[0:01] >> We are going to go ahead and

[0:02] call this meeting to order.

[0:04] And so if we could start

[0:05] with a roll call

[0:07] of folks present.

[0:09] [ CALLING ROLL ]

[0:32] >> And with that we are going

[0:33] to start

[0:35] with our closed session agenda.

[0:37] And I would note that although

[0:39] the 9:35 flood item has been

[0:43] noticed at time certain it will

[0:44] not be heard

[0:46] until probably 10:05. Just so

[0:48] that everyone knows,

[0:49] because we're going

[0:50] to be adjourning into closed

[0:51] session and we'll reconvene

[0:52] from closed session at 10am so

[0:54] with that I would like

[0:55] to ask if any members

[0:57] of the public wish to speak on

[0:58] the closed session calendar. I

[1:00] would like to Note that Item 7

[1:02] was withdrawn by addendum.

[1:04] Item 8 was withdrawn

[1:05] by addendum and Item 9A was

[1:08] added by addendum. So we will

[1:09] be receiving comments on 1

[1:11] through 6. 9 and 9A. Welcome,

[1:12] Duane.

[1:14] >> Good morning and good New

[1:15] Year to you. My name is Duane

[1:16] DeWitt. I'm from Roseland. On

[1:17] item number one and number two,

[1:18] each says there's a proposed

[1:21] acquisition. It doesn't state

[1:23] whether that's just for rental

[1:25] or purchase. I think you should

[1:26] let us know. And what I'm

[1:29] really concerned about is how

[1:31] Airportville is growing. It's

[1:33] essentially a unincorporated

[1:36] area that's growing as big as a

[1:39] town. There's lots of building

[1:41] that's gone up there. There's

[1:43] lots of traffic on the roads

[1:45] now. I would propose that you

[1:47] folks look into the idea of

[1:48] getting some housing up there.

[1:51] Specifically, there are veteran

[1:53] vouchers. They're called HUD

[1:55] Housing Urban Development,

[1:57] Veterans Affairs Supportive

[2:00] Housing for the homeless.

[2:02] There's over 90

[2:03] of them available right now

[2:04] in the county of Sonoma. And

[2:06] it's basically overseen

[2:07] by the city of Santa Rosa.

[2:09] This morning I'll go from here

[2:11] to Vet Connect over at the

[2:13] Vets Memorial Building and

[2:14] double check

[2:16] on the number that's available.

[2:17] The dilemma is getting people

[2:18] to actually work together from

[2:20] the various governmental

[2:21] agencies, the federal

[2:22] government, which issues the

[2:24] vouchers, the city of Santa

[2:26] Rosa, which oversees them,

[2:28] and the county of Sonoma, which

[2:30] can actually show where some

[2:31] new housing could be built

[2:33] perhaps. If you will remember,

[2:35] Windsor used a number

[2:37] of veterans vouchers

[2:38] to build a new housing complex

[2:40] for veterans there. So I hope

[2:42] the city. Excuse me,

[2:47] I'm already calling Airport

[2:48] Villa a city. How silly

[2:51] of me. It's an unincorporated

[2:52] area. You folks could be the

[2:53] ones to take the lead on

[2:55] to get some housing up there.

[2:56] Even if it's just 10 or 12

[2:57] housing units,

[2:59] it really helps. Right now,

[3:00] even though Caritas has been

[3:02] built and Catholic Charities is

[3:04] helping to have homeless here

[3:06] in Santa Rosa, there's still

[3:08] dozens of people out here

[3:10] on the streets

[3:11] on these cold nights, sleeping

[3:12] under the underpasses and just

[3:14] in general not having a

[3:16] comfortable life. I would not

[3:17] like to see any veteran be in

[3:19] that situation. I wish you a

[3:20] good new year. I'll be back

[3:22] for the next meeting and

[3:25] for public comment later

[3:26] in the day.

[3:27] >> Thank you so much, Duane.

[3:29] >> My pleasure. You're not

[3:31] getting up, are you?

[3:32] >> I think we're the same

[3:33] height. Yeah.

[3:34] >> Good morning.

[3:35] >> Good morning, members

[3:36] of the board. Happy New Year.

[3:37] Ryan Williams with SEIU 10-1.

[3:38] I'm here to speak about items

[3:40] 1 and 2. SEIU 10-1 is opposed

[3:41] to the purchase

[3:43] of the airport buildings

[3:44] at this moment in time. We

[3:46] raised concerns back in August

[3:47] after this was raised and this

[3:48] was moving forward. We do not

[3:50] believe that this is right now

[3:51] the best use

[3:53] of taxpayer dollars. We do not.

[3:55] We have not seen anything in

[3:56] public that there was any kind

[4:01] of request

[4:03] for proposal or a outreach done

[4:05] to different commercial real

[4:07] estate properties

[4:08] in the greater Santa Rosa area

[4:09] to consider the valuation

[4:11] of 400 aviation compared to

[4:13] other assets that could be

[4:15] potentially available within

[4:16] city limits or just outside

[4:18] city limits. 400 aviation right

[4:19] now is. Was

[4:20] in the lease agreement,

[4:22] has an exclusive three year

[4:24] within county. The county can

[4:26] delay this does not need

[4:28] to move forward. They can

[4:29] continue to do outreach to

[4:31] compare what other real estate

[4:32] is potentially available. We

[4:34] are not asking for a delay

[4:35] in the process here

[4:37] on construction, rebuilding the

[4:41] county complex or anything

[4:42] to change

[4:44] from the meeting in, in

[4:47] August. But we do not believe

[4:49] right now that 400 aviation is

[4:50] the best use

[4:52] of taxpayer dollars. In

[4:53] particular when the county

[4:56] values it at approximately $40

[4:58] million and other fair market

[4:59] valuations also has it

[5:00] at approximately $40 million.

[5:02] Yet the county is scheduled

[5:03] to purchase it at $56 million.

[5:05] That is real money that can go

[5:08] priorities that we. You just

[5:10] heard from this last Friday and

[5:12] what happens with the Trump

[5:13] administration. And so that is

[5:15] with 400 aviation in regards

[5:17] to Brickway, this board of

[5:19] supervisors should have eyes

[5:21] open on who the true owners of

[5:23] that building is and whether

[5:27] that is the best use or the

[5:28] proper use of taxpayer dollars

[5:30] to go to those individuals

[5:32] within that investment shell

[5:34] Corporation. Thank you.

[5:38] >> Thank you very much. Going

[5:43] once, going twice. Jack, do you

[5:44] want to chime in or? Okay.

[5:45] On consent calendar. Okay,

[5:47] great. All right. With that,

[5:48] we are going

[5:49] to go ahead and adjourn

[5:50] into closed session. We will

[5:51] return at 10am See you all

[5:52] soon.

[5:56] [CLOSED SESSION]

[1:07:38] >> Chair Hopkins, we

[1:07:39] are ready to begin.

[1:07:42] >> Thank you so much. So we are

[1:07:44] back from our closed session,

[1:07:45] and we are going to start

[1:07:46] with a Spanish translation

[1:07:49] announcement from CEO Rivera.

[1:07:53] [ SPANISH ]

[1:08:24] >> Thank you so

[1:08:25] much. And with that, I would

[1:08:28] ask, how about Jack Buckhorn

[1:08:29] lead us in the pledge

[1:08:30] of allegiance this morning?

[1:08:36] >> Ready, begin.

[1:08:37] >> I pledge allegiance

[1:08:38] to the flag of the United

[1:08:39] States of America and

[1:08:40] to the republic

[1:08:42] for which it stands,

[1:08:43] one nation under God,

[1:08:44] indivisible,

[1:08:46] with liberty and justice

[1:08:47] for all.

[1:08:52] >> And that will bring us

[1:08:53] to the approval

[1:08:54] of the agenda. Item number

[1:08:55] seven and item number eight

[1:08:56] were both withdrawn

[1:08:57] by addendum. And item number

[1:08:59] nine A was added by addendum.

[1:09:00] So do we have a motion

[1:09:01] on the approval

[1:09:02] of agenda this morning?

[1:09:07] >> Motion

[1:09:09] to approve the agenda.

[1:09:10] >> Great. All

[1:09:12] in favor say aye.

[1:09:13] >> Aye.

[1:09:15] >> Any opposed or abstain?

[1:09:16] Seeing none,

[1:09:17] that does carry unanimously.

[1:09:18] And with that, we will move on

[1:09:20] to the consent calendar. And

[1:09:21] first, I would ask my

[1:09:22] colleagues if there are any

[1:09:23] questions or items that are

[1:09:24] requested be pulled

[1:09:26] from the consent calendar.

[1:09:29] Supervisor Gore.

[1:09:31] >> Yeah. Thank you very much,

[1:09:32] Chair Hopkins. Happy New

[1:09:34] Year. Happy New Year, everybody

[1:09:35] who's been here. Item number

[1:09:37] 14, adjustment to the living

[1:09:38] wage hourly rate. I just wanted

[1:09:39] to make sure that I stated once

[1:09:40] again, and we all are in

[1:09:42] agreement and acknowledgement,

[1:09:46] that when we decided

[1:09:48] to take this action

[1:09:49] to amend our contracts,

[1:09:52] and every time we do it going

[1:09:53] forward, county contracts that

[1:09:55] go predominantly

[1:09:57] to private businesses or

[1:09:59] to nonprofits for delivering,

[1:10:02] by and large, county programs

[1:10:04] and services is that we have

[1:10:06] to own the cost of that. We've

[1:10:08] received quite a few notes

[1:10:09] recently over the last week.

