is Connie Rodriguez, a Sonoma County mother who endured the unimaginable loss of her two beautiful children in a double homicide suicide in 2017.

Family Court Awareness Month was created in 2020 by Tina Swivin, founder of One Mom's Battle.

The goal of Family Court Awareness Month is to shine a spotlight on systemic issues that are placing children in harm's way following domestic violence awareness month in October.

Many survivors end up in family court.

Yet it's also where too many children are placed back into unsafe situations due to a lack of understanding about abuse, trauma, and coercive control.

A reality far too many families face in silence.

This proclamation is more than symbolic.

It's a step toward awareness, accountability, and change.

It shines a light on the urgent need to prioritize child safety in every courtroom in every decision every time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Connie, did you want to say, did you have any words that you wanted to add?

Um, no, I think Emily said it, but I just wanted to say thank you, Emily, for if you want to move the mic over quickly there.

Emily, and thank you guys for having me.

Um, and I am glad that this is going to be November family awareness month.

Perfect.

Well, thank you both for all your work, and thank you, thank you for your openness and bravery being here tonight.

We really appreciate it.

Uh, we want to do a photo down front in just a moment, but we're gonna throw it open to public comment first.

Uh do we have any members of the public that wish to speak?

Seeing one at the seeing one at the microphone, is it Renee?

Yes, yeah, hi, I am.

Renee, the floor is yours.

Yes.

Um, so I wanted to thank the City of Santa Rosa City Council for declining November as Family Court Awareness Month.

My own journey started as many does, and it took me multiple times to leave my abusive relationship.

I accessed the YWCA here in Sonoma County, but this was long before the Family Justice Center was even around.

And I then entered the world of family court, thinking that that system would protect my children.

But as Emily has said, and the proclamation says that the family court system is designed uh not to necessarily protect the children.

So it's now been 1308 days since my child woke up, went to school one day, and never came home.

He is living through a court order with his father, who has admitted to harming myself and our older son.

And so I began a journey that led me to Sacramento and working with Senator Susan Rubio to help pass Piki's Law.

Piki's Law is named after a five-year-old boy whose daddy murdered him despite his mother's pleas for family court not to give him custody.

And it was truly one of the honors of my lifetime to sit alongside Anna Esteves, Piki's mother, and to represent not only my child, but also the other children in Sonoma County who are no longer here with us.

Despite that law passing in 2024 and banning many of these harmful practices, the family court still hasn't recognized the situation.

And so it starts with local grassroots organizations that started here as almost just two moms, me and Emily, trying to get one of the city councils to declare November as Family Court Awareness Month.

And so, on behalf of all of us who have grown here now in this grassroots movements to be almost about a hundred strong, um, we really want to thank you for being the first in Sonoma County to declare this Sonoma County November Family Court Awareness Month.

Thank you.

Thank you, Renee.

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

There's one.

Please make your way to the nearest microphone.

And if there are if there are any others, now is the time to start making your way towards a towards a microphone.

Either podium will work.

Miss, whenever you're ready.

I can't give you my name because it would probably breach the restraining order, um, which many of us in family court face, and quite often that's the first thing that's put in place behind the closed doors of family court because then we can't talk about what's happening to us.

And if we do talk about what's happening to us, then we're punished because these people are dealing with our children.

Um what I can say is that if you still believe the justice system within the court system with the first response, well, the police system, if you still believe the justice system protects victims of domestic abuse, you've never needed it yourself.

And the people that I have come across here, the various cases that I have sat in and I have seen the same narrative played out, whereby a protective parent speaks up and says, I need help protecting my children because they're being hurt, and the next thing you know, the protective parent is called mentally ill.

She must be mentally ill.

And we find we're being driven to the point where we come across as crazy because nobody, we can't talk to anybody about what's happening to us.

Nobody would believe us if we did, and we're stuck.

So my child, my children have disclosed abuse to many, many people.

Um, I think at the last count it was 60 mandated reporters, and they live with their father.

So I'm gonna read out a 13-year-old statement that says, This whole situation has taught me a lesson no one should have to learn until much much older than 13.

Expect betrayal, expect disappointment, and never hope for people to do the right thing, and you'll never let be let down or disappointed.

So I want to thank you for doing the right thing and recognizing Family Court Awareness Month because it means so much to so many of us.

Thank you.

Thank you for speaking tonight.

And from the other podium, good evening, everyone.

Uh, should I wait for the okay?

Yeah.

Um, my name's Asia Gonzalez.

Um, thank you guys for this opportunity, and genuinely thank you for this proclamation.

Um it breaks my heart to hear how long other parents have gone without their children, mostly because I myself have not seen my kids since a bad exchange at the Petaluma police department on February 23rd, after having had full custody of them and have been after having held a domestic violence restraining order for a year.

I've learned the same lessons that some of these other women have mentioned.

I relied on the systems that were presented to me as the fail-safes that would protect us and uplift us in escaping our circumstances, and in doing so, I too was met with the YWCA.

I was redirected to the family justice center, but I was also met with there are no kids allowed in the appointments, or here's a bunch of forms that you have to fill out while you're sitting right here, and they're gonna emotionally break you open, but you're expected to just figure out how to fill it out in that sitting without any emotional containment.

I played great rock in family court the way I was instructed in the subsequent domestic violence counseling, both through county and through the VA, because in our circumstances, we were both military veterans.

We we still are.

And coincidentally, our family court judge also happened to be as well.

And I didn't know if I'd be able to come up here and speak, but I knew I had to be here.

I wanted to prep something articulate and well put together for this three minutes.

But instead, I'm standing here shaking, no different than I've had to do in most of my appearances in family court.

Because when you're the parent who can't afford because you've been subject to financial abuse because you're stuck trying to recover from debt and relying on programs like Section 8 that leave you subject to benefit cliffs where you make too much, now you no longer have help, but you're not actually making enough to survive.

So if my words seem a little frayed and all over the place, it's because I don't know what else to do anymore.

As grateful as I am for this proclamation, I still have to figure out how to go back and get my kids back because it took two years of arguing, not arguing, which then got painted as I'm now the crazy one just because I wanted to escape.

Thank you, Asia.

Thank you for coming out to speak tonight.

We'll turn to the other podium, please.

My name is Joan Collins.

I don't live in Sonoma County.

I am from San Mateo County, but we have a very similar situation here.

I was a domestic violence survivor and protective parent.

My children have since aged out of the system and are still alive, thank God.

But I became a domestic violence advocate in 2015 when we started, or excuse me, 2018 when we started Piki's resolution, which has become Piki's law as of 2024 January.

Unfortunately, as an advocate, a victim advocate, I have sat in Santa Clara, excuse me, um, in Sonoma County courthouses where the judges are deliberately ignoring and pretending like Piki's Law doesn't exist.

I've had encounters part of Piki's Law is to make reunification camps illegal.

I've had encounters with reunification, they're not calling that anymore, they're rebranding it for something else.

But the same characters that were doing it before the law was broken are doing it still in this county, trying to get children away from their safe parent and put them with their abusive parent.

So this is a real serious problem, and it's sadly not just this county or my county, it's it's throughout the country throughout the world, but people are not aware what it's like to want to divorce your abusive ex and what happens next in family court, which is far more traumatic, and there are far more serious consequences than you can imagine.

But it is a thing, and people need to be aware of it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Janice, you're up.

I'd like to speak.

Thank you.

Uh Janice Carmen here, and uh, this is a topic very close to my heart.

I lost a niece in 1984.

I didn't live here at the time.

Came home to that.

And I've been very involved with children, the courts, the parents, etc.

since the 80s.

And the courts are a big problem.

And when people are isolated, which happens to many of these mothers particularly, and in no time at all, a mother would not only lose her home, she would lose her children, she would lose everything.

I had people calling me from the East Coast wanting to talk to me to see what could be done, how anything could happen that would help them.

So I'm very uh discouraged to hear today that this is a continuing problem, and that mothers still feel isolated that things are happening like this, and it's very painful for the people involved, if not just a total loss and lack of opportunity to heal after these kinds of incidences.

Thank you.

Thank you, Janice.

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

Seeing none, we'll close public comment.

And Connie and Emily, do you want to come and come up for a photo?

Thank you.

Thank you again for everyone coming out tonight.

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

Madam City Manager.

Yeah, good evening, Mayor and members of council.

So I'm pleased to announce that the city manager's office is hosting a citywide food drive from November the 13th through December the 18th.

And we're doing this in support of Redwood Empire Food Bank.

So our community and employees are invited to donate food if they can.

So look for the collection barrels at City Hall, City Hall, City Hall Annex, Finley Community Center, Finley Aquatic Center, Pearson Senior Center, Ridgway Aquatic Center, and MSC South.

And we will post this online and the actual addresses.

So thank you for your support in allowing us to do this.

Thank you.

Madam City Attorney.

Thank you again, Mr.

Mayor.

I do have a litigation report out for the month of November.

There were no settlements previously approved by council in closed session that were finalized in the month of November.

I'm sorry, in the month of October.

This is the report out for October ahead of myself a bit.

In terms of ongoing litigation, our caseload remains relatively constant with 32 current litigation matters.

We have trial dates assigned to about a third of those matters.

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

And as always, we continue to try to resolve smaller cases at little or no cost to the city.

That's the end of my report.

Thank you.

Thank you to you both.

Are there any um do any members of the public wish to comment on either of those reports?

Seeing none, we'll close public comment there.

We will move on to item 10 statements, statements of abstention or recusal by council members.

Ms.

Ben Wellos.

Thank you, Mayor.

I'll be recusing myself from item 16.4 because my the complex that I live in is very close to the property.

Thank you for that.

Are there any other statements of abstention or recusal from council?

Seeing none, we will move on to item 11.

Our mayor and council members' reports.

Are there any reports this evening?

Looking to my colleagues, Mr.

Krupke.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

On just one thing real quick.

On Saturday, November 8th, myself, uh Councilmember Rogers, and uh some of our firefighters oh sorry, mayor staff, and some of our firefighters and police officers uh were able to participate in the tunnels to towers run um here uh starting downtown Santa Rosa down um down the Greenway and back, and um it was an awesome event for those that don't know Tunnels to Towers.

It is a it is a a nonprofit that raises money for firefighters, police officers, their families, uh veterans, and uh is a great cause.

And I just wanted to take this one opportunity to give a special shout out to Chad Hedge, uh, who works here at the City of Santa Rosa, and that is because he saw this event on TV once uh and then decided to reach out to them and see how he could bring it to Santa Rosa and did.

And so a special shout out to him for putting together such a great event, over 250 participants, and I believe it was over $30,000 raised.

Is that sound right?

And so from just seeing it on TV to bringing it here, that's a that's a great accomplishment, and I look forward to participating in it again.

Thank you.

Other reports, Vice Mayor.

Real quickly here, I just want to really congratulate Rosalind and the community at large that made it happen.

The hub.

We grew up we broke ground on Friday the 14th, and it was a great celebration that was actually attended by most, if not all my council members.

Thank you, Miss Fleming.

Yes, uh, in addition to that, excellent groundbreaking.

Um we uh officially uncoupled the hose as they do apparently for firehouses on our very own fire station number five in fountain grove on Saturday.

I want to thank the members of staff, um, especially our fire staff, our planning staff, um, our staff that works with uh the federal government um and our local and federal elected partners for for bringing home the financing um and then the people who who did the work to make the fire station a reality.

It was a really beautiful healing moment for our community.

So I want to thank you all for coming.

And then tomorrow um at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, I expect that the MTC will officially allocate the finances and a final vote for the the 101 bike head overcross from junior college over to Cottington.

Really exciting day for us.

Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Ben Wellos.

Just have one really uh quick one.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, just thought I'd mention it because it was kind of fun.

On Friday, I attended the um the arrival of Santa to Santa Rosa Plaza.

Uh, and I just wanted to thank Chief Cregan.

He drove his motor cave into the mall, and it was very exciting.

So, thank you.

Thank you, Chief.

Wherever you are, and all the staff that helped that day.

Um, it was really cute, and I think the um children loved it.

So that's it.

Thank you.

Was that the end of the at the end of Santa's story?

Oh, okay.

Uh just a couple items from me.

Um, Miss Ban Wellos, Mr.

Mr.

Um O'Crepity and I, we did the long term, we had the long-term finance subcommittee last week.

We are rotating through the city departments, putting them on the hot seat and making this making them teach us how their department is financed.

Uh, this is all part of the larger budget discussion that many of you have tuned in for over the past 18 months, and it's gonna continue for a while to come.

So, thank you to the police department and our planning and economic development department.

They were on the hot seat this this last week.

I'm scanning the audience.

I see uh Santa Rosa Water in the house.

I see we have the legal department here.

There are so many other departments left to come and know that uh Mr.

Krevki and and Miss Ben Wales and I are looking forward to uh to seeing you soon.

Uh and then also we had mayors and council members uh met last week.

This is the uh consortium of the nine Sonoma County cities.

Um we met and we met with the food bank to discuss food security for the county.

As many of you know from reading the paper.

Uh the um the federal dollars coming down into food have been uh coming down into food um um security have been greatly disrupted over the past couple of months.