[1:10:11] We did have. When staff

[1:10:13] presented this living wage

[1:10:16] proposal and we decided to go

[1:10:20] for the highest rate that we

[1:10:22] could at that time and decided

[1:10:25] to move into that area,

[1:10:27] we knew and we had

[1:10:28] to assume that we were going

[1:10:31] to have to amend our contracts

[1:10:32] to justify that increased cost.

[1:10:34] There are some nonprofits and

[1:10:36] others that are concerned that

[1:10:39] this would trigger them

[1:10:42] with their other contracts

[1:10:44] to pay higher. I think there's

[1:10:45] a process that can always be

[1:10:48] followed to see

[1:10:50] about how that resolves itself.

[1:10:51] But I do want to state, once

[1:10:54] again, that when I voted

[1:10:57] for this and when the rest

[1:10:58] of the individuals, I think,

[1:11:00] on this board voted for this,

[1:11:01] we knew there was going

[1:11:02] to be a cost. So my question is

[1:11:04] really to the county

[1:11:05] administrator is that as we

[1:11:07] look at this taking effect

[1:11:09] with contract renewals or lead

[1:11:11] in or how long it takes for it

[1:11:13] to happen is I'm assuming this

[1:11:16] is going to be reflected

[1:11:18] in our annual budget

[1:11:20] for contracting, and we have

[1:11:21] to account for it when we come

[1:11:23] into June of this year and

[1:11:25] maybe project some things out.

[1:11:26] But I just want to say that

[1:11:29] with open eyes,

[1:11:30] acknowledgement, and also, I

[1:11:32] think, request that there's

[1:11:34] continued conversations between

[1:11:35] the county administrator's

[1:11:37] office and our especially

[1:11:39] nonprofit partners that are

[1:11:40] writing us so that. So that we

[1:11:42] acknowledge their input. And we

[1:11:44] acknowledge that if it's hard

[1:11:46] to figure

[1:11:48] out this transition,

[1:11:49] that's one thing,

[1:11:51] that we work towards it.

[1:11:52] But if on the other side. If

[1:11:53] they're worried

[1:11:56] about us implementing it,

[1:11:57] we're still voting to implement

[1:11:58] it is what I'm doing this year

[1:12:00] today with this being

[1:12:01] on the consent calendar. Thank

[1:12:02] you.

[1:12:04] >> CEO Rivera, any comments

[1:12:05] in terms of the impact

[1:12:06] to the budget?

[1:12:07] >> Thank you for that, Chair

[1:12:08] Hopkins. Definitely. I estimate

[1:12:09] our community partners and even

[1:12:11] our private partners will take

[1:12:13] that into account when they're

[1:12:15] negotiating with us. And

[1:12:16] at the end of the day, it may

[1:12:17] be possible or a potential

[1:12:19] scenario. Is that not only

[1:12:22] that. Yes, we will negotiate

[1:12:23] with that understanding

[1:12:25] in mind. And the capacity

[1:12:27] of funding is not elastic.

[1:12:35] Right? So it may be that our

[1:12:37] contracts may be

[1:12:38] of greater amount because

[1:12:39] of the cost

[1:12:40] of the living wage, but it may

[1:12:42] have to fit a lesser scope

[1:12:44] of service in order

[1:12:46] to stay within, especially

[1:12:47] within our state and federal

[1:12:49] funding, that it does not, you

[1:12:50] know, flex when we make those

[1:12:51] changes.

[1:12:55] >> I think we've said it time

[1:12:56] and again, but, you know,

[1:12:57] from my perspective is, you

[1:12:59] know, focusing

[1:13:00] on raising the wage floor in

[1:13:02] this county and owning our

[1:13:04] procurement is an important

[1:13:07] part of everything. Thank you.

[1:13:11] >> Thank you, Supervisor

[1:13:12] Rabbitt.

[1:13:14] >> Thank you for that. And

[1:13:15] thank you for pointing out, I

[1:13:16] mean,

[1:13:17] obviously there's consequences

[1:13:18] to increasing the cost

[1:13:19] of doing business. You're

[1:13:20] either going to provide the

[1:13:21] less service or you're going

[1:13:22] to have higher costs. So not

[1:13:26] unanticipated, if I may,

[1:13:29] and I know through the chair,

[1:13:31] I'm going to vote no today

[1:13:35] on consent item number 12. And

[1:13:37] I clearly want to communicate

[1:13:38] why I'm taking the vote. I am

[1:13:39] this has to do

[1:13:41] with tourism impact funds.

[1:13:42] They were originally,

[1:13:44] in my opinion, established to

[1:13:45] meet the unique and urgent

[1:13:46] needs, as the staff report

[1:13:47] says, of unincorporated

[1:13:49] Sonoma County and may be used

[1:13:50] for activities such as safety

[1:13:51] improvement,

[1:13:52] environmental impact

[1:13:53] mitigation, public safety, and

[1:13:54] other tourism mitigation

[1:13:55] activities. It's the second

[1:13:57] part of the allowances that I

[1:13:59] really do have issues with.

[1:14:02] Funds may also be used for

[1:14:04] projects that benefit the

[1:14:06] community or support

[1:14:07] organization that coordinate

[1:14:09] community improvements, such as

[1:14:10] municipal advisory councils and

[1:14:11] whatnot. What happens is an

[1:14:13] inequitable distribution

[1:14:14] of discretionary funds

[1:14:16] allocated to each supervisorial

[1:14:17] district or more importantly,

[1:14:18] to a large percentage

[1:14:20] of the county. And until we fix

[1:14:22] that and truly have tourism

[1:14:23] impact funds address tourism

[1:14:25] impacts as opposed to other,

[1:14:28] you know, programs that I don't

[1:14:30] have a problem with. If the

[1:14:33] funding source was different,

[1:14:35] such as HIV nutrition program,

[1:14:37] well, deserving. But is it a

[1:14:40] tourism impact or group therapy

[1:14:43] workshops for health workers,

[1:14:44] Great program. Hard to argue

[1:14:47] that it's a tourism impact. So

[1:14:51] until we kind

[1:14:53] of straighten that out and

[1:14:56] really have an equitable

[1:14:58] distribution of funds,

[1:14:59] I'm going to be voting no on

[1:15:00] those items as they come

[1:15:02] forward. Thank you.

[1:15:04] >> Any other comments

[1:15:05] from my colleagues? I would

[1:15:07] like to note that one

[1:15:08] of the biggest challenges

[1:15:09] with the tourism industry in

[1:15:10] west county is the tremendous

[1:15:12] income disparity that we

[1:15:14] experience where we have folks

[1:15:15] driving in cars that cost more

[1:15:17] than our employees make

[1:15:20] in five years. And that we try

[1:15:21] to invest tourism impact funds

[1:15:25] into our employees who work

[1:15:26] in the tourism industry,

[1:15:29] our workforce who really,

[1:15:30] really struggle to pay rent and

[1:15:33] far too often live literally

[1:15:35] in trailers

[1:15:36] in floodplains and don't have

[1:15:38] $200 to call a tow truck

[1:15:40] to actually flee

[1:15:41] from the rising waters. And

[1:15:43] that also makes me excited that

[1:15:44] we are passing this living wage

[1:15:45] ordinance because even though

[1:15:47] it's just a step towards a true

[1:15:48] living wage, which is probably

[1:15:50] $35 or $40 an hour in Sonoma

[1:15:52] County to be able

[1:15:53] to afford the cost

[1:15:55] of living here. That that will

[1:15:56] put us on a trajectory of

[1:15:57] greater equity and less severe

[1:15:58] income inequality

[1:16:00] in our community. And

[1:16:03] with that, I would ask if there

[1:16:04] are any members

[1:16:05] of the public who wish

[1:16:06] to comment on calendar,

[1:16:07] which is items 10 through 30

[1:16:09] today. You will have two

[1:16:10] minutes. Welcome, Duane.

[1:16:13] >> Hello, My name is Duane

[1:16:14] Dewitt. I'm from Roseland. I

[1:16:15] wanted to thank you

[1:16:16] for number 10. I'm a member

[1:16:17] of that veterans group, and

[1:16:18] it's very important that we get

[1:16:19] these opportunities

[1:16:20] to do a veterans event there

[1:16:22] on the 22nd of February. Do any

[1:16:23] of you folks remember what that

[1:16:25] used to be Washington's

[1:16:27] birthday. Nothing

[1:16:29] but a good time back

[1:16:31] in the old days anyway. Along

[1:16:33] with that, I support Mr.

[1:16:34] Rabbitt's comments about the

[1:16:35] tourism funds not being

[1:16:37] appropriately,

[1:16:38] perhaps dispersed. Then as we

[1:16:40] go further on number 13, I'd

[1:16:42] like to volunteer to be

[1:16:43] on that oversight committee

[1:16:46] for measure H. And I know you

[1:16:49] folks would welcome my presence

[1:16:51] there. That's why I'm here

[1:16:52] to ask. And you could also put

[1:16:53] me on the measure M oversight

[1:16:55] committee too,

[1:16:57] when you get that next opening.

[1:16:58] No one ever reaches out

[1:16:59] to me though. I come here

[1:17:00] to volunteer my time and effort

[1:17:02] to help our community. Last,

[1:17:04] not least, that was wonderful

[1:17:05] what the chair woman just said

[1:17:07] about the living wages

[1:17:10] in our community back

[1:17:12] in the day, growing up here,

[1:17:13] you could live on $1.75. My

[1:17:15] first jobs were getting paid

[1:17:18] that and I was able to live

[1:17:20] on that. Now it's gotten so

[1:17:22] out of hand that people need

[1:17:23] to make a lot of money just

[1:17:25] to be able to be here. Young

[1:17:26] people are moving away.

[1:17:28] They're not getting the

[1:17:30] opportunity to stay. And that's

[1:17:32] because the affordable housing

[1:17:33] that we talk about building

[1:17:35] isn't necessarily just

[1:17:36] for the extremely low income,

[1:17:38] the low income, very low

[1:17:40] income, you've been throwing in

[1:17:43] the moderate term and allowing

[1:17:45] that money

[1:17:46] to go towards that. You should

[1:17:48] actually make any affordable

[1:17:49] monies

[1:17:50] for affordable housing, be

[1:17:52] for the lowest level for when

[1:17:54] those teenagers are getting

[1:17:55] out of high school and trying

[1:17:56] to have a studio apartment here

[1:17:58] in Santa Rosa. It's running

[1:17:59] about $3,000 a month. It's out

[1:18:01] of hand. So let's help get true

[1:18:03] affordable housing

[1:18:06] on the ground

[1:18:09] at the lowest levels for those

[1:18:10] who have the least amount

[1:18:11] of money. Thank you kindly

[1:18:13] for your time. Good New Year.

[1:18:16] >> Thank you very much.

[1:18:17] Welcome.

[1:18:20] >> Yes, good morning,

[1:18:21] Honorable chair Hopkins,

[1:18:22] Supervisors, county staff. My

[1:18:24] name is Jack Buckhorn,

[1:18:25] Executive director of the

[1:18:26] North Bay Labor Council. And I

[1:18:28] hope to make these comments the

[1:18:29] shortest that you might hear

[1:18:31] from me all year. I'm here just

[1:18:32] to thank you

[1:18:33] for all the work that we've

[1:18:35] done on the living wage

[1:18:36] ordinance together. I

[1:18:38] especially want to point

[1:18:39] out your staff, Christelle and

[1:18:40] Yvonne, who have been exemplary

[1:18:42] and fantastic communicators

[1:18:43] with us,

[1:18:45] really couldn't have asked

[1:18:47] for a better process. And we

[1:18:48] know it's taken a long time.

[1:18:50] Ten years ago we started this

[1:18:52] and the latest round has been

[1:18:54] four years delayed by Covid.

[1:18:56] But we've made it

[1:18:59] to the finish line. And I do

[1:19:02] sincerely want

[1:19:03] to thank each and every one

[1:19:04] of you for the help

[1:19:06] in raising the floor for the

[1:19:07] lowest paid workers that the

[1:19:09] county contracts with. So,

[1:19:10] thank you.

[1:19:13] >> Thank you very much.

[1:19:15] Welcome.

[1:19:18] >> Good morning, Board of

[1:19:19] Supervisors. My name is

[1:19:20] Elizabeth Hernandez and I'm the

[1:19:21] director of Operations and

[1:19:22] clinical services for

[1:19:23] Progress Foundation. I

[1:19:24] referenced the living wage

[1:19:26] ordinance last Friday in

[1:19:27] Sebastopol and I'm here today

[1:19:29] that if it's increased and it

[1:19:30] sounds like it will be,

[1:19:31] we want to ensure that the

[1:19:32] board is ensuring community

[1:19:34] based organizations will

[1:19:35] receive a contract increase

[1:19:36] that is commensurate

[1:19:37] with the cost to employers

[1:19:39] for implementation. I want to

[1:19:40] emphasize that we recognize the

[1:19:41] ever increasing cost of living

[1:19:43] in the Bay Area and we are

[1:19:44] fully in support

[1:19:45] of our staff and those working

[1:19:47] at this hourly wage receive an

[1:19:48] increase in pay. We are

[1:19:49] in support. Progress foundation

[1:19:51] is a nonprofit agency that has

[1:19:53] provided behavioral health

[1:19:54] services in Sonoma County

[1:19:56] for the past 15 years. We're

[1:19:57] contracted by the Department

[1:19:59] of Health services to provide

[1:20:00] 32 beds of crisis and

[1:20:02] residential treatment and those

[1:20:03] services are provided 24 7,

[1:20:04] 365 days a year. Due

[1:20:06] to regulatory requirements

[1:20:08] by licensing and certification,

[1:20:10] staff to client ratios must be

[1:20:12] maintained and services cannot

[1:20:13] be scaled down. Increase

[1:20:14] in living wage to 2315 will

[1:20:16] result in an 18 and a half

[1:20:18] increase in the starting wage

[1:20:20] for our per DM relief

[1:20:22] counselors who represent a

[1:20:24] significant part of our

[1:20:25] staffing imprint and provide

[1:20:26] coverage

[1:20:27] for our full time counselors.

[1:20:29] Furthermore, an increase

[1:20:30] in the living wage will result

[1:20:31] in an 8% increase

[1:20:32] in the starting wage

[1:20:33] for our full time counselors.

[1:20:35] Both employee classifications

[1:20:36] are union represented and

[1:20:37] follow a step system

[1:20:38] for wages. Once the living

[1:20:40] wages increase, salaries across

[1:20:41] the steps will be impacted and

[1:20:43] salary scales must be adjusted

[1:20:44] to protect

[1:20:45] against wage compression. This

[1:20:47] increase will have a

[1:20:48] significant impact on the cost

[1:20:49] to provide services in Sonoma

[1:20:51] County. We're already facing

[1:20:52] increasing operational cost

[1:20:53] pressures

[1:20:55] in our food and insurance,

[1:20:56] particularly in health benefits

[1:20:57] and property insurance and

[1:20:58] anticipate ongoing pressures

[1:21:00] in the area

[1:21:01] in these upcoming years. We

[1:21:03] reiterate, we understand and

[1:21:04] fully support ensuring our

[1:21:07] frontline workers are living

[1:21:08] earning a livable wage and also

[1:21:09] acknowledge we must consider

[1:21:11] the impact such a sudden and

[1:21:12] significant increase could have

[1:21:14] on nonprofit providers who are

[1:21:15] already focused on providing

[1:21:16] cost effective services. Thank

[1:21:17] you.

[1:21:19] >> Thank you. Are there any

[1:21:21] other members

[1:21:22] of public who wish

[1:21:23] to comment? Good morning.

[1:21:31] >> Good morning. Marty

[1:21:32] Bennett. Unite here Local 2 and

[1:21:34] North Bay Labor Council. I want

[1:21:37] to thank the board again

[1:21:38] for moving Forward to approve

[1:21:43] $23.15 an hour

[1:21:45] of increased living wage rate

[1:21:47] on a consent calendar. I want

[1:21:48] to remind you that the increase

[1:21:50] of the living wage base rate is

[1:21:54] effectively phased in. It only

[1:21:56] applies when new or renewed

[1:21:58] contracts are awarded. Based

[1:22:00] on some of the comments

[1:22:01] from department heads, I

[1:22:06] believe that the cost increase

[1:22:07] exceed what for what the actual

[1:22:10] costs are going to be. Why?

[1:22:14] Because 100% of the living wage

[1:22:16] increase is not passed on

[1:22:18] to the consumer or

[1:22:20] in this case, the county. The

[1:22:22] accepted methodology amongst

[1:22:24] economists who specialize

[1:22:26] in the field of living wage and

[1:22:27] minimum wage increases is to

[1:22:29] calculate all the ways

[1:22:31] employers adjust, including

[1:22:33] lower hiring and training costs

[1:22:34] due to the higher worker

[1:22:36] retention rates,

[1:22:38] a slight reduction of profits

[1:22:40] and marginal price increases.

[1:22:43] Higher retention rates also

[1:22:45] increase worker training and

[1:22:47] skills, yielding higher

[1:22:50] productivity,

[1:22:51] enabling employers

[1:22:53] to absorb part

[1:22:55] of the living wage increase.

[1:22:56] Using this methodology,

[1:23:01] you see economists in a recent

[1:23:02] report estimated that the

[1:23:04] impacts

[1:23:05] of increasing the minimum wage

[1:23:07] to $20 an hour for 550,000

[1:23:08] California Fast Workers

[1:23:10] employed by large trains,

[1:23:11] which was a $4 an hour raise

[1:23:14] for the typical worker, the

[1:23:18] highest minimum wage increase

[1:23:21] in recent American history.