Uh we've got our local our the Redwood Empire Food Bank and our local food banks all um taking steps to deal with that and wanting to uh involve all of the cities and the county as well.

So we are leaning in with our local food banks to see how we may be of help.

Uh and then on um just this past, I guess it was Monday, I'm losing losing my days of the week.

Uh we had the Threads Conference.

This is the county convened gathering of all of the uh health and human service or health and human services departments in the county, uh including members of Santa Rosa's staff that work with homeless services.

Uh, we are trying to figure out what to do as a community as a county with all the cities uh regarding the future of homelessness, homeless services in the county again due to the federal uncertainty.

If you we read in the headlines about the changes to the uh HUD program at the federal level, know that this has uh some pretty severe consequences for all cities, including Santa Rosa, but that the county and the cities are working closely together to figure out what we can do to mitigate those uh those negative effects.

And that concludes my report.

We'll go to public comment.

Would any members of the public like to comment on any of those reports?

I would say say that once again.

I would like to you would like to comment on the on the reports that were just given from the dance?

I thought we would have questioned about a.

So, you know, we're gonna go to our first public comment on non-agenda matters.

Actually, not quite not quite yet.

Hold on.

Um I gotta do some tap dancing here as I figure out what we can do.

You know what?

Let's do uh let's do a very quick report and then we'll go to public comment and then we'll go to our public hearings.

We're gonna we're gonna be jumping around a little bit.

Uh is it possible to do our uh report on our item 15.1.

A report on the approval of the rate increase of 3.7 percent for residents.

I got we gotta we got four minutes, right?

Oh, the minutes.

What am I talking about?

I jumped ahead of page.

Let's back up everyone.

I was reading too quickly.

Hold on, I had the wrong page.

Yes.

Yes, that's a much better idea.

Thank you to thank you to my colleagues.

Uh let's go on to the approval of minutes.

Item 12.

Uh, looking to my colleagues, are there we have we have the November 4th, 2025 um regular meeting minutes, the November 4th, 2025 special meeting minutes.

Uh are there any do any council members have any edits or amendments to these minutes?

Seeing none, uh, would any members of the public like to comment on these minutes?

Seeing none, we'll close public comment and we will adopt the minutes as submitted.

Thank you, Madam City Clerk.

Let's go on to uh to consent.

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

Mayor, uh we have recently adopted a policy um in our procedures.

We have updated our ordinance and our code.

We no longer have to read the full consent calendar.

So as you assign the consent calendar, the vice mayor can just state adopt item 13.1 through 13 point the end of the calendar, and as presented by staff.

That day has finally arrived, has it?

We've waited so long.

And I know I noticed that you just highlighted that in red, but it hadn't caught my eye yet.

All right, thank you very much.

All right, this is a this is a glorious day for our council.

Vice Mayor, would you please would you please lead us into this new world?

You know, as I might make my exit as Vice Mayor, it would be an honor.

Uh I would like to move items 13.1 through 13.8 and wave further uh reading of the text.

Second.

All right, we have a motion.

We have a second by Ms.

Rogers.

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

Would you like to take public comment?

Yes, I do, plus that buys us one more minute.

Dwayne, you're up.

Hello, my name is Dwayne DeWitt.

I'm from Roseland.

I think it actually takes away from public participation when you do not read what these items are.

That being said, we move forward.

I am very concerned about two items on here, but first I congratulate you on the memorial that will be at Nagasawa Park to honor those who were lost in the fires eight years ago.

I think it's very important that we also learn from this effort with the county on how others in the community might be able to put memorials forward as they work on different things on item 13.4 involving Oakmont Village Association and the bus route.

It doesn't state here whether or not Oakmont Village Association pays for the bus route, or you pay.

The taxpayers pick up the cost, or is it Oakmont Village Association?

They should cover the cost for that extra service out there in a way.

Now, the next thing that's of importance is item 13.7.

You've rezoned 3,932 properties.

Many of the people who've been affected by that don't really know about it.

And I really think you ought to put out some maps that are easily read and legible and available to the public to see in hard copy, not just online.

They should be here available so people could see what's occurring.

Now, a decade ago, as Santa Rosa was preparing the final annexation of the Roseland County Island that the city had created 30 years ago, numerous property owners proposed upzoning their properties to increase density.

But only the Skellinger Brothers properties on Burbank Avenue were allowed to do that during the final Roseland Pacific plan prior to the annexation eight years ago.

You should let these property owners have the same benefit of this upzoning without any costs.

They should be able to do this also.

This would help you to get more housing in along those areas such as Burbank Avenue, where the Skellinger brothers just put in a bunch of housing.

So let's look at this in a matter of equity and fairness.

You've done this rezoning on these properties.

You're not charging these properties for that rezoning.

You've made that decision.

So let that decision also affect those property owners on Burbank Avenue who turned in petitions to then city manager McGlynn.

And Jessica Jones was a part of that Roseland Specific plan back then, so she should remember it.

If need be, I kept copies of those original petitions to upzone.

So we could work on that.

Let's all work together.

Kumbaya, all the best to you.

Thank you, Mr.

DeWitt.

Would any other members of the public like to comment?

This is on the consent calendar, Janice.

Seeing no other members of the public wishing to comment, we'll close public comment.

And back to you, Madam City Clerk, for the vote.

Thank you, Councilmember Rogers.

Aye.

Thank you, Councilmember O'Krepke.

Aye.

Council McDonald, Councilmember McDonald is absent.

Councilmember Fleming?

Councilmember Banuelos?

Yes.

Vice Mayor Alvarez.

Aye.

Mayor Stapp.

Yes.

Let the record show this passes with six affirmative votes.

Thank you.

I note the time is 5.03.

So in spite of starting 35 minutes late, it's a point of pride for this council that we come in right on time.

And here we are again.

Alright, it's we'll do our first public comment on non-agenda matters.

If any members of the public wish to comment on items not listed on the agenda, now is your time.

Janice, I see you moving towards the podium.

We will go Janice and then Dwayne and then Alan.

Janice, start us off.

Um Janice Carmen here, and I just want to say that I really tried hard today to uh get the um attachments because I thought there were a lot of really important things on the agenda for today that I happen to look at at the internet, and I don't have the internet at home.

So my boyfriend uh disappeared to come and pick them up at the city.

And after an hour and a half, I thought, what happened?

You know, so I called the city and they said there's 367 things.

I said, Well, did you already print them out?

God, he can't spend like almost 40 dollars for those papers.

And she goes, No, no, no, we didn't print them out.

So I said, Well, I don't want all of them if they're gonna cost that much, but she asked me what I wanted, and I said, Well, it's really hard to tell you because I don't really have the agenda, you know, in front of me.

So, my question is uh, and I know you can't answer back, but do you really read all 367 pages of attachments when you're on the board?

Thank you.

Thank you, Janice.

Uh Dwayne Allen and then Chris.

Hello, I'm from Roseland.

I want to thank you for having the Veterans Day on Tuesday, November 11th here at Santa Rosa City Hall and raising the flag at 11 o'clock on November 11th to honor veterans.

I also wanted to thank you for having the land acknowledgement that occurred at the beginning of the ceremony.

It was very unusual.

It was the first time it had occurred, and I think it's because you folks are paying attention to what your own general plan says and has an acknowledgement, a land acknowledgement for the Pomo at the beginning of the general plan.

This is very good.

We're working on an effort over in Roseland to have what we call the Roseland neighborhood be named Pomo Park and Preserve.

We brought that forward in the past to what's now known as the Board of Parks and Recreation.

We now have some direction because recently the council had decided on a park naming process, and we'll be getting 1,000 signatures on petitions to show that the people in the community want this name, Pomo Park and Preserve.

With that in mind, we've been told that signage needs to be paid for by the advocates of a park naming situation.

So an organization is coming together called Pomo Park and Preserve Foundation, which will be raising funds to make sure and alleviate the cost that the city will perhaps want to have for these signs for future stewardship of this park.

And we do this willingly.

We believe in our system.

We believe that you'll work with us to get this park named what the community wants.

You need to realize that the name that's there now wasn't chosen by the community, it was chosen by a member of city staff who at the time was a master of municipal malfeasance and was asked to leave employment of the city when the stories came out in the press democrat about those activities that were not just nefarious, they were hurting the city.

We have never tried to hurt the city.

We have never tried to hold anything in a wrong manner for what we are doing there.

For 30 years, we have worked hard to make sure that the Roseland neighborhood is not just preserved, but that the park surrounding it is a community asset in a positive manner.

So please look at our efforts for Pomo Park and Preserve naming as something positive that you will not have to spend money on yourself.

We'll bring forward the dollars because we know government pleads poverty quite often, and times are going to get even tougher.

Recession lies ahead.

Thank you.

Thank you, Duane, Alan, and then Chris.

And if you could be waiting by the microphone when your name is called.

Alan, you have the floor.

My name is Alan Cook, and I'm speaking for my mother Maria Cook.

She was uh taken to Memorial Hospital by an emergency uh facility uh figure um fire department did an excellent job.

There's two divisions, one in Windsor and one in Santa Rosa.

I have their chief that I um well I thanked them as much as I could to the Lord for what they did for my mom.

There's an issue though with the police department, and what it is is apparently we have a broken law, and the broken law is no notifications notified to the police department through a hospital that has to do with um, unless it's a gunshot or a stabbing.

But this incident was so terrific that it was a game green item all the way to the knee, worse than coal.

It was to where if you were to accidentally blow it off, it would look better than a gunshot or a stabbing.

When you get a report like that, an officer or fire department person should respond to APS for console on aging.

And I had a meeting this morning with one of the colleagues of Congressman McGuire to try to get a new law passed.

Because apparently, when you have an individual that is under protection, even if it's under APS for council of aging, if there's a death in it, she didn't die that day, uh, they drop the case.

They don't give any information and they follow no additional investigation.

So I know that there was a miss um misjustice in the sense of stepping up as an individual that sees something so terribly wrong.

Somebody should have screamed.

That was an official that said, this woman, she didn't just turn this way.

Why is she this way?

And that's what I'm trying to get to.

I'm trying to get to you all, very wise individuals.

I can barely speak this, and I will leave my number and I will leave you some pictures.

But please don't eat one hour before and one hour after at least.

It is horrific.

And I I thank you, I really do, and I I apologize for the pictures.

Thank you, Alan.

All right, we're gonna turn to Chris.

Welcome back.

Thank you.

I'm uh Chris Gunther, co-lead of Bikeable Santa Rosa.

Uh I'm here just to say thank you today uh for the new uh pavement maintenance and striping on West College Avenue and uh North Dutton Avenue, which is another crucial link in the um increasing bike network in the city, which we've been advocating for for a number of years.

But broader than that, uh obviously I I'm excited about the bike infrastructure that's part of that, but broader than that, I really want to commend the city on the increasing uh focus on safety across many departments and agencies, and um, this is only one part of that, but I also wanted to just reference the fact that these improvements again are not only good for bikes, but they're good for drivers, they're good for pedestrians, they're good for the people that live along those streets.

I've driven them, I've ridden on my bike, and people are using them in in different ways than they were just a few weeks ago before these improvements were made, and so I think that's a really great development.

I also want to commend the police department for um, I think what's been a real um noticeable step up in communication around the efforts that they're making around enforcement and public education related to safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers, and um also congratulations on the grant to do even more of that enforcement work that was announced last week.

That's it.

Thank you so much.

Chris, thank you.

Are there any of the members of the public that wish to speak on and on items not listed on the agenda?

Seeing none, we will close public comment.

Whoops, this part of the agenda, and we will go then.

We're gonna jump down a little bit.

We're gonna start with our public hearings.

We're gonna move on to public hearing 16.1, our public hearing regarding the 2025 California Fire and Wildland Urban Interface Code Adoption with local amendments.

I believe we have Mike Johnson, welcome back.

Good afternoon, Mayor Stapp, Vice Mayor Alvarez and Council members.

I'm Mike Johnson, Assistant fire marshal with the Santa Rosa Fire Department, and I'm here today to a public hearing to adopt ordinances presented on October 21st, 2025, for the 2025 California fire fire code wildland Urban interface code.

One quick note I'd like to say is that the presentation slide states introduction to ordinances, where this is a presentation for the adoption of ordinances.

Go forward here.

Once adopted with any local amendments, will become effective January 1st, 2026.

California Fire Code and Wildland Urban Interface Code include requirements for building fire vegetation management as well as other standards.

Again, these codes are published and adopted every three years for statewide application by the California Building Standards Commission and enforceable by all jurisdictions throughout the state.

Local jurisdictions are allowed to adopt additional amendments based upon local conditions.

AB 130 was signed by the governor in June of this year, which created a six-year moratorium on any new local amendments that apply to residential units.

Any local amendments already in place can be carried forward.

Updates for the amendments for the 2025 Fire and WUI codes were examined and developed at biweekly Sonoma County Fire Marshal meetings.

This collaborative effort helps bring alignment between our neighborhood jurisdictions.

The final document was then peer reviewed by the other agencies and industry professionals.