[1:23:22] They found that employment

[1:23:24] levels remained stable

[1:23:26] in industry. Menu prices rose

[1:23:28] by about 3% or 15 cents

[1:23:30] for the typical $4 hamburger.

[1:23:32] Thank you so much.

[1:23:40] >> Thank you. Welcome.

[1:23:43] >> Thank you. Janice Carmen,

[1:23:44] Santa Rosa thank you

[1:23:45] for the good meeting on

[1:23:46] Friday. It was nice

[1:23:47] to see everyone and my kudos

[1:23:48] to the food staff. It was

[1:23:51] beautiful, was well presented

[1:23:53] and it was delicious. Anyway,

[1:23:54] moving on. I'm glad I arrived

[1:23:56] when I did. I support the rise

[1:23:58] in the minimum wage to 23.15. I

[1:24:01] think it's a great idea. And I

[1:24:03] talk with a lot of people,

[1:24:05] a lot of merchants, a lot

[1:24:07] of business owners. There's a

[1:24:09] lot of people that are leaving

[1:24:11] again and it's going

[1:24:13] to be sad. The people that stay

[1:24:15] are in it. They know it costs

[1:24:16] more to live here. It's harder

[1:24:18] to live here. But while we were

[1:24:19] having a meeting on a lot

[1:24:20] of the issues,

[1:24:22] which are very huge in Sonoma

[1:24:23] County, LA was burning.

[1:24:25] We don't want to burn again.

[1:24:29] And we really have to pay

[1:24:31] with investment of time,

[1:24:32] energy, money and knowledge

[1:24:34] of the facts

[1:24:37] of what's going on. I

[1:24:38] know most of you, or some

[1:24:42] of you, at least previously,

[1:24:43] I know a good part of the

[1:24:45] Sonoma County workforce come

[1:24:47] from Sonoma State. It's good

[1:24:48] to get out of the boat,

[1:24:50] see what other people are

[1:24:52] doing, how they're preventing

[1:24:53] fires, how they're preventing

[1:24:54] flooding, et cetera. And we

[1:24:56] can't continue to build on

[1:24:57] every green space that we see.

[1:24:59] Anyway, that's all I'm going

[1:25:00] to say. But I don't want the

[1:25:03] people leaving. I want the

[1:25:05] people to stay,

[1:25:06] and I want them to feel like

[1:25:07] they can be here and be well

[1:25:08] paid.

[1:25:11] >> The consent calendar thank

[1:25:12] you.

[1:25:16] >> Welcome Chair and Board of

[1:25:17] Supervisors, Ryan Williams

[1:25:19] with SDIU 10-1. Today I stand

[1:25:21] with my colleagues from the

[1:25:22] North Bay Labor Council

[1:25:23] in support and thanking you

[1:25:25] of item 14

[1:25:26] on the living wage ordinance.

[1:25:27] Ever since I've been

[1:25:28] with SEIU 10-1,

[1:25:30] for the past three years,

[1:25:31] I've been working

[1:25:33] on this issue with the Labor

[1:25:35] Council and

[1:25:36] with several members

[1:25:37] of the board. And we just want

[1:25:38] to say thank you. This has been

[1:25:39] a long time coming. This is

[1:25:40] at the forefront

[1:25:42] of showing a good use

[1:25:45] of taxpayer dollars to support

[1:25:46] the low wage workers that do

[1:25:47] tremendous work. As mentioned

[1:25:48] by our nonprofit ally here,

[1:25:51] this is a tremendous step

[1:25:54] forward. So thank you all for

[1:25:57] your support and we continue

[1:25:58] looking forward on working

[1:26:01] to implement this

[1:26:03] with you.

[1:26:05] >> Thank you very much. Are

[1:26:07] there any other members

[1:26:08] of the public who wish

[1:26:09] to comment on this item?

[1:26:11] Seeing none,

[1:26:12] I will bring it back

[1:26:13] to my colleagues for any final

[1:26:14] remarks or a motion to approve

[1:26:16] the consent calendar.

[1:26:21] >> I just wanted

[1:26:23] to reflect at one point

[1:26:24] on my first year

[1:26:26] on the board when I was

[1:26:27] on the living wage ad hoc. I

[1:26:28] just remember having late night

[1:26:29] screaming matches on the phone

[1:26:31] with Marty Bennett. And

[1:26:32] it's pretty amazing

[1:26:33] to be here. And I say that

[1:26:35] with passion. You know,

[1:26:37] that's. That's what it is. So

[1:26:39] just acknowledging how far

[1:26:41] we've come, but also

[1:26:42] for the lowest wage workers

[1:26:44] in our county. And I appreciate

[1:26:45] that. So thank you all very

[1:26:47] much. Happy

[1:26:49] to move the consent calendar.

[1:26:50] So, so moved.

[1:26:52] >> Great. Thank you. And we

[1:26:53] have a motion. Do we have a

[1:26:55] second, Supervisor Coursey?

[1:26:58] >> I'll second. And I just want

[1:26:59] to say that I'll support number

[1:27:01] 12 today. I look forward to

[1:27:03] the board is having a workshop

[1:27:04] on tourism impact grant funding

[1:27:05] in February. February 22nd,

[1:27:07] I believe it is. And I look

[1:27:09] forward to that. Second the

[1:27:13] motion.

[1:27:15] >> Thank you. And we will take

[1:27:16] a roll call vote because

[1:27:17] Supervisor Rabbitt will have a

[1:27:18] dissenting vote.

[1:27:20] >> So this is

[1:27:25] for 10, 11, 13 through 30,

[1:27:27] excluding 12.

[1:27:29] >> I think we can

[1:27:30] include 12. And then he'll just

[1:27:31] note that he's voting no

[1:27:33] on that.

[1:27:35] [ CALLING ROLL ]

[1:27:53] >> All right.

[1:27:54] And with that,

[1:27:56] we will go ahead and move on

[1:27:57] to our first item of the day,

[1:27:58] which we presented by Permit

[1:28:00] Sonoma. Thank you all so much

[1:28:01] for coming

[1:28:02] for the consent calendar. So

[1:28:08] item 31. I apologize

[1:28:09] to those members

[1:28:10] of the public who are

[1:28:12] in the audience waiting

[1:28:13] for this item. It was 9:35. We

[1:28:14] re noticed it

[1:28:15] at 10:10 and we're a little bit

[1:28:16] behind the times, but thanks

[1:28:18] for your patience. Scott, will

[1:28:36] you be introducing the item?

[1:28:37] Great.

[1:28:38] >> Yes. Good morning, Chair

[1:28:40] Hopkins, members

[1:28:41] of the board. So what we have

[1:28:42] for you today is the return

[1:28:44] of an item from November

[1:28:45] looking at the flood mapping

[1:28:48] along lower Russian River and

[1:28:51] Mark West Creek. So what we're

[1:28:53] going to do today is the

[1:28:55] presentation is going to go

[1:28:57] through just kind

[1:28:59] of an overview of what the item

[1:29:00] is as the first part, and then

[1:29:01] at the end we're going to talk

[1:29:03] about the next steps that we're

[1:29:05] recommending as part

[1:29:06] of this overall process. So the

[1:29:08] decision in front

[1:29:10] of you today is a decision

[1:29:12] on the maps, but also whether

[1:29:14] to give direction to staff to

[1:29:15] bring back further discussion.

[1:29:17] So with that, I'll turn it

[1:29:19] over to Azine

[1:29:21] for the presentation.

[1:29:25] >> Good morning, Supervisors.

[1:29:26] My name is Azine Spalding, and

[1:29:27] today I'm bringing Forward file

[1:29:28] number ORD2411, which is the

[1:29:31] flood hazard realignment item,

[1:29:32] to amend the official zoning

[1:29:33] database

[1:29:35] to update the boundaries of the

[1:29:36] floodway and floodplain

[1:29:37] combining districts to

[1:29:38] to correspond to new flood

[1:29:39] hazard area maps adopted

[1:29:41] by FEMA in July of 2024. So

[1:29:42] today we'll be discussing the

[1:29:43] FEMA mapping timeline and

[1:29:48] process and how county

[1:29:49] regulations relate

[1:29:50] to FEMA maps. We're going

[1:29:52] to talk about the National

[1:29:53] Flood Insurance Program, along

[1:29:55] with its benefits and its

[1:29:56] requirements

[1:29:57] for participation,

[1:29:58] county regulations for flood

[1:30:00] hazard areas and what this

[1:30:01] update means for property

[1:30:03] owners and residents and the

[1:30:04] process to Change or modify

[1:30:05] FEMA's maps. So I'll go over

[1:30:07] some key terms that will

[1:30:10] frequently be referenced

[1:30:11] throughout this presentation.

[1:30:13] So FEMA is the Federal

[1:30:14] Emergency Management Agency,

[1:30:15] which creates flood and other

[1:30:16] disaster information and maps

[1:30:17] and provides flood insurance

[1:30:19] and disaster relief. The NFIP

[1:30:20] is the National Flood

[1:30:22] Insurance Program, which is a

[1:30:24] federal program that provides

[1:30:25] flood insurance

[1:30:26] to property owners

[1:30:27] in participating communities.

[1:30:28] The regulatory floodway is a

[1:30:30] channel of a river or other

[1:30:32] watercourse and the adjacent

[1:30:33] land areas that must be

[1:30:35] reserved

[1:30:36] to discharge the base flood

[1:30:38] without cumulatively increasing

[1:30:39] the water surface elevation

[1:30:40] more than a designated height.

[1:30:42] Sonoma County's floodway

[1:30:43] combining district corresponds

[1:30:44] to FEMA's mapped regulatory

[1:30:46] floodway. Lastly, the

[1:30:48] floodplain is any land area

[1:30:49] susceptible to being inundated

[1:30:50] by flood waters

[1:30:52] from any source. Sonoma

[1:30:54] County's floodplain combining

[1:30:55] district corresponds

[1:30:56] to FEMA's mapped floodplain.

[1:30:57] So in October 2022, FEMA

[1:31:02] released preliminary flood

[1:31:03] insurance rate maps called

[1:31:05] firms for public review. On

[1:31:06] June 22nd and 29th, 2023,

[1:31:08] notices of the appeal period

[1:31:10] for preliminary firms were

[1:31:12] published in the Press

[1:31:15] Democrat. A 90 day appeal

[1:31:17] period commenced between June

[1:31:18] 29 and September 27, 2023,

[1:31:19] during which residents,

[1:31:21] residents, businesses and the

[1:31:23] county could appeal flood risk

[1:31:24] information

[1:31:26] on the preliminary firms. On

[1:31:27] July 31, 2024, FEMA published

[1:31:29] the final firms,

[1:31:31] which are no longer appealable.

[1:31:33] The flood maps were updated

[1:31:36] because the Russian river

[1:31:37] watershed has not been

[1:31:38] restudied by FEMA in over 30

[1:31:40] years and technological

[1:31:41] advances

[1:31:42] over time have allowed

[1:31:43] for higher accuracy of flood

[1:31:45] risk. FEMA generates these maps

[1:31:47] by incorporating data

[1:31:48] from climate science, waterway

[1:31:49] information, hydrological data,

[1:31:51] local engineers and surveyors,

[1:31:52] and land use and development

[1:31:54] information. The county

[1:31:56] implements FEMA maps

[1:31:59] through parcel zoning by either

[1:32:01] adding or removing the

[1:32:03] Floodway F1 or Floodplain F2,

[1:32:04] combining districts

[1:32:07] to impacted parcels. This

[1:32:10] rezoning is necessary to align

[1:32:11] with FEMA's flood hazard maps

[1:32:12] and remain in compliance

[1:32:15] with the National Flood

[1:32:17] Insurance program. If the F1 or

[1:32:18] F2 is added to a parcel,

[1:32:20] the parcel is subject to FEMA

[1:32:21] regulations and building codes

[1:32:23] that apply when building a new

[1:32:25] structure, remodeling,

[1:32:27] or making other improvements.

[1:32:28] On July 31, 2024, final firms

[1:32:33] for the Russian river watershed

[1:32:34] were published by FEMA. On

[1:32:36] October 17, 2024, the

[1:32:38] Planning Commission heard

[1:32:40] technical zoning Corrections,

[1:32:41] which included proposed parcel

[1:32:43] zoning updates to align local

[1:32:44] floodway and floodplain mapping

[1:32:46] with updated FEMA maps. On

[1:32:48] November 12, 2024, the Board

[1:32:49] of Supervisors heard the same

[1:32:50] technical zoning corrections

[1:32:53] item and directed staff

[1:32:54] to conduct outreach with

[1:32:55] affected communities and return

[1:32:56] to the board in January 2025

[1:32:58] for final consideration.

[1:32:59] Zoning updates

[1:33:02] for F1 and F2 changes

[1:33:04] for all hearings, public

[1:33:07] notices were sent via USPS to

[1:33:08] affected property owners and

[1:33:09] property owners within 300ft of

[1:33:11] affected parcels and published

[1:33:13] in the Press Democrat

[1:33:14] with support from the Russian

[1:33:15] River Chamber of Commerce

[1:33:18] Permit Sonoma presented

[1:33:19] to the Lower Russian River

[1:33:21] Municipal Advisory Council and

[1:33:22] the Mark West Area Municipal

[1:33:23] Advisory Council. Permit

[1:33:24] Sonoma staff also prepared an

[1:33:26] interactive GIS map showing

[1:33:29] current and proposed flood

[1:33:30] hazard zoning

[1:33:32] in affected areas. This is one

[1:33:33] of four examples where there

[1:33:36] have been more significant

[1:33:37] changes to the flood hazard

[1:33:39] area mapping. This example

[1:33:40] demonstrates the change in the

[1:33:42] floodway and floodplain

[1:33:43] boundaries in Rio Nido with

[1:33:45] current floodway and floodplain

[1:33:46] boundaries shown in orange and

[1:33:47] lighter orange and proposed

[1:33:49] boundaries

[1:33:50] in blue and lighter blue. This

[1:33:52] example demonstrates the change

[1:33:57] in the floodway and floodplain

[1:33:58] boundaries in Guerneville.

[1:34:00] Here we can see the changes

[1:34:01] in Monterio and Northwood and

[1:34:07] lastly changes near

[1:34:08] Londonberry Drive and Wikiup

[1:34:13] Drive. As I mentioned earlier,

[1:34:15] the F1 combining district

[1:34:19] applies to properties within

[1:34:21] the regulatory floodway as

[1:34:22] shown on FEMA maps. F1

[1:34:24] regulations apply only

[1:34:25] to portions of the parcel

[1:34:27] within the F1, not necessarily

[1:34:28] the entire parcel. On

[1:34:30] undeveloped or vacant parcels,

[1:34:32] no new permanent structures are

[1:34:33] allowed within the mapped

[1:34:35] floodway areas. On parcels

[1:34:37] with existing structures, no

[1:34:38] new permanent structures or

[1:34:40] additions are allowed.

[1:34:41] However, some exceptions

[1:34:43] include structural elevation

[1:34:44] above flood level, repairs that

[1:34:45] do not increase floor area, and

[1:34:47] septic and well improvements.

[1:34:48] The F2 Combining District

[1:34:50] applies to properties

[1:34:54] within the 100 year flood

[1:34:56] hazard area as shown on FEMA

[1:34:57] maps. F2 regulations only apply

[1:34:59] to portions of the parcel

[1:35:01] within the F2, not necessarily

[1:35:02] the entire parcel within the F2

[1:35:03] structural development must

[1:35:05] comply

[1:35:07] with local building code. In

[1:35:08] Sonoma County Code Chapter 7B,

[1:35:10] which relates

[1:35:12] to flood proofing

[1:35:14] within the F2, new residential

[1:35:15] structures must be elevated one

[1:35:16] foot above the base flood

[1:35:17] elevation and new commercial

[1:35:18] structures have the option

[1:35:20] to elevate or flood proof

[1:35:21] to one foot above the BFE. If

[1:35:23] the county does not rezone,

[1:35:27] communities participating in

[1:35:28] The NFIP have six months to

[1:35:29] implement FEMA's implement

[1:35:31] FEMA's updated floodplain

[1:35:33] regulations once the final

[1:35:35] firms have been published. The

[1:35:36] maps were published on July

[1:35:37] 31, 2024, so the county has

[1:35:39] until January 31, 2025 to

[1:35:41] implement the regulations or

[1:35:44] risk suspension

[1:35:45] from the NFIP. If a community

[1:35:46] is suspended from the NFIP,

[1:35:48] property owners will not be

[1:35:50] able to purchase NFIP policies

[1:35:52] or renew them. Federal grants

[1:35:53] or loans for development will

[1:35:54] not be available

[1:35:56] in affected areas. Federal

[1:35:57] disaster assistance may not be

[1:35:58] provided

[1:36:00] for any natural disaster,

[1:36:02] including flood damage repair

[1:36:03] or reconstruction. The Sonoma

[1:36:05] County Community Development

[1:36:06] Commission Flood Elevation

[1:36:08] Mitigation Program would be

[1:36:09] unavailable to the county and

[1:36:11] flood hazard area residents,

[1:36:13] which is since 1997, over 300

[1:36:14] homes have been elevated and

[1:36:17] $27 million have been spent

[1:36:19] on elevation

[1:36:21] through this program. Federal

[1:36:22] mortgage insurance or loan

[1:36:24] guarantees will not be provided

[1:36:25] in affected areas and lenders

[1:36:26] must disclose that property

[1:36:28] within flood hazard areas is

[1:36:29] not eligible for federal

[1:36:31] disaster assistance and the

[1:36:33] hazard mitigation grant program

[1:36:34] would be unavailable to the

[1:36:36] county and flood hazard area

[1:36:37] residents. The county is taking

[1:36:39] steps to mitigate impacts

[1:36:43] to property owners by

[1:36:44] implementing the FEMA maps

[1:36:45] three through rezoning

[1:36:47] to ensure compliance

[1:36:48] with the NFIP and

[1:36:49] by assessing options

[1:36:50] to work directly with FEMA

[1:36:51] on a restudy of the area

[1:36:53] to ensure accuracy

[1:36:54] of the maps. On October 17,

[1:36:56] 2024, the Planning Commission

[1:36:57] considered the Technical

[1:36:59] Corrections item, which

[1:37:01] included updated floodway and

[1:37:04] floodplain combining district

[1:37:05] boundaries, and passed a

[1:37:06] resolution recommending that

[1:37:07] the Board of Supervisors

[1:37:08] approve amendments to the

[1:37:10] County General Plan and Land

[1:37:11] Use map and the official zoning

[1:37:12] database. Amendments to the F1

[1:37:16] and F2 combining districts are

[1:37:17] consistent with the Sonoma

[1:37:19] County General Plan Public

[1:37:20] safety element policy PS2V

[1:37:21] directs the county

[1:37:23] to continue enforcing

[1:37:25] Floodplain Management Code

[1:37:26] requirements

[1:37:28] in flood hazards areas

[1:37:29] to implement the NFIP.