On October 21st, 2025, California Fire and Wildland Urban Interface Codes and Local Ordinances were introduced.

After introduction, staff identified and made a few non-substantive edits to one of the ordinances, including the reordering of the recital section, deletion of one unnecessary sentence, and deletion of one redundant paragraph.

These are identified in red line review.

Again, these edits do not impact the council's ability to adopt the ordinance.

This brings us to today's for public hearing for council adoption of the ordinances that become effective January 1st, 2026.

Recommendation.

Repeal existing sections not applicable to new codes and modify chapter 1844 of the Santa Rosa City Code to reflect the new model code.

Also, adopt by ordinance by reference the 2025 California Wildland Urban Interface Code as adopted and amended by the state of California and further amended based on local conditions.

Added as chapter 18-46 of the Santa Rosa City Code to reflect the new model code.

Thank you so much.

Important work.

Bring it back to council for questions.

No, I was just letting you know we are a slide behind.

Oh it's okay.

We caught up.

Any questions for Mr.

Johnson?

All right, we'll throw this open to public comment.

Would any members of the public like to comment on this?

Oh wait, it's a public hearing.

What am I talking about?

We're gonna open the public hearing.

I still rarely get to use that.

Alright, the hearings open.

Would any members of the public like to uh participate in this item?

Seeing none, we are going to immediately close the public hearing and bring it back to council for any final comments or direction.

All right, it's been a it's been a long day of meeting so far.

We will just thank you for this work.

We heard a fuller version of this report obviously a few weeks ago, but so yes, but I'm turning that back to you in just a second, making some final comments here.

Um just wanted to think thank you for this work.

Um, and then as my as my colleagues suggested, we're gonna go to Mr.

Krepke for a motion.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh I will move to adopt an ordinance of by reference the 2025 edition of the California Fire Code as adopted and amended by the state of California and further amend base and local condition repeal existing sections not applicable to new codes and modify chapter 18-44 of the Santa Rosa City Code to reflect the new model code to as well as to adopt an ordinance by reference the 2025 California Wildland Urban Interface Code as adopted and amended by the state of California and further amended based on the local condition added as chapter 18-46 to the Santa Rosa City Code to reflect the new model code.

We have a motion and a second.

Any other final comments before we go to a vote?

Seeing none, Madam City Clerk, we've got a second from uh Vice Mayor Alvarez.

We can call the vote.

Thank you, Mayor.

Council Member Rogers.

Aye.

Council Member O'Krepke.

Councilmember McDonald is absent.

Councilmember Fleming.

Aye.

Councilmember Ben Willows?

Yes.

Vice Mayor Alvarez.

Aye.

Mayor Stepp?

Yes.

Let the record show this passes the six affirmative votes.

Thank you, Mike.

Thanks for the whole team.

We will move on then to item 16.2, our public hearing on or on the ordinance introduction, the ordinance entitled ordinance of the council of the city of Santa Rosa prezoning the property located at 2299 Brush Creek Road to the Rural Residential R R-20 zoning district, assessor's parcel number 182-030-031.

File number ANX 24-001.

Welcome to you both.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mayor Stapp and members of the council.

My name is Sitchin Warbisla, and the project before you today is a request for annexation pre-zoning at 2299 Brush Creek Road.

The property is located at 2299 Brush Creek Road and is currently unincorporated and adjacent to properties that are within the city's limits.

It's currently developed with a single family dwelling on a 0.57-acre parcel.

And the purpose of the annexation is to obtain city sewer and water in order to develop an accessory dwelling unit in the future.

The project is located on a county island in the northeast quadrant of Santa Rosa.

And here is an aerial view of the site.

It's on the corner of Brush Creek Road and Heimbucker Way.

In June of 2024, we received the application on July 25th of 2025.

A notice was distributed for a planning commission public hearing.

And the hearing took place on August 14th, at which the planning commission adopted a resolution recommended recommending that the city council introduce an ordinance to pre-zone the property.

And the proposed uh zoning district to be pre-zoned to is RR rural residential, which is the implementing zoning district of very low density residential.

And it is proposed to be uh RR20, which should be consistent with the zoning code lot size requirements.

The project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and qualify qualifies for exemptions.

It's consistent with the general plan and the feature and it involves the future annexation of existing private structures developed to the density that's allowed under the pre-zoning classification.

Prior to the planning commission public hearing, we did receive one question about why only one parcel of the county island is being proposed for pre-zoning and annexation and whether LAFCO supports this.

So LAFCO does support the annexation of just one property.

It is recommended by the plan by the planning commission and the planning and economic development department that the city council introduce an ordinance to adopt a prezoning to amend the zoning app for the pro zoning map for the property at 2299 Brush Creek Road to the R R20 Rural Residential Zoning District consistent with the very low density residential general plan land use designation.

And for any questions, comments, or concerns, this is my contact information.

Thank you.

That was wonderfully thorough and succinct, Sajnore.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Alright, to bring it back to council for any questions.

Seeing none, we're gonna open the public hearing.

Would any members of the public like to speak on this item?

Seeing one, make your way to the podium.

Good evening, Kelly.

Hello?

Can you hear me?

Okay.

Um my name is Mark Kirby.

I uh live in a property uh immediately adjacent to the parcel that's uh under consideration for the annexation.

I'm basically just here to confirm that the myself and the other uh parcel owners in that county island do not wish to be annexed.

And I just want to ensure that we can continue to enjoy our uh lack of annexation uh in the future, even though this property is going to be removed from our island.

Uh additionally, I just want to make sure um I know that this property is considered for uh they're considering adding an ADU.

There was a couple of uh outbuildings that have already been added to the property since uh since the new owners took over about a year ago, and uh, and there's there's no parking uh right on our street on that side of the street.

So if they do end up adding an ADU, I don't know if that's a part of this process or not, but I just want to ensure that there's adequate parking if there's already three family units uh living in that uh dwelling, and if they do add an ADU, I just want to make sure there's gonna be enough room for parking and uh and I'm not sure exactly where it's gonna be on the property.

Uh that wasn't really, I guess maybe a part of this, but uh anyway.

I just want to confirm our uh our desire to remain as a county island.

Thank you.

Thank you, Trustee Kirby.

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

Seeing none, we will close the public hearing.

And I will bring it back to uh Ms.

Fleming for a motion for the discussion.

Thank you.

Um bring forward an ordinance of the council of the city of Santa Rosa repealing chapter 18-44 of the existing Santa Rosa City Code and adding a new chapter 18-44 adopting by reference with local amendments the 2022 edition of the California.

I've got the wrong one.

I apologize.

Just one moment when we sort out a technical issue here.

Bring in the ordinance of the city of Santa Rosa.

Uh Madam City Attorney, do you want to weigh in?

Sure.

I just wanted to let you know we no longer have to read the title, the full title of it.

We have a new rule.

You're welcome to do so.

But you can you can um move to um introduce the ordinance as presented for this item.

Okay, I'll do that.

I'll move the ordinance as presented.

Do we have a second?

Second.

It was second by Mr.

Krepke.

I like our advancements in efficiencies this week.

This is again a big week for council.

Uh all right.

Any any further discussion on this item?

Uh seeing none, we'll take we'll take the vote, but thank you.

Thank you for your work on this.

Thank you for thank you for making this happen.

Um, excellent presentation.

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

Thank you, Councilmember Rogers.

Aye.

Councilmember O'Krepke.

I councilmember McDonald is absent.

Council member Fleming?

Yes.

Councilmember Ben Wellos?

Yes.

Vice Mayor Alvarez.

Mayor Stapp?

Yes.

Let the record show this passes with six affirmative votes.

Alright, thank thank you again.

We're gonna move on to item six point sixteen point three, rather.

Uh, and we may have our colleague joining us.

Madam City Clerk, is Ms.

McDonald on line right now?

I believe so.

Let me confirm this is Councilmember McDonald participating.

She's being promoted to panelist.

Good afternoon.

Good evening, Councilmember McDonald.

Mayor.

Hey.

Welcome, Miss McDonald.

Thanks.

So do we need to we need to talk through the uh the details of her remote participation this evening?

That is correct.

I believe the clerk has uh provided the information to the council member.

Um that's my understanding she's appearing under the Just Clause provision and needs to make a statement.

Correct.

Please go ahead, Councilmember McDonald.

Thank you, madam city clerk.

Um I request to attend this meeting remotely under AB 2449, applying the just clause.

Uh, due to a contagious illness.

I will participate with both audio and video throughout the meeting, and there is no one in the room with me.

Under just clause, the council member can proceed without any further action from the council.

Thank you, and we hope you feel better soon.

Uh Diana.

Uh we will move we will move on then item 16.3, our public hearing regarding the appeal of city engineers' denial of variants ENG V two five-018 relief from public improvement requirements.

And with that, I'll turn it over to our transportation and public works team.

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council members.

My name is Cleve Gurney.

I'm the deputy director of the engineering division for the planning economic development department, and here with me today is Dan Hennessy, the director of TPW and the city engineer.

Um before you today, we are bringing forward um an appeal of the city engineer's denial of a variance for relief from public frontage improvements.

Um I'll start it off by going through a summary and some background information and some analysis, and then Dan will close it out for us.

So the the project itself is a 15-bed assisted living care facility based on the project use and the type that they're required to construct certain frontage improvements, including roadway pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalk, planner strip, as well as the undergrounding of overhead lines and the placement of vacant conduit underground.

The project address is at 635 Benjamin's Road, which is just south of Montecito Boulevard and east of Middle Rinkin Road.

Here's uh Google Street View of the Project site, it's the vacant parcel with all grass right there.

So the variance request from the appellant is relief from the undergrounding of distribution lines and the construction of all those fringe improvements.

The city engineers' decision was a partial denial, so we granted relief from the undergrounding of the overhead of the distribution lines, but still required that the roadway pavement curb gutter and sidewalk and driveway apron be constructed.

Something to note is the variance request didn't ask for a relief from the placement of vacant conduit, which would be for future undergrounding of high voltage lines.

So that would still be required if this project went forward.

Here's just some historical background.

I'm not going to go through every line item here, but something to note is the lot was split in 2024, and the right-of-way public utility easements and public sidewalk easements were dedicated at that time when the map was recorded.

In June, conditional use permit was submitted for that assisted living care facility.

And the applicant team was informed that these frontage improvements would be required.

So we went back and forth between June and July with the applicant team, the design engineer, and applicant meeting on site and meeting here at City Hall to talk about the complications and the issues with putting in these frontage improvements.

Ultimately, city staff put forward a recommendation to the city engineer for a partial denial.

Within the appeal period on August 25th, an appeal was submitted.

So getting into the analysis of the project, the in our city code 13-12 and 18-12, that's where these frontage improvements are required, and it's all triggered by valuation amounts.

So this project had a valuation of over a million dollars, and so was required to underground the overhead lines, place the vacant vacant conduit, and do those frontage improvements.

Continuing on the analysis, the city engineer has to make certain necessary findings in order to approve a variance, and those are the three in red there.

That the project, that the improvements would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships, that the improvements wouldn't bear a reasonable relationship to the proposed use, and that granting the variants wouldn't be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property.

So the city engineer made findings that based on what was proposed that the roadway, curb and gutter, and sidewalk could actually be constructed.

The 15-bed care facility was the maximum build-out of this property.

So there wouldn't be another bite at the apple, pretty much.

No other development on this lot could occur that would trigger these improvements, and that granting this variance ultimately would leave a lack of connectivity if Benjamin's Road would be fully built out in the future.

On this slide here, it's a snippet of some of those properties.

As you can see, the ones highlighted in white are county lots, so those are county islands.

And a lot of these properties are very deep, so there's a lot of development potential.

They could be subdivided, an additional unit can be built.

Um, an addition of the existing home could be built as well.

So six of those lots along the north to south section of Benjamin's Road already have frontage improvements, and that's towards Montecito Boulevard, but south of those six lots, there aren't any fringe improvements.

Um, nine of those lots in the county islands are very deep and have additional space to develop.

Six of those lots could potentially subdivide, and then the remaining 13 lots.

The only way that they would trigger front frontage improvements would be through redevelopment.

I'll hand it over to Dan Hadis.

Thanks, Cleve.

Um, we've talked a lot over the last couple years about prioritizing projects in our capital improvement program and what we can do with our limited resources.

Um section of Benjamin's Road.

Um it'll be a long, long time before this meets priorities, but that's um kind of separate from the discussion at hand.

The if you'll go to the next slide, all right.

We still have that next one.

No problem.

Um the information that was provided with the variance requests really uh demonstrated two reasons to deny this portion.

One is that with the variance request was provided an exhibit showing the curb, the sidewalk, the frontage improvements designed, showing that it could be done.

Um the remainder of the variance requests really played to precedent, um, showing some of the other properties along the street that had had development opportunities in the past who knows how many years and hadn't been required to make the sidewalk improvements.

As Clave just went through, there's still a lot of redevelopment opportunity along the street, so there are more bites at the Apple for those.

But also, I wasn't the city engineer who made those decisions.

Um, to my mind, uh the code says that sidewalks required, curb and gutters required, it can be done.