[1:37:30] Amendments

[1:37:32] to the official zoning database

[1:37:33] to update the F1 and F2 are

[1:37:34] directed by county code and are

[1:37:36] thus ministerial and statutory

[1:37:37] statutorily exempt from the

[1:37:39] California Environmental

[1:37:41] Quality act

[1:37:42] under CEA guidelines section

[1:37:44] 15268. With that,

[1:37:45] I'll pass it back to Scott.

[1:37:52] >> Thank you, Azine so as I

[1:37:53] mentioned earlier,

[1:37:54] we have two asks for today.

[1:37:57] First is to adopt the ordinance

[1:37:59] amending the official zoning

[1:38:01] database to update the F1 and

[1:38:02] F2 zoning areas and also

[1:38:04] providing direction to permit

[1:38:06] Sonoma to proceed

[1:38:09] with a technical review

[1:38:10] of these flood hazard maps

[1:38:12] for the Russian river watershed

[1:38:15] and also the Mark West Creek

[1:38:19] area by the airport so west

[1:38:22] of 101. And so taking this

[1:38:25] action today,

[1:38:27] make sure that we stay

[1:38:28] in compliance with the FEMA

[1:38:30] programs that will keep people

[1:38:31] ensured, especially through the

[1:38:33] rainy season that we're

[1:38:35] currently in. But we also want

[1:38:37] to talk

[1:38:40] about the next steps as part of

[1:38:42] our recommendation and that

[1:38:43] we're hoping

[1:38:45] for board feedback on. First is

[1:38:47] we would like

[1:38:49] to resetty the lower Russian

[1:38:51] river and Mark West Creek area.

[1:38:52] If we get direction

[1:38:54] to do this, we'd have

[1:38:56] to come back

[1:38:57] with a standalone budget item

[1:38:59] to make that happen. Based

[1:39:01] on our experience with the

[1:39:03] Todd Creek study, which was

[1:39:04] about 75,000, we're estimating

[1:39:06] that this would be about

[1:39:08] 250,000 because it's a

[1:39:09] significantly larger area.

[1:39:11] But we do feel that if we were

[1:39:12] to undertake this study,

[1:39:16] we'd be able to more accurately

[1:39:18] assess this reach of the

[1:39:20] Russian river as well as the

[1:39:23] tributaries that lead into it

[1:39:25] that we feel were not analyzed

[1:39:27] to the same level. Additional

[1:39:29] things that we're looking

[1:39:32] at that we don't need any kind

[1:39:33] of board action to put

[1:39:35] into place. First off is

[1:39:37] strengthening our noticing

[1:39:40] protocols for instances

[1:39:42] like this. Yes, FEMA did

[1:39:45] noticing a couple years ago,

[1:39:47] but I think that one thing

[1:39:49] we've learned, especially

[1:39:52] through talking to the public

[1:39:53] at the Mac meetings and then

[1:39:54] also individuals is,

[1:39:56] is that that's not enough. So

[1:39:58] even though we don't have a

[1:39:59] legal obligation

[1:40:01] to notice that like we do

[1:40:03] for the meeting today, we've

[1:40:05] really heard that the FEMA

[1:40:06] noticing just isn't enough

[1:40:08] for our community. So we are

[1:40:10] going

[1:40:11] to proactively be doing a lot

[1:40:13] of the steps that we would

[1:40:14] for our own item,

[1:40:16] for the FEMA items as well

[1:40:18] in the future to get this

[1:40:20] discussion started sooner, you

[1:40:22] know, when we're still in the

[1:40:23] preliminary comment period,

[1:40:25] when we're still

[1:40:26] in the appeal period. We'd also

[1:40:28] like to reassess our local

[1:40:30] regulations. It's not often

[1:40:32] that we're talking about

[1:40:34] regulations that were enacted

[1:40:35] in the 1940s

[1:40:37] like our F1 and F2 were. We

[1:40:39] didn't even have a building

[1:40:41] code back then. So it's time

[1:40:43] for us to go and reassess. Are

[1:40:45] those still meeting the needs

[1:40:48] for us today? In some areas our

[1:40:50] local regulations are stricter

[1:40:52] than FEMA's, but particularly

[1:40:54] in the F1. And so we do want to

[1:40:56] go back and reassess how the

[1:41:00] zoning code, building code and

[1:41:02] our general plan all align

[1:41:04] along with kind of the state

[1:41:06] of development and residency

[1:41:09] along the river today. Another

[1:41:12] thing that we've been

[1:41:15] discussing is the idea

[1:41:17] of a critical service overlay

[1:41:19] for the commercial corridor

[1:41:20] along the river. So that

[1:41:22] wouldn't necessarily need

[1:41:24] to be something that exists

[1:41:26] in zoning, but it makes it very

[1:41:28] clear that the continued

[1:41:29] operation of things like the

[1:41:32] Gurnwell Safeway is critical

[1:41:34] to the success of folks living

[1:41:36] on the river. You know,

[1:41:37] we've also been taking a look

[1:41:40] at our legal non conforming

[1:41:42] language,

[1:41:43] which is another section of the

[1:41:45] zoning code that governs kind

[1:41:46] of the process around

[1:41:48] reconstruction and rebuilding

[1:41:50] in areas like this. And so it's

[1:41:51] another section that we really

[1:41:53] need

[1:41:55] to reassess whether the kind

[1:41:57] of thresholds in that are still

[1:41:58] meeting the need for today.

[1:42:00] Through the fires,

[1:42:02] we made a number of changes

[1:42:04] to make it easier for people

[1:42:06] to rebuild. And

[1:42:07] from a flood standpoint,

[1:42:09] we want

[1:42:11] to make it clear that we,

[1:42:12] we do want to support people

[1:42:14] rebuilding what they had in the

[1:42:15] event that there's a disaster.

[1:42:17] One final thing that I will say

[1:42:20] is there is something that

[1:42:21] there's a FEMA program called

[1:42:24] CRS which stands for, sorry

[1:42:26] one minute. Community Rating

[1:42:28] System. So basically through

[1:42:34] this county led process, we

[1:42:35] can,

[1:42:38] through areas where we are

[1:42:41] going above and

[1:42:43] beyond what FEMA requires, we

[1:42:44] can potentially lower the

[1:42:45] insurance rates

[1:42:46] of folks that live

[1:42:47] in the county. So this is part

[1:42:49] of the balancing act because we

[1:42:50] would get extra points towards

[1:42:51] lowering rates

[1:42:53] by having something

[1:42:58] like a stricter F1 or F2.

[1:42:59] But again it's balancing. And

[1:43:00] so that wasn't in the report.

[1:43:02] But we did get a public comment

[1:43:05] about that. So I wanted

[1:43:07] to mention that as well as for

[1:43:09] for future consideration. So

[1:43:11] with that we're looking forward

[1:43:14] to any questions and hearing

[1:43:15] from the public.

[1:43:17] >> Thank you very much. And I

[1:43:18] actually would like

[1:43:19] to go straight to public

[1:43:20] comment recognizing that we are

[1:43:21] running late and so that we can

[1:43:22] hear from folks who may took

[1:43:23] time out of their day

[1:43:24] to be here. And then I will

[1:43:25] bring it back

[1:43:26] to the board afterwards

[1:43:27] for questions and comments. So

[1:43:29] is there anyone

[1:43:30] in the public who wishes

[1:43:31] to speak on this item? We will

[1:43:32] have two minutes per public

[1:43:33] comment. I knew I saw some

[1:43:41] familiar faces in the audience

[1:43:42] so I figured.

[1:43:43] >> Good morning supervisors.

[1:43:45] Good morning Permits

[1:43:46] Sonoma. My name is Peter

[1:43:48] Hackett. I have Stumptown

[1:43:50] Brewery and Stumptown Car

[1:43:52] Wash. I think like a lot of the

[1:43:54] people that have been affected

[1:43:56] by this and maybe a little

[1:43:57] offended at the notification

[1:43:59] that we received that there

[1:44:03] were zoning alterations that

[1:44:04] were going to be made which

[1:44:05] seems a lot more minor than the

[1:44:07] material effect that this could

[1:44:08] potentially have

[1:44:12] to our properties and not just

[1:44:13] in use, but in value. And

[1:44:15] certainly when I read that,

[1:44:16] you know,

[1:44:18] a parcel that has moved

[1:44:19] from F2 to F1 becomes legal non

[1:44:20] conforming and the verbiage of

[1:44:22] legal nonconforming is pretty

[1:44:24] arbitrary and certainly would

[1:44:26] affect the resale value

[1:44:28] of property, not just the use

[1:44:29] of that property. Obviously a

[1:44:31] lot

[1:44:33] of people who are now moved

[1:44:34] into the F2 floodplain and find

[1:44:36] themselves

[1:44:37] with the additional holding

[1:44:38] cost of flood insurance and so

[1:44:39] on are also affected. And it

[1:44:41] was a challenge to know that

[1:44:42] FEMA had actually made this

[1:44:46] aware, made us aware of this,

[1:44:48] these potential changes back

[1:44:50] in 2022. And we just became

[1:44:53] aware of them in November. And

[1:44:55] frankly by accident that even

[1:44:57] the meeting that was

[1:45:00] intentionally to ratify. Thank

[1:45:02] you very much Supervisor

[1:45:04] Hopkins for pulling this off.

[1:45:05] So we did have an opportunity

[1:45:07] to actually talk about this.

[1:45:08] Perhaps gives us a chance

[1:45:10] to make some changes to

[1:45:12] mitigate the damage which

[1:45:13] clearly has to be done. I think

[1:45:14] we all understand that we have

[1:45:16] to ratify these changes

[1:45:18] in order to stay

[1:45:19] within the boundaries

[1:45:21] of FEMA. But the damage

[1:45:22] to those of us whose zoning has

[1:45:24] been changed and ultimately

[1:45:25] bearing the cost

[1:45:27] of that compliance. And there

[1:45:30] are hundreds of parcels. I'm

[1:45:32] actually surprised there aren't

[1:45:34] more people here today figuring

[1:45:35] out a way to do that. Whether

[1:45:36] perhaps that might be a carve

[1:45:38] out like the Kincaid fires had

[1:45:39] so that there's more clarity

[1:45:41] and less arbitrary decision by

[1:45:43] the chief building inspector as

[1:45:45] to whether or not we can

[1:45:47] rebuild. I know I wouldn't want

[1:45:50] to buy a parcel if I couldn't

[1:45:54] rebuild, if something happened

[1:45:56] to it, whether or not that

[1:45:58] damage was incurred during a

[1:46:00] natural disaster or otherwise.

[1:46:04] >> And thank you so much, that

[1:46:05] is time. I apologize.

[1:46:06] >> I had two minutes.

[1:46:08] >> It goes too fast. I know.

[1:46:10] >> Thank you.

[1:46:11] >> And also I just want

[1:46:12] to state for the record that we

[1:46:14] have officially opened the

[1:46:15] public hearing. This is sort

[1:46:16] of a public hearing. And want

[1:46:17] to make sure that Peter's

[1:46:18] comments are recognized as part

[1:46:19] of that. Welcome. Come

[1:46:20] on up.

[1:46:23] >> Good morning. My name's Ed

[1:46:24] Kleitz. I live at 133 Fleming

[1:46:26] Way, Santa Rosa, California, a

[1:46:27] little

[1:46:29] over a half a mile south

[1:46:30] of the Todd Road flood channel.

[1:46:31] I haven't heard it yet here

[1:46:33] today, but it is on the back

[1:46:34] page or somewhere buried

[1:46:35] into this report. And I just

[1:46:37] want you to know that I became

[1:46:38] aware as a 33 year owner of my

[1:46:41] home three years ago that FEMA

[1:46:44] had declared my neighborhood to

[1:46:46] be a flood zone. I wasn't

[1:46:47] notified

[1:46:49] by FEMA. I was not notified

[1:46:51] by the county. I was notified

[1:46:52] by my mortgage company who

[1:46:54] said, you have 30 days

[1:46:55] to get insurance or we're going

[1:46:57] to get it for you. We're here

[1:46:59] almost three years later and I

[1:47:00] have to shout out to

[1:47:01] Supervisor Coursey's office

[1:47:02] after making about 10 or 12

[1:47:04] calls to my realtor, my

[1:47:05] friends, my mom,

[1:47:06] my neighbors who will speak

[1:47:07] in a minute,

[1:47:08] Supervisor Coursey's office,

[1:47:12] specifically Sean Hamlin is the

[1:47:13] one who told me what was going

[1:47:14] on, why it was going

[1:47:17] on and sorry, I was playing the

[1:47:20] parking game. I got insurance.

[1:47:21] I'm in my third year of that

[1:47:25] flood insurance and I'm nearing

[1:47:27] $6,000

[1:47:31] in flood insurance. Again, I

[1:47:34] live over half a mile

[1:47:35] from the Todd Road channel.

[1:47:38] Back in November, before

[1:47:39] Thanksgiving when we got almost

[1:47:40] half of our annual rainfall

[1:47:41] in that one week,

[1:47:43] my pool didn't even flood,

[1:47:44] much less my backyard. Oh, and

[1:47:45] by the way, my house is on

[1:47:46] three foot post and piers. I

[1:47:48] could have disputed the claims

[1:47:51] of FEMA back in 2022 and

[1:47:53] commissioned an engineering

[1:47:55] study and found the plans

[1:47:57] for my house that was built

[1:47:58] in 1952,

[1:47:59] but that was cost prohibitive.

[1:48:00] So I have two asks of you today

[1:48:02] as the red light is looming,

[1:48:03] who and when do I notify my

[1:48:06] mortgage company to stop taking

[1:48:08] those monthly payments out of

[1:48:09] my newly created impound

[1:48:11] account? And who do we contact

[1:48:14] to get reimbursed from this

[1:48:16] erroneous study so that we can

[1:48:18] be made whole again.

[1:48:21] By the way, I'm a 10 year

[1:48:22] county retiree having worked

[1:48:24] 27 years

[1:48:25] in the county jail. I'm

[1:48:26] on a fixed income. These

[1:48:28] numbers are rising just like

[1:48:30] every other expense there is

[1:48:32] out there. Thank you very much.

[1:48:33] >> Thank you. Good morning.

[1:48:41] >> Good morning. My name is

[1:48:42] Kathy Pezantine. Everything

[1:48:43] that Ed said is what I was

[1:48:45] going to say also. I'm his

[1:48:47] neighbor and I've been

[1:48:48] in our house for 47 years,

[1:48:50] never flooded. And the zone,

[1:48:52] we have flood zone outside,

[1:48:55] not that far away. And three

[1:48:56] years ago we received a notice

[1:48:59] from our bank and then we went

[1:49:01] through a big process

[1:49:06] with them. And I just want

[1:49:08] to hold this up real quick.

[1:49:09] This is what we got from FEMA

[1:49:10] and it has a little arrow

[1:49:11] pointing

[1:49:12] to where our little flood,our

[1:49:15] small building in back of our

[1:49:16] property had a little corner

[1:49:18] that was in that flood zone.

[1:49:19] And We've paid over $3,000

[1:49:23] for our insurance and we,

[1:49:25] we didn't know what to do,

[1:49:27] where to go, who to talk to

[1:49:29] about this map and our flood

[1:49:31] zone. So we're hoping

[1:49:34] to get some answers today.

[1:49:37] Thank you.

[1:49:38] >> Thank you very much. Is

[1:49:44] there anyone else who wishes

[1:49:45] to comment on this item?

[1:49:50] Welcome.

[1:49:51] >> Hi. Thank you. Good morning.

[1:49:52] I didn't come to speak

[1:49:54] on this topic today,

[1:49:55] but hearing it, I wanted

[1:49:56] to mention that with insurance

[1:49:58] rates there are multiple

[1:50:00] factors

[1:50:02] to consider. I do not live

[1:50:03] in a floodway. I live adjacent

[1:50:05] to a floodplain

[1:50:07] within the city limits of

[1:50:09] Petaluma, California. While I

[1:50:11] don't share the same

[1:50:13] characteristics, my,

[1:50:15] my home doesn't. The land that

[1:50:17] it's on. As some

[1:50:18] of the speakers today, I would

[1:50:19] like you to know that

[1:50:20] in the past couple years,

[1:50:23] merely because our home is

[1:50:25] adjacent to a floodplain

[1:50:28] near the Petaluma River, our

[1:50:29] flood insurance went from just

[1:50:33] under $1,000 a year to $5,000 a

[1:50:38] year. I'm retired. I'm

[1:50:41] on a fixed income. We're all

[1:50:43] getting squeezed

[1:50:45] from fire insurance, flood

[1:50:47] insurance, car insurance. The

[1:50:49] squeeze is too much

[1:50:52] to bear and the stress of

[1:50:56] having your expenses go sky

[1:50:59] high in an uncertain future

[1:51:01] of what the heck would happen

[1:51:03] to you in your safe place,

[1:51:06] that you plan to retire and

[1:51:07] work hard your whole life when

[1:51:09] that is unnecessarily

[1:51:11] compromised

[1:51:14] with planning that is,

[1:51:16] is not acceptable

[1:51:18] to the people

[1:51:19] of the electorate.