That's the responsibility of the city engineer to get those improvements done and enforce our code unless there's a good and valid reason why it can't be done.

I didn't see that here, and that's that's why we're here for the partial denial of that variance.

That's all right.

So, with that, um, the recommendation is that the council deny the appeal and uphold the city engineer's determination to deny the variance for relief from public improvement requirements for the project.

I believe the uh applicant is here too for as part of public comment.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Thank you both for this uh very very clear report.

Uh I know we have some members of the public wish to speak.

Omar, you're gonna be up first.

Uh, if any other members of the public wish to speak, you can certainly check in with Cher in the back or otherwise be waiting by both podiums so that we can move quickly through through comment.

Uh Omar, we'll start with you and move on to any other members of the public who wish to speak.

Not to tell you how to do your job, but do you have to gapble public hearing open?

Um, you do need to tell me how to do my job, Omar.

Thank you for that reminder.

I'm on autopilot right now.

Yes, the public hearing has been open.

Oh, Mar, go ahead.

Uh good afternoon, everybody.

My name's Omar Lopez.

I'm the policy coordinator at Generation Housing.

Um, we sent you an email about this.

Um I we sent it kind of late, so I'm sure you haven't had a chance to read it.

Um, but we're here to say we endorse this project and we support the appeal that they're bringing before you.

Um, this is a small community-based senior care home represents exactly the kind of housing and supportive services CNRSA needs.

Uh earlier this year, we had Jennifer Litwack, the CEO of Pep Housing at Gen H event where she spoke extensively about the critical shortage of assisted living and senior care options in our region.

Facilities like this, well, it's modest in size, does help fill that gap and give older adults more dignified choices close to home.

Um, this property did come from an SB9 lot split.

Um, one of only a few that have kind of moved forward in Santa Rosa.

So, ensuring that SB9 and compliant projects can succeed is really important for demonstrating uh that the city supports gentle's small-scale NFL and wants the states uh and wants the state support housing tool to work in practice.

It's also important to acknowledge that this is a locally durbent project supporting small community-rooted developers sends a strong signal that Sierra Rosa Valley is thoughtful communities serving housing.

These are exactly the types of projects that we should be highlighting and encouraging here in Santa Rosa.

Approving the appeal, I believe that's the way to term it, aligns properly with council goal four, which is fostering a safe, healthy and inclusive community by expanding senior care, and council goal five by uh planning for and encouraging housing for all by enabling and fill in increasing housing choices.

Generation that wants to see more projects like this move forward, so granting this appeal is a straightforward way to support that vision.

Want to thank you for your time for your commitment?

Thank you, Omar.

Um, and are are you part of the appellant presentation by any chance?

I am not.

Let us let us let us move around a little bit.

Um, I skipped a couple of steps in this more formal public uh or um public hearing.

Let's hold off on your public comment, but we'll come back to you.

Let's do ex parte disclosures from council.

Uh, and then we'll then we'll move on to the appellate presentation.

From council, do we have any ex parte disclosures?

None.

Seeing none.

Ms.

McDonald online, I see your hand raised.

Do you have an ex you have an ex parte disclosure?

Um I have been emailing with the applicant who's um trying to put in this 15-bit bed facility, so I'm not sure if that needs to be disclosed, but I have not seen the facility or gone out to the property, but I have been emailing this um community member.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

McDonald.

Uh, and then Madam City Attorney, do we?

Councilmember McDonald may want to just um outline the substance of the communications.

Um, it doesn't have to be the person, but uh just the substance of those communications.

Sure, the substance was um they were given a bill from the city to engineer um what has been outlined in the presentation, and I found out the process of what would happen if that was denied by the city attorney to waive the fees and gave that to them, and then uh helped or didn't help them but told them they could always appeal it and bring the case before city council for a final decision.

Um, and the applicant then emailed me and told me that tonight it was being heard by council, and I emailed back and said that I would be on Zoom because I was sick.

That's pretty much everything.

Thank you, Ms.

McDonald and Madam City Attorney, does that that suffices for ex parte disclosures?

Yes, it does.

Thank you.

Perfect.

Okay, we're gonna move on next.

We are gonna come back to public comment, but first we're gonna do the appellant presentation.

Do we have the appellant here?

Thank you for coming tonight.

You have you have 10 minutes.

Okay.

Can you hear me?

We can.

And do lean closer to the microphone, even if you have to adjust that a bit, that those mics aren't particularly sensitive.

Thank you.

Okay.

Mayor Staff and members of the council, thank you for the opportunity this evening to present our appeal of the recently denied variants, ENG V 25-018.

Uh, before I start, I'd like to thank Mr.

Gurney for all his help moving this uh project along.

He's taken time to respond to all my emails, phone calls, and even met me on the site to review the issues with me.

I have worked with uh Mr.

Gurney on a few other projects and have found him to be an excellent communicator as we work through these complicated issues.

Further, I would like to acknowledge all the city engineers' responses in the previous presentation as valid professional responses.

We do take some exception to some of the staff conclusions.

However, I do not believe your time is best spent debating the nuances of the responses.

Instead, I would like to address these, address three concepts within those responses that speak to the larger neighborhood picture.

Item number one.

Should the city or a future developer construct complete improvements along Benjamin Road, the improvements the city engineer is requiring for this project would need to be removed and reconstructed, for example, in order to make the public improvements along the entire 2,000 foot stretch of the road, all the overhead power would need to be placed underground.

This would require removal and replacement of the curb and gutter that is shown around the pool, which is approximately 60 of the 120 feet, and that area repaved.

Similarly, at the south end of the project, the curb and gutter that transitions from the 18-foot wide road to the 10-foot wide road would need to be removed, which is approximately 30 of the 120 feet.

Most of the sidewalk would be destroyed during the undergrounding of the overhead wire.

So the purpose of making the improvements in this case does not necessarily support the intent of the city ordinance.

Item number two, adding an eight-foot parking lane, a six-foot planter strip and five foot sidewalk moves the line of sight for cars exiting the property back 19 feet from its current location.

This would adversely alter the existing line of sight to the north, as there is an existing hedge on the neighboring property that would reduce the line of sight from over 650 feet to just over 200 feet.

Should the neighbor park a vehicle, plant and vegetation, or construct other visual obstructions on their property, the visibility would be reduced to just over 80 feet, well short of the required 150 feet for a 25 mile an hour zone.

And item number three, there is no connectivity associated with these 125 feet improvements.

The city followed for the widening of Stony Point Road, obtain the necessary right-of-way, relocate conflicting utilities, make necessary infrastructure improvements to support the development, then design and construct the wider road, providing connectivity from key intersections to these improvements.

Thank you for your time.

The property owner would now like to speak on her behalf.

I will be available to answer any questions you may have after she is finished.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Kim Pham, and my husband Howe, who is here with me this evening, and I are the owners of 635 Benjamins Road.

Hal grew up here in Santa Rosa, and I moved here from San Jose eight years ago after we got married.

We love this city, and we're proud to be raising our young family here.

I work in community development finance, lending to affordable housing projects and senior housing projects across California.

Through this work, I've gained a clear understanding of how significant the housing shortages statewide, especially when it comes to high-quality home like options for older residents.

That understanding is a big part of why this project is meaningful to us.

We know how few small residential care homes exist for families, and we want to help meet that need in our own community.

Our plan is to build a small 15-bed assisted living home and a peaceful residential setting.

This isn't a corporate development, and we don't have outside investors.

It's something my husband and I are personally funding, and my husband, who is a firefighter and a general contractor, will be building the home.

We are a small local family investing our own resources to create something warm, dignified, and supportive for our seniors.

Over the past year, we've worked closely with staff and have already made meaningful adjustments to the project, including dedicating about 10 feet of our property for future right-of-way, so the city can improve the entire corridor correctly when the time comes.

That dedication required us to redesign the site and shift the building, and we accepted that because it supports the city's long-term goals.

However, the full frontage requirement, curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway apron, and roadway improvements places a very significant burden on a small family funded project like ours.

Benjamin's Road is nearly 2,000 feet long, and none of it meets the current street standard.

Applying the entire standard to just our 120-foot section does not solve a corridor-wide issue.

It creates an isolated improvement that doesn't function, doesn't provide meaningful public benefit, and adds tens of thousands of dollars to a project that is already costly for a small family like ours.

Our residents do not walk to school or generate pedestrian activity, they don't create street parking demand, they don't drive, and all of our parking is on site.

Whether there is a sidewalk or curb in front of our home, does not impact day-to-day operations or neighborhood circulation.

For a family trying to build a community-based care home, every added condition matters.

And for us, these requirements are making it harder and harder to keep the project feasible, especially when the improvements are unrelated to our use and don't improve safety or connectivity for the neighborhood today.

We're asking for flexibility and fairness so we can move forward with a project that aligns with the city's values and with the council's unanimous direction last year, supporting neighborhood-based community care facilities.

This is exactly the type of project that policy was intended to encourage residential in scale, thoughtfully integrated into the neighborhood, and driven by people who live here and care about this community.

We love the city of Santa Rosa.

We live here, we're raising our children here, and we want to create a beautiful, comfortable home that treats our seniors with dignity, safety, and compassion.

I respectfully ask for your support in approving this variance so we can bring this much needed home to life for families in our community.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Mayor Steph, I didn't realize we'd have two minutes, so I will take my public side and I will move it into the applicant's presentation.

My name's Peter Stanley.

I'm in a I am a principal at Archaeologics, and we're the land use planners and the architects for this project.

But I'm here actually to talk to you about my public service side when I worked with Council Member Bam while I was on the planning commission, and I was also the chair of the bicycling and pedestrian advisory board for two years.

And I can tell you these kinds of projects were the things that we would see.

And I would call these more gaps in the system than solving a problem in the system.

Completely understand why the city engineer is putting the condition on.

I would say that the third point in the variance request, though, that it is not creating a nuisance or a safety hazard isn't not accurate.

This is going to create a sidewalk that comes from nowhere and goes to nowhere.

And as you saw in the staff's report, this is this neighborhood goes back to 1953.

There's been six decades of no improvement on this.

And to try and do an improvement on 120 feet on a 2,000-foot corridor doesn't solve a problem.

And I think that everybody in that neighborhood already understands how that system works now.

And so by putting this condition in place, you actually create a new condition that is less safe than what people already know.

There is already pedestrian access all through there on the other side of the street.

This would just create a sidewalk from one parcel which has no sidewalks to another parcel that has no sidewalks.

And as the engineer pointed out, if you did a full 2,000-foot uh design system through the whole street, you would probably be tearing all these improvements out.

And that's quite a burden to put on this applicant.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Peter, and thank you to the appellate for for all of you coming out tonight.

Uh, we are gonna go first to questions from council.

Looking to my colleagues.

Let's start.

Let's start with Ms.

McDonald.

Thank you, Mayor.

Mayor.

So a couple of my questions is um do we normally charge these fees to developers, or these fees that we charge based on the ordinance to any applicant in the city of Santa Rosa?

Because it it feels to me that the ordinance was designed specifically for developers in the city.

Yeah, I I could answer that one.

So the the city code chapter 13-12 and 18-12 are based off project valuation.

So that is prepared by the design engineer or the architect, and it applies to residential, commercial, any types of use, and then there's certain exemptions in those city codes for certain types of projects.

Like ADUs, for example, under 18-12 are exempt from front improvements in certain situations.

So in this case, they weren't they didn't fall under any of those exemption categories and still triggered the requirements based off their project estimate.

Okay.

So the valuation, if I remember correctly during the presentation, is anything over a million dollars or around a million dollars?

$200,000 for commercial projects, $100,000 for residential, and then for the undergrounding requirements of the overhead lines, that would be $500,000.

The project estimate I believe was a million or just over a million.

I don't think you could build anything for a hundred thousand dollars anymore.

So uh the valuation to me doesn't seem reasonable as far as what's being triggered or being put on these applicants.

So I'm just I'm just trying to go back.

So this is actually a project for a private developer for senior care home facility to house 15 seniors in need of care in the community.

Is that right?

I believe so, yes, 15 beds for assisted care living.

Okay, I think that's all my questions for right now, and then I think the rest that I have is on comments, Mayor.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

McDonald.

Ms.

Rogers.

Um, so I believe you said that there were some revisions initially.

I mean, there were some revisions, so we brought forth uh requirements and those were revised or no.

Can you tell me uh the revisions like how much they cost initially, and then with the revisions uh an estimate of the price?

So the the revisions I was talking about was us going back and forth with the applicant on what the requirements would actually entail.

So from a staff level, when a project comes in, we show them city code 18-12 and 13-12 and and tell them take a look at your project, see if any of the proposed design elements conflict with these improvements, if these improvements can actually be constructed, and then come back with us with a justification and a development proposal.

Um so after discussion, the applicant team showed that the um that they didn't want to do the undergrounding of the overhead, and so that was a revision for one of our recommendations to the city engineer was to allow the overhead lines to stay in place and that power poll to stay there because we didn't see it as a reasonable relationship to the proposed use.

It would require the additional polls, um, the alignment of the overhead would be skewed at that one location.

So it was adding additional burden to the project, but the there was no revision of our decision or recommendation to the city engineer for to construct those front improvements for pavement, curb gutter, and sidewalk.

So allowing the the poll to stay there, though, that revision was a cost savings, correct?

Technically, it would be a cost savings, yes.

Okay, do we know about how much?

I'm just trying to figure out?

I I see on paper what we're talking about, but I speak dollars and cents, and I just feel like I don't have a concept of what we're talking about.

A power pole relocation could be hundreds of thousands of dollars, I would say.

Okay.

And then with um what is left?

How much money is that that we're requiring?

Um I would ask the appellant or the design engineer if they prepared an estimate of those improvements.

We have not prepared an estimate for what that would actually cost.

Mayor, through the mayor, may we please request.

Can I request the information?

Um, can it someone come to the lecture and tell me how much?

Is it on?

Um, we looked at the estimate for the improvements that are shown, and it could vary uh from anywhere from 80 to 120, 150,000, depending on uh the underground improvements that need to be made uh to accommodate the the proposed service improvements.

So it it's a little bit of a unknown at this point.

Thank you.

Um and then why do we have this code?

Go ahead.

Go ahead.

So there's different um code language for for each one.

For 13 12, a lot of it had to do for the visual appearance of those corridors and also safety to get everything undergrounded.

Um for services from those polls, we require all new builds for those services to be underground as well.

For 18-12, it's all what what development is triggering uh those requirements, and it's typically because of vehicular traffic for pedestrian connectivity for drainage purposes.

The curbing gutter is public storm drain.

It's not only the piped infrastructure when water hits the roadway, it goes into the curbing gutter and follows its way to a catch basin or to a pipe system.

So pedestrian connectivity, vehicular um circulation for drainage purposes, all these improvements are required.

If I might add to that, I think the scale and location of the development is unique here.

If we were building something much larger, I doubt we would get that question about why we were building sidewalks adjacent to it, or if we were building something on a major corridor, I doubt we would get a question about why there were sidewalks required.

Um this is a unique case, but um this is how sidewalks would show up on this street.

Um, like I mentioned earlier, it's unlikely in my tenure as a transportation of public works director that we as a city will ever get out there to install sidewalk on this road.

It would require a major right-of-way acquisition.

It is going to be done in pieces.

And like the applicant mentioned, this is not a corridor solution, but this is ensuring that we don't block ourselves out from a corridor solution long down the road.

And anything that is put in for clarification at any point, would it need to be removed?

This is in response to something that was stated.

If we did a full undergrounding of the utilities, yes, it's very likely that this would be redesigned and rebuilt if we but we could build the empire corridor like we're doing here where the utilities remain above ground and we work around that.

Um, and especially if it were to be a development or parcel by parcel through private development, we we would envision a scenario much like this.

Um, you know, a city capital improvement project might look different, but I don't envision a city capital improvement project coming to Benjamins any time soon.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, now we're gonna go to public comment.

Uh would any members of the public uh like to like to uh speak on this item?

Oh Mar, we snuck you in early.

Uh I would think at least one or was there anybody else here that wanted to to make a comment?

Seeing none, then we will close the public hearing.

Uh we'll bring it back for any additional questions.

I have one more.

Uh if Ms.

Fleming?

Yeah, I think it would be helpful to like put the question before us like the issues around the sidewalk and the utilities correct and that if we forego this opportunity to compel the applicant to meet these infrastructure requirements then in the future we struggle when the rest of the corridor gets developed is that do I understand the issue on the floor more or less that's fair um and you said that there was an issue around right away um is it possible then that there would be a compromise around perhaps ceding the right of way to future city development of sidewalk or would that already happen under you know our public interest law in the future if we are able to financially afford to do the sidewalk ourselves so the the right of way public utility easements and public sidewalk easements have been dedicated because the project applicant came in with an urban lot split application previously in 2024.

Understood okay thank you um yeah so I think then the question just that I'm left with is um and I know this is a complex one that may be more rhetorical but please feel free to answer if you have an answer ready either of you which is um what are this the policy implications of um of going with um going against the city recommendation essentially because I can tell there's a we we want to help out you know small businesses we want to see this type of development um but we also want to maintain good policies and not set a precedent for for future um future situations where we contradict ourselves yeah um that I think is really gets to the heart of the den the partial denial is that um you know as Cleef showed there are reasons why one would waive a requirement of city code and I didn't feel that that met the case here um I I certainly empathize with the applicant uh one of the challenges for me is that as a city engineer in that role is that I can't possibly know their pro forma and whether or not this item helps kills their project you know what what that does to their balance sheet um that's not really the responsibility of the city engineer um so it's a it's a challenge for me the the other aspect of this is that I I do worry that um you know without really strong reasoning as to the inability to construct this sidewalk um we do set a precedent that you will see more of these cases or rather I will get more of these sent to my desk and I will have to consider your direction tonight to know am I just advancing an item back to council in which they're gonna tell me the same thing again um that that might be a question for the seven of you as much as it is for me.

Well that's a really helpful clarification of the issues at hand I I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Other questions my only question was uh actually in in response to the um the thought that Mr Stanley raised around the safety issue he um wanted to call our attention to whether or not granting this variance um wouldn't in fact be materially uh wouldn't in fact create some safety concerns could you speak a little bit more to that issue?

Yeah um briefly the provision of that sidewalk temporary or not would be there for anybody who chooses to walk on that side of the street um we very frequently see desire lines uh adjacent to properties that don't have any pedestrian accommodation um you know anecdotally I'm sure you've all seen people walking where they're not supposed to when an adjacent pedestrian facility is available for them I disagree a little bit with the notion about the site distance out of the driveway that was mentioned I think um reasonable accommodation would be made here to enter the the sidewalk area in the parking area to see down the street and uh and acquire that site distance so uh I don't share the same concern.

I think it's uh likely to be a a net positive or a or a draw much uh more so than potential negative consequences.

Thank you for that uh again, any final questions before I ask for a motion Ms.

Ben Waylos are you considering?

Thank you, Mary.

Yeah I I'm trying to form a question I I think I have more of a comment.

Because I think you're right.

I think many of these kinds of issues are going to keep coming to you.

I know I've had many calls of different projects that folks have proposed, and uh just the improvement piece is an issue for them in terms of paying for the improvements, and I've had like two or three in the last few months.

Um, so I know that's a concern.

On the other hand, I think what I'm grappling with is I'm also a strong proponent of sidewalks and curves, as you I think you know.

Um, but I also um very much support what the appellant is trying to do.

So I think that's what I'm kind of going back and forth because I think um I think I agree with Mr.

Stanley also.

I think that just having a partial, it doesn't make sense to me.

And I know um I don't know this area and I didn't look at the property, so um I'm not familiar with it, but I do know sections of it, and I'm just wondering how that would work, at least even if for the next five or ten years, you know.

I don't know how long it will take to develop the property, the the whole area.

Um, so I think that's what I'm grappling with because I think it's it's uh we we say we want to support different types of housing, um, but at the same time we're asking not just this particular appellant, but many people to try to figure out how to pay for uh requirements at the same time, and that's I'm finding that's stopping a lot of folks from moving forward, and I know um there's a lot of other impacts that you've mentioned, but that's what I'm kind of grappling with right now.

So I guess I don't really have a question, but that's just my comment about it.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Why don't we go to a motion and then any final discussion?

Oh, uh my apologies, Ms.

McDonald, go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I'm gonna probably follow along the lines of a comment as well, more than a question, as my questions I think were answered.

But I think the thing that's uh maybe most concerning for me is that this is a more rural area in the city of Santa Rosa.

It would make more sense if it was in the downtown corridor, places that we're seeing developments or apartments popping up.

Um this is sort of outside of that in Rinkin Valley, and to have um somebody have to put in sidewalks or curbs or things like that for a maybe someday there's going to be some other development out there because there's potential to doesn't seem as reasonable to me.

And while I uh am a strong proponent of infrastructure and making sure that we have safe sidewalks and streets for our folks to um you know walk on, it doesn't seem reasonable to me that we're um putting this burden on this applicant because they are offering a service that we have noticed is is extremely needed in our community in an area that is peaceful and beautiful and also near Oakmont and some of the area that has a need for um another care facility once they need to leave their homes, but could still potentially remain close to their families.

So I think that the um the comments made earlier by Omar around SB9 and then the encouragement around wanting folks to have these developments means that we should take this as case by case.

That's why we have this process of an appeal and them coming to council so that we can still continue to meet our goals as council members and offer housing to um potential seniors that need it in our community.

So I am not going to be upholding the decision or the recommendation from staff on this.

I feel that it's necessary that I uh support the applicant.

Thank you, Ms.

McDonald.

And with that, let's get a motion on the on the on the floor here.

Ms.

Rogers, you want to lead us off?

Um so I think we need housing all over all over the city, and I think we need housing for our seniors.

We need housing for um people in the middle income, but I also think that we have ordinances and codes as a city for a reason.

And if we find that we need to go back in and look at those, then that is something that we need to do.

Um, but I'm gonna go back to my word of cherry picking.

I think when we go back and we start cherry picking projects, then we're gonna have a lot more of these and a lot more people coming to us because we have no rhyme or reason of why we're cherry picking projects.

So I commend you guys for what you're what you're trying to do, and I think that it is needed, but I'm going to deny the variance appeal or make a motion to deny the variance appeal and adopt the draft resolution of denial provided by staff.

Council may add or amend to the resolution if you choose to have further discussion.

But I am going to make a motion to deny.

I'll second that.

Alright, we have a motion and a second.

Uh any further discussion before we call the vote.

All right, Madam City Clerk, why don't we why don't we go ahead with the vote?

Councilmember Rogers.

Aye.

Councilmember O'Krepke.

Council Member McDonald?

No.

Councilmember Fleming?

Yes.

Councilmember Ben Wellos?

No.

Vice Mayor Alvarez?

Aye.

Mayor Stapp.

Yes.

Let the record show this passes a five affirmative votes.

All right, thank you.

Uh and to our team, thank you for our work.

Thank you for all of your work and to the appellant.

Uh, thank you for coming out and presenting tonight.

I think you can tell that uh that council, you made council think about the concerns, and we and uh frankly we've got situations like yours all over the city and all of our neighborhoods.

Uh so this will be an ongoing discussion for the city to make sure to figure out how we both provide infrastructure, which we know we need and also not unduly burden uh uh new developments.

They thank you for coming out and making your voices heard tonight.

With that, we are going to move on to our final public hearing of the evening.

Item 16.4, our public hearing related to a resolution of necessity for the acquisition by eminent domain of easement interests in portions of real property, commonly known as 408 Duncan Street, uh APN 010-495-010.

Welcome, good to have you here.

All right, we're all ears.

Um, this one goes a little bit different.

I think it comes back to you.

Look at you, I didn't have even have a chance to go through my packet earlier.

All right, we've got to do a more formal announcement for this one too.

This is a hearing on a proposed resolution of necessity for acquisition by eminent domain of one permanent easement and one temporary construction easement in a portion of real property located at 408 Duncan Street in Santa Rosa for the Santa Rosa Creek Trail Access at North Dutton Avenue project.

Uh we I will we are gonna call on our city's the city's Chief Assistant City Attorney Autumn Luna to explain the nature and scope of this hearing.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Thank you, Mayor Stapp.

My name is Autumn Luna.

I'm the chief assistant city attorney for the city of Santa Rosa, and I'm here tonight just to give you a couple of minute uh primer on the legal framework within which we're working tonight.

This is a uh proposed adoption of a resolution of necessity that is a prerequisite for uh the city to file an eminent domain action in the superior court.

And so uh tonight we're working within California's eminent domain law that's found in the code of Civil procedure.

And for the resolution of necessity, the council will be asked to make three specific findings that are required by statute.

Those findings are found in the proposed resolution, but I'm gonna read them aloud for you.

Uh the findings are that the public interest and necessity require the project, that the project is planned to maximize public good and minimize private harm, and that the property is necessary for the project.

Having said that, I just want to spend a few seconds clarifying that public interest and necessity in this context includes all public goods, including social, economic, environmental, and aesthetic considerations.

This phrase is interpreted, in other words, quite broadly in this context.

For the public hearing, obviously, one of the major reasons for it tonight is to give the property owner an opportunity to be heard.

So that will proceed much like the previous public hearing did.

And you will hear from the city clerk in a few minutes that the property owner was noticed pursuant to state law about this hearing tonight.

Just a couple more key points before I pass it on to Greg and to Jill for the facts of the project.

Those are that adoption of the resolution of necessity requires a two-thirds vote of the council.

As you know, Councilmember Banuelos has recused herself from this item.

And so regardless of that, you will still need five members of the six that are present in order to pass this item tonight.

And then just one admonition, if you will, while you will be making findings, as mentioned earlier, one thing that will not be discussed tonight, it's not appropriate to discuss is the valuation of the property at issue.

And with that, I will stick around for questions later, but I want to pass it on to Greg and to Jill to talk about the project itself.

I think it actually goes to City Clerk now.

Apologies, thank you, Jill.

All right.

Let's see.

Madam City Clerk, could you confirm that the notice of this hearing was mailed to the affected property owner?

Thank you, Mayor.

I do want to note for the record that a proof of mailing notice for the notice of the hearing was served on October 24th, 2025, through the United States postal or mail services first class to the affected property owner.

The notice of the hearing invited the owner to appear and be heard on the matters described in the staff report and resolution.

Thank you very much.

Alright, now I'm turning back to uh to Jill and to Greg to provide a report on how the real estate interests to be acquired are related to the city's purposes.

Thank you so much, Council Mayor, Council members.

I'm Jill Scott.

I'm the city's uh right-away agent and real property manager.

I'm here today with Gregory Mariscal, supervising engineer in Capital Improvement Project District.

And as you've heard, we are here to talk to you about specifically about easements related to 408 Duncan Street, owned by Mr.

Jim Beal, and in connection with the Santa Rosa Creek Trail Access Project.

Okay, as part of the project, city will be constructing a multi-use path beginning on the west side of North Dutton Avenue.

The path will provide a safe ADA compliant connection to the existing Santa Rosa Creek Trail, where one does not currently exist.

This is a critical link in the off-street trail network and supports current council goals.

It's also outlined in the general plan, the Citywide Creek Master Plan, the 2020 Active Transportation Plan, and it was supported by constituents in the funding of project of this project and similar projects in the passing of Measure M funding.

Outside of the existing right-of-away, the project will touch two different parcels.

One parcel is owned by Sonoma Water, in which the city is currently negotiating with.

The second parcel is owned by Mr.

Jim Beale 408 Duncan Street, and this is the one that we are asking council to take consideration on for a resolution of necessity tonight.

The project or the property owned by Mr.

Beals improved with a house and a two-car garage.

These are not, these are on the west side of the project property and are not impacted by this project or this easement.

The total property size is about a third of an acre.

The easement needed is about 4,500 square feet, and then we will need also a temporary construction easement, which will be terminated at the end of the project.

What we'll talk about, Greg will talk about a little bit more in slides, upcoming slides, is that there is an existing PGE easement in the exact area of where the path, the easement that the city needs will go.

That easement, so the city will only need 363 square feet of additional easement area outside of that existing PG easement to construct this project.

And then I'm going to turn the next slide over to Greg.

Thank you, Jill.

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council members.

Once again, my name is Gregory Mariscal, a supervising engineer in Capital Projects Engineering, and I will be talking about the projects portion of the presentation.

So now let's get into the public interest and necessity.

So in 2004, Measure M was passed, including both sorry, passed that included funding for both uh paving projects as well as pedestrian and bicycle gap closure projects.

As part of that funding, three projects were identified along the Santa Rosa Creek Trail, and the first two have already been completed.

The third and final phase is this project that proposes an on and off ramp on the west side of North Dutton.

We have looked at alternatives, including an at grade crossing, but this was considered not feasible, and we will discuss later in the slides.

This would provide equitable ADA-compliant access for both pedestrians and bicyclists.

This would reduce traffic, encourage more users to utilize alternative forms of transportation, improve air quality, conserve energy, and promote health.

Lastly, I just want to point out the picture that's shown on the slide is showing the the current state of the path of the path on the west side and on Mr.

Beale's property, which is not ADA compliant or safe.

The pathway we are proposing would provide a safe ADA compliant ramp within an access easement.

So now next we're just gonna go to the project location, and again on the image on your slide, the yellow is representative of the existing PGE easement.

And then the area shown in blue is the additional area beyond the PGE easement needed to construct a safe ADA compliant ramp.

I do want to reiterate that the area of this blue shade is only 363 square feet.

I also want to point out within the yellow shaded area is an existing P<unk>E transmission tower.

So this is not your typical PGE power pole.

This is a very large uh transmission tower that's already on the southeast corner of this property.

Uh in terms of alternatives, uh, we did review uh two of them, and the first one was an at grade crossing from the existing on and off ramp on the east side of North Dutton.

So if you look on the slide, the image is basically showing a picture of where you would come off the existing on and off ramp.

Uh but due to the curvature of the road and the vertical elevation change, our traffic department confirmed that this was not feasible due to safety concerns.

Uh, and then if we go back a slide, the other alternative was just between North Dutton and the existing PGE power pole, but because of this small amount of space, we were not able to make that uh work, and so that was also deemed infeasible.

Uh so now I'm just gonna turn it back over to Jill.

Okay, so at the start of 2025, the city fire the city notified the property owner of the decision to appraise the easements for the project.

Um they met with the property owners on site to discuss the project, and the survey team staked the easements for the property owner.

Um the property owner also met with the appraiser on site.

An offer was made to the property owner in early April of the year on the basis of the appraisal, and then staff met in person to discuss the offer as well.

For the last 10 months, the parties have not been able to come to an agreement on the price and the terms of the easement.

So there's been a lot of contact and negotiation.

This slide shows a bit of a timeline of the main communications between the party.

As part of the process, the property owner was given the opportunity to seek their own appraisal, which every property owner is, it's a council policy.

We pay up to five thousand dollars for them to seek their own appraisal.

Once they have their own appraisal, they can bring it back to the city, and we can negotiate between the two appraisals to come to a uh mutual agreement.

Um this property owner has uh not chosen to, although he's been encouraged, has not chosen to seek his own appraisal at the city's expense.

And so this is one of the main reasons why we're here tonight asking for a resolution of necessity, hoping that we can move forward, um, encourage the Mr.

Beale to get his own appraisal at the city's expense and be able to negotiate a price that works for both parties, and of course, not delay the project.

Um so with that, the recommendation is the Transportation and Public Works Department recommends that council conduct a public hearing, adopt a resolution of necessity by a two-thirds vote, declaring the necessity of acquisition by eminent domain of an easement interest and a temporary construction easement interest in portions of real property described as APN 010495010 for the Santa Rosa Creek Trail Access at North Dutton Avenue project.

And uh Greg and I and Autumn are here to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for that presentation.

Uh I believe the next my next part here is to ask the city clerk to note all written objections and requests to be heard that have been received.

Mayor, at the uh time the hearing uh and through the meeting today through 5 p.m.

There were no written objections objections received by the city clerk's office.

Thank you very much.

At this time, we would invite any people with an interest in the property who wish to be heard to come forward.

And by come forward, we mean uh approach the uh the podiums in the back.

We will officially open the public hearing.

Again, if there are any members of the public who wish to speak on this item, please approach one of the podiums.

Janice, you can speak whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Janice Corman here.

Um, I have an easement that goes totally alongside the size of my side of my house.

And um it is underground, but but it's still an easement.

There's things you can't do around it or on top of it, but um, but anyway, I'm sorry the applicant hasn't shown up tonight to speak a little bit more about whatever they're holding back on.

But I'm also I know you can't talk about the valuation, but I wonder if the city can't offer like 10% more or something to them that would mitigate this situation because it sounds like they were really notified and they participated, and now it's in a challenging situation.

And um it it looks like it should be okay, and the fact that they're not here, it feels like this sort of uh consented or something.

I I don't know.

I don't understand why they didn't show up if they've been noticed.

But uh that's all I'm gonna say.

I I just um I think that this is a challenge and it shouldn't have had to come this far again.

Thank you, Janice.

Would any other members of the public like to speak?

Seeing none, we're gonna close the public hearing and open the matter for discussion and any questions from council.

Does council have any questions?

Seeing none, uh, one clarification from from me.

Uh Madam City Attorney and the Vice Mayor was why I'm glad he raised this.

Do we need to make any ex parte um uh statements here or talk about any or reveal any ex parte discussions?

You do not.

All right, thank you.

Uh I don't know that we have any, but it was a good clarification from the vice mayor.

Uh seeing no questions, and I'm gonna turn this over to.

Hold on, flipping through a lot of pages tonight.

Uh Mr.

Okrepke for a motion.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I move to adopt the resolution of necessity as presented on item 16.4.

We have a motion and we have a second by Ms.

Rogers.

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

Thank you, Councilmember Rogers.

Aye.

Councilmember OK.

Aye.

Councilmember McDonald.

Aye.

Councilmember Fleming.

Councilmember Ben Wells has recused.

Vice Mayor Alvarez.

Aye.

Mayor stop.

Yes.

Let the record show this passes with six affirmative votes.

Thank you.

Alright, we still have Ms.

McDonald with us in poor in all albeit in poor health.

For that reason, we are going to go ahead to item 18.1, our election of vice mayor.

Um tune in, Santa Rosa.

Our mayor and vice mayor votes are the are the talk of the town typically.

So I'm gonna look to my I'm gonna look to my colleagues for a motion.

Uh Vice Mayor.

Thank you, Mayor.

I'd like to make a motion to appoint a council member gentlemen as our next vice mayor.

All right.

Ms.

Mr.

Mayor, we have to get carefully.

There is a quick there is a quick presentation.

Your rules have changed.

I'll be really fast.

Um that we were gonna go through for you.

So excellent.

We're gonna we're gonna do more rules review.

And we got to get and we have to get Miss Ben Wellos back.

Okay, we launched right into it.

Ms.

Ms.

Ben Whalis, apologies.

Come on down.

My apologies.

I didn't realize we were gonna and this was fresh in our minds.

I didn't think we're gonna go through it all again, but by all means, we're gonna we're gonna be really fast.

Teresa Stricker, city attorney.

Um it is time for you to elect a new vice mayor.

Um as you all know, the charter um and your rules require you to elect a new vice mayor um every year.

Your mayor is every two years, so in the year when you're not voting for mayor, we uh bring this item forward in November.

Um the process is governed by council manual uh I'm sorry, the manual of procedures and protocols, and as you all know, you recently adjusted and amended these rules that apply to both the mayor and the vice mayor.

Okay, real quickly, we're gonna go through um you all know what the mayor does, uh the vice mayor does.

So we're gonna um just move forward with the updated rules.

Um the mayor or the presiding office officer calls for nominations as you just saw.

The nominations, all nominations require a second, and the nominee uh also has to accept each council member may nominate or may second the nomination of only one council member, but may not both nominate and second a nomination.

Uh the result of that rule is the most you can have mathematically will be um up to three candidates.

Um, no council member may nominate themselves, but they may second a nomination for themselves.

Um if a nomination is not valid because it has no second or no acceptance by the nominee, the nominator or the seconder may make or second a new motion.

In other words, if you tried and failed, it doesn't count against you.

Um, once all nominations are called, the presiding officer closes nominations.

So in the world in which you have only one valid nominee, uh then the presiding officer declares that person to be elected vice mayor by unanimous consent.

If you have two or three nominees, as we said before, your new rules can um result in up to three, then you go through a process of elimination by written ballot, where each council member uh is to vote for one valid nominee.

Any ballot cast for someone other than a person who is a valid nominee is that that ballot is invalidated.

In other words, your vote doesn't count.

Um any ballot with votes for more than one person will also be invalidated.

Once the ballots are all in, um and in the case of council member McDonald, because she's participating remotely, she will be emailing her vote to the clerk with a copy to me, the city attorney.

Um so once we receive all of those, your clerk will be reading out loud the ballots cast by each of you.

So she will state your name and what your vote was for each of you.

If a nominee receives four or more votes, then the presiding officer declares that individual to be elected.

If none of the nominees get a majority or four or more votes, then we go through an elimination and a revote process.

Um in that process, any nominees receiving zero votes are eliminated, unless that would result in only one remaining nominee.

We don't want that because that person wouldn't have gotten a majority.

If no nominees receive zero votes, then the nominees receiving one vote are eliminated unless doing so would result in only one nominee remaining.

If any nominee is eliminated, then there is a revote by ballot with council member McDonald emailing in her vote to the clerk and to me.

Uh to um there would be a revote and we would repeat the process again.

So you do now have two new rules uh which are to help you if you get stuck.

Um one is a runoff vote.

So if you end up with a 3-2-2 situation, a 3-1-1 situation or a 2-1-1 situation, then we would have a runoff vote by ballot again, that same process with council member McDonald voting uh casting her vote by email to the clerk and to me.

Um that runoff vote would eliminate one of the low um vote getters.

We then would be left with two vote getters and we would vote again.

So again, you would just go through that successive cycle.

Following elimination of one nominee by the runoff, you would now be down to two and could vote.

So there's one more rule I'm gonna go through, and this is sort of the catch-all rule.

If you essentially, if you get stuck and there is no other rule to get you unstuck, then uh you have two options.

This situation would come up if, for example, um we uh had an absence or someone at the dais who uh abstained.

Uh, if you had a three-three vote, a two-two vote, or a two-two-two vote, or some other circumstance that we haven't thought of that would uh leave you stuck with no other rule developed to get unstuck.

Then your options are to discuss the matter.

So at that point, council should discuss and consider taking one of two options.

Either revote by written ballot, again with council member McDonald voting by email, or decide by motion to select the vice mayor from the remaining nominees by random selection, and you have adopted uh drawing names from a hat or other type of container, and I believe our hat is in the chambers.

So that's a quick overview of the new rules.

Uh if there are any questions, I'm happy to entertain them and then otherwise you can proceed.

Question.

In this case, council member McDonald would have to email you her votes.

If she's participating via Zoom, would it not be more efficient for her to be able to state her vote via Zoom?

Or are there legalities that that require her to email?

Your rule requires voting by ballot.

Um, and the reason for that is so that all of the votes are cast without understanding what others votes are.

So the reason we are having Councilmember McDonald email her is that that is the closest substitute.

We are reading um all of the ballots out loud for transparency purposes.

Obviously, if there um, you know, council member McDonald will be able to tell us if we got her vote wrong based on her email.

And so that is the uh best substitute for the situation we're in that still allows us to comply with Brown Act requirements in a way that also meets your requirement and the rule you have where you really want to have all of the votes cast before any person says out loud what their vote is.

Thank you for the clarification.

Thank you.

Thank you for that that summary and uh thank you to our city clerk for bringing the uh the famous hat.

So we're back to we're back to where we began.

Uh I will call for a motion.

Vice mayor, you want to repeat your motion?

Yes, I would like to invite my colleagues to uh support my nomination uh or my motion to nominate Jeff Okrebke.

Councilman Jeff Okrepki is our next Vice Mayor.

Second.

Alright, we have a motion, a second.

Are there any other motions on the floor?

I'll accept.

I let me I should repeat the question.

Are you are you are you willing to serve, Mr.

Okrepke?

Okay, thank you.

Um are there are there any additional motions?

Seeing none, um, do I recall that our rule states that if there's if there's only a single motion, then it's uh we can record by unanimous consent that that motion or that an individual?

That is correct.

The presiding officer is to declare the nominee, the sole nominee to be uh elected by unanimous consent.

Congratulations.

Mayor, do we want to take public comment?

Uh we do.

Uh all right.

Would any members of the public like to speak on this item?

Mayor, you will need to um reopen um we in and essentially redo the uh nominee process because there are some individuals who by virtue of nominating are precluded from nominating someone else.

So we should have taken public comment first.

Let's do that and then we can redo your nomination.

I've lost track of the order.

All right, Janice, go ahead.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I want to say unanimously uh agree that uh Jeff Okremke should be the new uh vice mayor.

I recommended him for the coastal board.

I was a novice.

I didn't really know what I was doing, and I didn't let him know until after.

I also recommended Natalie at the same time.

But it's okay when you recommend people to Mike McGuire and Mike Thompson.

And uh I just think that it's really exciting.

If Jeff uh comes to this, he belongs to a number of the boards, and he usually asks good questions, and he's just a real support.

And I hope he is our new vice mayor.

Thank you.

Thank you, Janice.

Would any other members of the public like to speak?

All right.

Well, close public comment.

Um and Madame City Attorney, so do we want to redo the nominations for a third time?

Well, it was so much fun the first two times.

Are we really is it?

So we can what we can do is we can ask the nominator and the seconder if they um still want to keep their nomination of council member O'Krepke.

I would like to make the motion again.

Okay.

I would like to make a motion that our council member Jeff O'Crepki become our next vice mayor.

Second.

Please tell us that.

All right.

Well, I'm glad we are even even in this process.

I'm glad we were able to add some drama.

That is what the city of Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa brings.

Um, all right.

So before we officially uh what is it swear in?

Welcome.

Uh I want to I want to thank Vice Mayor Alvarez for this year.

Um Vice Mayor Alvarez Alvarez is um often a quiet voice on council, though I'm sure um many of you have heard some of the the pertinent questions he's asked, but especially behind the scenes in our in our closed sessions um in one-on-one conversations, he brings a lot of depth to some key issues.

And it's he's been um he has always been very helpful to council, but especially in the role of vice mayor, some of the leadership, some of the leadership roles you've taken.

Um again, often quietly behind the scenes have been hugely influential in some of the issues that we we've taken on.

Um and then again, as we saw last, I mean, as always, since you came on to councils, we saw last week, um, with the Hearn Avenue project, the leadership role you've taken there in Roseland, particularly around the issue of infrastructure, which we addressed tonight.

Um, that's made a huge impact on not just Rosalind, but the whole city.

So thank you.

Thank you for your um for what you do for council and what you do for uh Rosalind in the city.

Uh mayor, it's been an absolute pleasure to be working with you and along with council.

As a team, we've been able to move these efforts, these projects forward.

Uh, city manager, you've been absolutely imperative in making it happen.

And I want to thank you as well for for district one having a voice and only being sitting at the table, but we get to enjoy the pumpkin pie as well.

So I thank you for for giving my community voice for my colleagues to support the project set.

I have improve the quality of life of District One South Park Roseland.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Mayor Meredith.

And we can welcome uh Mr.

Krepke.

Do we do we switch?

I think we switch, right?

I don't know, yeah.

Come on over.

Yeah.

Might as well drag this process on as long as we can.

All right, and with that, we are gonna go back now.

We're gonna go back to item 15.1.

Am I forgetting anything else?

This has been uh been in quite a day here at council.

All right.

Item 15.1, our first report on the approval of of a rate increase of 3.7% for residents of the county of Santa Rosa.

You utilize Recology Santa Rosa, um Recology Sonoma Marin, effective January 1st, 2026.

Mr.

Hennessey, are you back on tap?

Yes, thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

I have an extensive presentation for you tonight about the uh potential Recology increase.

All right.

Um so the contract that we negotiated with Recology a couple years ago was on an annual basis, but for multi uh multiple years.

Um what that allowed us to do was to keep prices for customers as low as possible in year one while also allowing Recology to account for inflation over time.

Um per that contract, they are allowed to uh increase the rate annually by a uh inflation adjusted index, so that's 3.7 percent.

Um alternatively, we could have asked them for a duration over the full period of time, which would have led to customers paying a higher rate in the early years and also them guessing about what their costs would be later.

So this kept the prices as low as it could uh initially and then also gave them the ability to account for actual inflation over time while uh giving us some accountability for them.

So um the rate is set to be increased by 3.7 percent.

That accounts to about a dollar a month for most residential customers.

Um, most people get billed in three month increments, so it'll be between three and four dollars a month.

Um, this is allowed per their contracts, so without this rate approval, we would have to go back to Recology and figure out something to do come January first.

But um this rate increase would be effective January 1st um and do need to bring it to you for approval.

So that recommendation is that we as TPW recommend that the council approve this rate increase uh for City of Santa Rosa customers of Recology Sonoma were in effective January 1st, 2026.

One last item.

This is the last year of our current contract and the ability to extend it.

So we will be rebidding the contract next year.

You will hear from us again next October, November, December, um, what we will bring forward a new contract at that time.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Not a wasted word.

Thank you so much.

All right, looking to council for any questions.

Let's open it up for public comment.

Would any members of the public like to comment on this item?

Seeing none, we'll close public comment and I'll bring it back to Ms.

Ben Wellows for a motion.

Any final discussion.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, let's see.

Let's I move a motion to approve a 3.7% rate increase for the city of Santa Rosa Customers of Ecology, Sonoma Marin, effective January 1st, 2026.

A motion and a second by Miss Rogers.

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

Councilmember Rogers.

Aye.

Councilmember McDonald.

It appears Councilmember McDonald has left the meeting.

Councilmember Fleming?

Councilmember Banwellos?

Yes.

Councilmember Alvarez.

Aye.

Mayor Stapp.

Yes.

Let the record show this passes the six affirmative votes.

Dan, thank you again very much for double duty tonight.

Much obliged.

We'll move on to item 15.2, our report on the fleet electrification master plan.

And Peter, you and Madison are on top.

All right.

Uh thank you for allowing us to round out your agenda.

Good evening, uh Mayor Stapp and members of the council.

Peter Martin, Deputy Director, Water Resources.

Uh to my left, your right is Brent Johnson, Vice President Clean Energy for NV5.

Um this uh project represents about two years of work as part of your council work plan.

Um I just wanted to note uh that while the water department was the project lead, um, there was some heavy lifting from uh transportation public works planning economic development as well as finance.

Also, we received substantial uh guidance and review by the climate action subcommittee as well as the Board of Public Utilities.

And also, of course, uh, should mention uh we did receive uh some financial assistance in the form of a block grant from the energy assistance or sorry, energy efficiency and conservation block block pro program from the Department of Energy.

So really I just wanted to uh quickly highlight uh the project background and the goals that we set out uh and undertook as part of this project.

Uh really we were faced in 2023 with the adoption of the advanced clean fleets rule by the California Air Resources Board, which requires uh local government fleets like ours to convert to uh zero emission uh vehicles by 2040.

Um so in order to grab a bigger picture of what that looks like over the timeline of compliance, we decided to pursue this project.

Um really what it does provide you uh the council and the city is uh with the strategy for continuity of fleet operations and city services in light of these requirements.

Uh we also took an opportunity to evaluate EV charging operations during a grid outage.

Uh and also as part of the project, we looked at uh policy recommendations to provide expanded EV charger access uh throughout uh the public right-of-way.

This graphic here is a snapshot of your existing fleet uh that was evaluated as part of this project.

Uh in total, we have about 383 uh vehicles in our operational fleet, with about 45 percent of those vehicles uh being in water, of course.

Uh and notably uh the medium duty and heavy duty vehicles uh in the orange and green uh notations uh are subject to this rule.

Um, and I I did want to point out that uh public safety vehicles and the transit fleet were not evaluated as part of the study.

Uh that being the fact that the public safety vehicles are exempt from the regulation, and transit has their own set of regulations for a zero emission fleet.

Uh with that, I am going to hand it over to Brent to carry out the remainder of the presentation.

So we started off our study by uh looking at the uh replacement of individual vehicles at the end of their service life and doing that in compliance with the carb rules.

So the carb rules, as currently stated, are by the end of this year and next year is a 50% purchase rule of EVs.

So all new purchases, 50% are supposed to be zero emission.

From 2027 onwards, 100% purchases are supposed to be EVs.

CARB has recently given guidance that they are going to ease that a bit and push that out to 2030 when the 100% rule is going to start.

So when we looked at replacement vehicles, we looked at both the feasibility and suitability of the vehicles in the market to actually replace vehicles in the city's fleet.

That included looking at, you know, could it drive as far as your current vehicles do, and can the vehicle do what provide the service that the current vehicle is doing.

So towing, uh carrying heavy loads, et cetera.

We also capped the total spend for fleet at 10 million annually, and that pushed out some of the purchases on vehicles.

Another big part of the study was looking at the cost out in the market.

This is the big challenge here.

These vehicles are more expensive, particularly as we get into the heavier vehicle classes.

In some cases, two and a half times as expensive as the internal combustion engine equivalent.

Those curves on the screen show what we expect the market to do over time.

So a lot of those big expensive purchases we push out into the future as much as we can in the model.

So the diagram on the right there is a Sankey diagram showing your total fleet.

And what we're seeing there is a little less than half the fleet is not subject to ACF.

Those are your light duty vehicles, like your sedans and your SUVs.

The bottom part of that Sankey diagram, about 202 vehicles are subject to these rules.

And of those vehicles, about 12 are exempted under CARB's rules.

One big challenge with the CARB rules is carb identifying vehicles in the market that they say are suitable as replacements, but when you dig in, they really don't do what the city needs them to do.

An example here is an F 350 pickup truck, very common vehicle in the city's fleet.

Carb says that that can be replaced with the vehicle in the green, which would be upfitted with some sort of service body, but it is not set up to tow, it can't carry the loads, that the other that an F 350 could, and it's not four-wheel drive.

So there are some real challenges with the Carb rules.

CARB is addressing those right now and granting some additional exemptions, and uh we expect those to be finalized in 2026.

This chart shows your near-term compliance with ACF.

So that first line, the 50% and 100%, shows what the current rule is.

The next line down shows what CARB has said they are going to do to ease those rules.

So we're gonna see a 50% purchase requirement out through 2029.

After that, it's going to be a hundred percent purchase rule.

The next line down is what the model is showing the city's compliance with ACF rules.

As you can see this year, next year, there's going to be some challenge complying with carb.

That has to do with the availability of vehicles in the market and the cost of those vehicles.

But by 2027, we're showing the city catching up, and you can actually bank credits.

So in 2028, you'd be banking some credits, use them in 2029.

And by 2030, we anticipate there would be compliance based on the vehicles being available in the market and the city's purchase schedule.

This chart shows the conversion of the city's fleet over time that we uh developed in this transition plan.

So by 2040, we are showing 100% zero emission fleet.

These charts show how your fuel consumption and fuel costs would change over time.

The black line shows the business as usual case, and the colored bars show what would happen under the conversion scenario that we modeled.

So big take homes here are that your fuel consumption goes down considerably because EVs use energy more efficiently.

So we're looking at fuel equivalents with electricity, diesel, and gasoline.

So you're using about 63% less energy by 2040, and your fuel costs go down as well because of that efficiency.

Even though we have expensive electricity, it's made up for by the efficiency of the vehicles.

We're jumping ahead and got a little out of out of order here.

But this is the chargers, the EV chargers that we modeled would need to be developed on city sites to support the electrification of the vehicles.

So those three bars show three phases of development over the next decade.

The colors represent the power levels of the chargers that would be installed, and that little graphic there is just one of the concepts that we came up with at the MSC North.

So the orange parking stalls would be the higher power level three charging, those support the heavy duty fleet, the green and yellow or lower power, cheaper chargers for the lighter duty vehicles.

So this is the big conclusion side slide from the study.

This is expensive, both uh the installation of the infrastructure to charge this electrified fleet and the vehicles themselves.

We calculated it would net out to about a nominal increase of 38 million in the city's budget for the fleet over the next 15 years.

That is inclusive of some operational savings from running EVs as well.

One thing to note is that we did include one incentive, which was the PGE EV fleet program that helps you develop infrastructure and pays for some of that infrastructure, which the city is actively pursuing.

However, we did not include a number of other incentives, which could help bring the cost of this down just because they are not secured and they're not certain.

However, that is a key recommendation is to aggressively pursue incentives both for infrastructure and vehicles, and the state does have incentives available.

So second part of this study was to look at resiliency.

This is obviously a concern running an electrified fleet.

And the study focused on six, let's call them resiliency hubs where you could go and charge the city's fleet.

These are the major sites within the city where the fleets are housed.

And we looked at two configurations for backup power.

One of them was a gen set only, so a diesel or natural gas generator to provide power during an outage.

The second is what we looked at solar plus stationary batteries, but also with a generator to handle long-duration outages.

And we worked with the different departments to understand how the vehicles would be used during an emergency.

So the first one that we looked at was a single-day outage.

The second one was a much longer duration, seven-day outage, and we took the actual expected use of the vehicles, which vehicles would be expected to use be operated under those scenarios, and determined the charging needs that helped us size the backup power for each of these sites.

Then we assessed the cost of doing that.

So this table that you're looking at shows that the generator only option is really the most economical option.

Because when we do a solar battery microgrid, it gets quite costly quickly.

And while there are greenhouse gas savings from doing that, it is a significant capital cost to implement that sort of microgrid on these sites.

The third part of the study was a um policy study, and this was looking uh working with the planning and economic development department to look at ways to encourage development of EV chargers for the public in the public right-of-way.

And this is in response to the development that's going on in the city and the expected increase in EV drivers and folks without dedicated places to park vehicles and charge overnight.

It's also part of the general plan and the greenhouse gas reduction strategy for the city to encourage EV adoption.

So as part of the study, we spoke to some EV charging companies that are installing chargers like you see there, which is like a curbside charger that a driver would come and use their own card uh cord to plug in overnight.

We spoke with internal departments within the city, and we also spoke with a few other cities that are doing these pilot programs to understand what they're up to.

That was the city of San Francisco and City of Alameda.

So two main recommendations, I guess this one has three.

And as part of that, you would look into priority locations to serve those communities that are potentially in charging deserts within the city.

The second is to look at ways to streamline the permitting process for these private entities to develop these chargers at the curb sides.

So just to conclude here, there were I'm just gonna summarize some of the main uh findings of the fleet electrification uh study here.

Um, really, I think the take-home message is is that uh the cost for fleet electrification is 38 million, and that's generally just over business as usual, right?

So that's the added cost associated with the conversion to a zero emission fleet as well as the charging infrastructure.

Uh, I believe uh the study shows that the purchase of vehicles is about 75% of that.

The remainder is for the charging.

Um near-term compliance with the advanced clean fleets rule is difficult, really, due to the market not yet reaching maturation, of course, right?

Uh so we are looking at an adaptive strategy to deal with that.

Uh, the city should pursue all exemptions allowable under the advanced clean fleets rule uh and really update the fleet electrification plan to match these amendments we know are coming from the California Air Resources Board.

Uh and the city should look at standardizing a charge management platform and EV charger for efficiency purposes across uh all the different uh facilities.

And of course, uh City Fleet uh should leverage the fact that the EV bus uh city bus EV chargers are being built first.

Uh those may be an opportunity for us to utilize those chargers uh when they are available uh until we can build up the capacity at other facilities.

And then as you can imagine, conventionally fueled internal bus combustion generators are currently the most cost-effective option uh to provide EV charging in the case of an extended power outage.

Uh but there are some, you know, greenhouse gas advantages to looking at other opportunities there as well.

Um, and so in the meantime, the city should continue to explore detail feasibility, uh, regulatory requirements and costs of installing generators at EV charging depots.

So all that is to say uh this uh plan is meant to really be adaptive and uh think smart.

Uh acknowledge that we have this regulation before us uh and uh utilize as many opportunities for outside funding and leveraging uh any opportunities for um you know uh excuse me um uh you know basically vehicles being exempt.

So with that, uh it is recommended by the Board of Public Utilities, uh Santa Rosa Water and the Transportation and public works department that council uh by motion review and accept the fleet electrification master plan uh and with that i and uh brent are available to answer any questions you may have thank you very much yeah i a uh a complicated report this is a i quickly landscape looking to counsel for questions mr repke thank you mr mayor um first i just want to say thank you for this presentation fully in support of all of the plans that we have put together with this my concern is how flexible are we with um electrification and what's going on at the federal level where we started this process with um an administration that was sympathetic and now one that maybe considered the antithesis of that I'll try to answer that and then look to Brent maybe to to close it out and with his thoughts as well he's uh obviously much more averse than the the market but um you know one of the biggest issues is the loss of the um ITC uh tax credits that were for vehicles of course that was looked at as an opportunity to create some equivalency uh between the purchase of vehicles um and their uh equivalents uh internal combustion engine requivalence um you know I think too you're looking at uh the possibility that uh the investment by the federal government that probably uh was going to exist in building up the capacity for American made uh EV vehicles is probably not going to occur at the same uh level we anticipated um but otherwise uh you know I think um it it put it obviously resulted in pushing some things out I think uh the Air Resources Board has responded to that scenario right now um by pushing out uh some of the requirements and I think uh the landscape is continuing to evolve uh given that uh there's still a lot of maturity that needs to occur in the um EV marketplace thank you other oh Brent I guess I would just add the the state is still pretty full speed ahead on this and there was an executive order from the governor in July for carb to uh double down on incentives uh for the vehicles and also look for ways around uh the clean air act to continue to enforce this in the state so if they find that that will continue to drive the market right now the market is really on the shoulders of public agencies to do this and it you know it's a much smaller market for these vehicles so it does it has a slowing effect so um we're really looking to the state levels right now nationally um for leadership on this yeah and if I may mayor um I don't I see fleet uh in the audience I don't know stop it Zach I don't know if they want to comment on some of the challenges they're seeing to uh vice mayor's question uh if they want to add anything to that uh question see what happens when you show up learning experience there we go thanks for having me um I miss the power when told you were asking a question yeah my question quite simply is how nimble and flexible are we on this plan considering that there's instability at various levels of support from with uh it within the federal government I I think as uh Brent and Peter put it, um, we're stuck it it's kind of a hard thing as as it sits right now.

The latest regulation puts the entire load on state and local agencies.

Um, we've already seen Chevrolet, Ford, other major manufacturers pull out of the EV market, they're just stopping production.

A lot of the other companies that are living on producing these uh vehicles that were originally mandated are already pulling out or they're being taken off of the uh carb list of available vehicles.

If you look at their list of available options, there are a bunch of them are being snapped up, so the choices just aren't there.

And um, as much of you have seen, I'm gonna use the word ProTerra.

We have four of those sitting behind our shop now, startup company doing electric buses that are not supported by the manufacturer today, and that's that's what the outlook is.

Okay, let's take the other side of the coins.

So should things shift, how quickly can we catch up with that?

I think a lot of it uh, well, a big piece of it is economic, right?

So if the market catches up and we see the EV vehicles getting more at cost parity, um, then you can catch up where those vehicles exist in the market, which I think you would agree is probably in the light duty, right?

Your Ford Lightnings of the world are the ones that um can slot in and and you're closer in cost parity.

Um, you know, if if the uh rules and and we get a more favorable federal government in place, uh the market's still gonna lag.

So I think we're gonna struggle for a while until those vehicles are out in the market.

The market's not stopping, right?

There is development happening, vehicles are being sold, but it it really is a big headwind from all these changes.

So I think the market is not gonna respond immediately, and I don't think the city would respond immediately either.

Ms.

Penwheels.

Thank you, Mayor.

Just to kind of to follow up with that, and thank you so much for the report.

It's a wonderful report.

Um I know we've talked about this in the climate subcommittee, um, and I'm I I think this is great.

Um, and I know that um there we talked about how just what you were saying about the market catching up, especially with the larger vehicles, the SUVs and the the bit bigger vehicles that you need to perform your uh your work.

Um so I'm just wondering um to adopt this plan, would we be able to um adjust our goals uh depending on what happens with the state and what happens with the federal government, but also the uh you know what is actually being built and what isn't being built, you know.

Will it leave leave us some flexibility, I guess, is what I'm wondering.

Yeah, that's a great question.

Council Member Bam Wellos.

Um, you know, the recommendation by the consultant is to revisit this often.

Um, you know, what you see there with that that bar chart is you know, one scenario, but to achieve compliance, but um, you know, staff are gonna have to work with our fleet division, um, take a look at what vehicles are available.

Um again, if if you know a EV equivalent doesn't perform the way then that the operational fleet needs it to, we're not in a place where we'd want to replace that vehicle.

So um it will require a lot of coordination amongst the departments to uh look at what's available and see if we can, you know, because we're at some point we are reporting to the state on this regulation.

We we are already actually um, and so you know, to achieve that that balance of compliance, uh it's gonna take coordination amongst departments, and yeah, obviously continual adaptation on you know what what the market bears.

Uh and I guess just a quick question for me, which is indicative of how uncertain the EV market is.

I mean, leaving aside commercial vehicles, even the right even the um uh the personal vehicle market is a mess right now with you know uh models being pulled back and charging standards not being as unified as they once were.

So now you see the you saw you see the major manufacturers moving away from the CCS standard to go to the NACS standard.

Um I'm I'm delighted to see that we've got a plan to have more chargers in the city.

That's good.

Even at the level of the uh personal vehicle chargers, how do we decide what what charging standard to use when we're when we're purchasing those that are purchasing that equipment?

That is a challenge.

I would say at the moment, um we're doing a mix of uh charger wands.

We're sticking most of the installs we're doing right now that are not associated with Tesla.

Um I would say are are more than three quarters the existing standard, the J1772 CCS standard.

Uh however, we when we're vetting equipment, we're looking at the ability to easily change a cable out on that equipment, and that is in the world of developing all this infrastructure relatively low cost.

So uh we're starting out primarily with the current standard with a plan that you will eventually transition over time.

The medium and heavy duty space has not signaled that uh shift to that the Tesla style plug as much as the passenger vehicle uh world has.

So I think we're gonna see a mix of those plugs for for a while.

And adapters are also another solution.

Well, thank you for highlighting the uh the challenges in this space, and thank you for a little bit of insight into the planning.

Um it's much appreciated.

Any other questions from council?

All right, we'll open this up to public comment.

Would any members of the public like to comment on this item?

Janice, go ahead.

Janice Carmen here.

Um thank you for the presentation, and I just see it as really ambitious to take it out to uh 2040.

Um, but I'm I'm glad to see it, and I hope it happens.

But um a concern for me are the generators, because the generators are polluting, and to have to rely on the generators for the charging, and the other thing is the security around charging.

If people leave their cars out in the street, I don't know, I just have really big concerns about that.

Cars or trucks or whatever they are, and the average uh personal vehicle right now is fifty thousand dollars, and so that um electrical car um incentives going away is really hurting us because California was doing so well.

So um I'd like to see the technology uh increase uh in the right direction so that it's equivalent with the EV car because if you have the EV car and it's saving you all that pollution and um, you know, problem uh, and then you have the generators that are creating it and offsetting it, no matter what the percentage is, it's still there.

So um that so just the generators and the security are something that I think about.

Thank you.

Thank you, Janice.

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

We will close public comment then, and I will bring it back to Ms.

Fleming for a motion, any final discussion.

Thank you for your efforts on this and our fleet electrification, um, both for our city goals around um emissions as well as around noise.

I think this is something that people don't also think of, but I you know the sound of those of those vehicles is just really rough.

So I look forward to a future where we get there and thank you to your efforts on our our way.

And with that, um, I'll recommend that the council by motion um accept the final draft fleet electrification master plan.

So, we have a motion and a second by Mr.

Alvarez.

Madam City Clerk, you can call the vote whenever.

Thank you, Councilmember Rogers.

Aye.

Councilmember or Vice Mayor O'Krepke.

Aye.

Council Member McDonald is absent.

Councilmember Fleming?

Yes.

Council Member Ben Willows?

Yes.

Councilmember Alvarez?

Aye.

Mayor Stapp.

Yes.

Let the record show this passes a six affirmative votes.

Thank you very much.

Uh, and gentlemen, thank you very much for that report.

We will jump ahead then to our final comment on non-agenda matters, unless I'm unless I'm forgetting something.

We're on item 19.

Are there any members of the public who would like to comment on members not on the agenda on matters not on the agenda?

Seeing none, we are officially adjourned.

Thank you, everyone.