[1:51:21] Electorate. So please elevate

[1:51:24] their comments and help them to

[1:51:26] have a secure and safe future.

[1:51:28] Thank you.

[1:51:30] >> Thank you. Very much.

[1:51:37] Good morning.

[1:51:39] >> Good morning. My name is

[1:51:40] Mark. I live in Scenic Avenue

[1:51:41] in Santa Rosa or county.

[1:51:42] Excuse me if I'm going to be

[1:51:44] ignorant on this topic,

[1:51:46] but I've lived at my place

[1:51:48] for 18 years.

[1:51:49] From what I understand,

[1:51:51] Sonoma County Water Agency is

[1:51:53] supposed to be responsible

[1:51:54] for the drainage ditches. In

[1:51:56] 18 years they have not,

[1:51:57] I'll use a farmer's term,

[1:51:58] mucked out the ditches once.

[1:52:00] It's been over two weeks since

[1:52:02] we had rain and we still have

[1:52:03] standing water

[1:52:05] in the culverts. We got

[1:52:07] to start with the basic level

[1:52:09] before we go to the flood stuff

[1:52:10] because if it's not going

[1:52:12] anywhere,

[1:52:14] it's standing there waiting

[1:52:15] for the next rain to happen.

[1:52:16] Now, there are fields

[1:52:17] with water in them, but my main

[1:52:20] concern is the roadways. They

[1:52:21] need to get fixed and that's

[1:52:23] mucking them out. That's

[1:52:25] weeding them during summertime.

[1:52:27] I've got notices from the

[1:52:28] permits resources say I need

[1:52:30] to cut the weeds

[1:52:31] in my culvert. Well, if I can't

[1:52:33] build on it, it's not mine.

[1:52:35] That's the water agency's

[1:52:38] responsibility. Thank you.

[1:52:41] >> Thank you very much. Are

[1:52:43] there any other members

[1:52:44] of the public who wish

[1:52:45] to speak on this item? Going

[1:52:47] once, going twice,

[1:52:49] and I will bring it back

[1:52:50] to the board. I first wanted

[1:52:52] to give staff an opportunity

[1:52:53] to answer any of the questions

[1:52:55] from members of the public,

[1:52:56] public that came up. And

[1:52:58] with respect to culverts,

[1:53:00] that is not your department,

[1:53:01] fortunately not your problem.

[1:53:03] And I just want

[1:53:04] to note that it, it could be

[1:53:06] the private property owner's

[1:53:07] responsibility or it could be

[1:53:08] public infrastructure or it

[1:53:10] could be the water agency,

[1:53:11] sort of depending upon the

[1:53:13] jurisdiction. And I'm going

[1:53:14] to look at Johannes and make

[1:53:15] sure I got that right. Is that

[1:53:16] accurate? Okay. So we would

[1:53:18] need to kind of work

[1:53:19] with you and find

[1:53:20] out a little bit more about

[1:53:21] your particular situation,

[1:53:22] which we can do afterwards. So

[1:53:29] reach out to your district

[1:53:30] supervisor and we can try

[1:53:32] to figure out what, you know,

[1:53:33] what the jurisdiction is so

[1:53:35] that we can work

[1:53:36] on that challenge. Any other

[1:53:38] responses to any

[1:53:39] of the public comment?

[1:53:43] >> So in regards to the Todd

[1:53:47] Creek, so we are

[1:53:49] at the tail end of a restudy

[1:53:50] of that creek. We're hoping

[1:53:52] for it to be completed by

[1:53:54] March 2025. So

[1:53:56] in the next couple of months.

[1:53:57] In our most recent update

[1:54:00] on that, it's basically down

[1:54:02] to some what we consider kind

[1:54:06] of more minor or administrative

[1:54:07] back and forth

[1:54:09] between the two sides. So we're

[1:54:11] hoping that's going

[1:54:12] to be resolved soon. And

[1:54:14] after that study is finished,

[1:54:16] then we would work

[1:54:17] with making those maps realized

[1:54:19] through this similar process

[1:54:22] of updating zones

[1:54:23] to hopefully have that

[1:54:25] reflected

[1:54:27] on the insurance side

[1:54:29] of things. Also I would add

[1:54:32] in regards to clarity

[1:54:33] on rebuilding, we totally

[1:54:35] agree. I acknowledge that when

[1:54:37] I look at it,

[1:54:40] I can see paths forward

[1:54:43] for someone to rebuild,

[1:54:45] but that's not enough clarity

[1:54:46] for someone who doesn't do this

[1:54:47] 40 hours a week. So as part

[1:54:49] of our next steps, we do want

[1:54:50] to make it crystal clear that

[1:54:52] folks have the ability

[1:54:54] to rebuild.

[1:54:56] >> Thank you very much

[1:54:58] for that. And I would add that

[1:55:00] for someone who doesn't do this

[1:55:01] 40 hours a week,

[1:55:02] then they have to pay someone

[1:55:03] that often is very expensive

[1:55:04] to try to find those creative

[1:55:05] solutions, which presents a

[1:55:06] challenge. I want to first go

[1:55:07] to Vice Chair Hermosillo, who

[1:55:09] has some personal experience

[1:55:11] working

[1:55:12] in the federal government

[1:55:13] on FEMA. So take it away.

[1:55:16] >> Todd Creek was great. I

[1:55:19] think that if you can elaborate

[1:55:21] on a workaround with FEMA, it's

[1:55:23] my understanding they're not

[1:55:25] accepting map revisions

[1:55:26] through 2028 because

[1:55:29] of a lawsuit. And so what does

[1:55:31] that mean for west county and

[1:55:33] adopting the FEMA map and then

[1:55:37] making sure that the people

[1:55:39] that do own their property,

[1:55:42] that bought with the intention

[1:55:44] to expand or protect, you know,

[1:55:46] build on their property,

[1:55:47] can't. What local zoning or

[1:55:49] modifications can be made to

[1:55:53] make sure that they have made a

[1:55:56] wise investment.

[1:56:01] >> So just for awareness,

[1:56:05] so today we also have Nathan

[1:56:06] Quarles, who are is our deputy

[1:56:08] director of construction and

[1:56:09] engineering. So

[1:56:11] in case I misspeak on any

[1:56:12] of the technical issues,

[1:56:13] he will swoop in

[1:56:16] to the microphone. So as far as

[1:56:20] the reset, we're not seeing

[1:56:22] anything that would prevent us

[1:56:24] from beginning that process on

[1:56:25] our own and getting a

[1:56:27] consultant the way that we

[1:56:28] would do

[1:56:29] for the way that we did for

[1:56:31] Todd Creek. So we feel that we

[1:56:33] can get started on that right

[1:56:35] of way and we're confident that

[1:56:38] we'll be able

[1:56:39] to move that forward. So

[1:56:41] in terms of the 2028 number,

[1:56:43] that's something I would have

[1:56:45] to look more into.

[1:56:46] But thank you

[1:56:47] for bringing that up.

[1:56:49] >> Any other questions or

[1:56:50] comments on this one?

[1:56:52] >> No. Thank you.

[1:56:53] >> Supervisor Gore.

[1:56:54] Thank you, Supervisor Gore.

[1:56:55] >>Thank you, Chair Hopkins. I

[1:56:56] want to acknowledge the work

[1:56:57] that's taken place

[1:56:59] since this came last year

[1:57:02] under duress from time. And I

[1:57:05] want to acknowledge everybody

[1:57:07] who spent two years and others

[1:57:09] out here who are trying

[1:57:12] to figure out what this really

[1:57:14] means. I first of all

[1:57:15] appreciate the mapping

[1:57:17] recommendations. It's going

[1:57:19] to cost us some money, but I

[1:57:22] think that's our job as local

[1:57:23] government. Right. This is one

[1:57:24] of our only tools in our

[1:57:25] toolbox that actually can

[1:57:27] impact these maps sent

[1:57:30] from the federal government.

[1:57:34] From female. So the addition

[1:57:35] of Mark west and Lower Russian

[1:57:38] river and other areas,

[1:57:40] or whether we say lower

[1:57:42] Russian river or areas that

[1:57:44] intersect with mid reach

[1:57:45] of the Russian river,

[1:57:47] what have you, Geyserville,

[1:57:48] places like that,

[1:57:50] whatever you need to look at,

[1:57:51] I am going to support that.

[1:57:53] And that allocation of funding

[1:57:56] to come back

[1:57:57] to us because you got to pay

[1:58:01] to play you

[1:58:02] like we can't just go back to

[1:58:03] FEMA that sets a broad based

[1:58:04] policy that covers regions,

[1:58:06] which is very normal

[1:58:07] for an insurer, whether it's a

[1:58:08] public insurer or a private

[1:58:10] insurer that says we are going

[1:58:12] to designate this area as high

[1:58:15] risk and you have to prove us

[1:58:18] otherwise or there's no ability

[1:58:21] to even prove otherwise. You

[1:58:23] just have

[1:58:26] to pay the extra money. That

[1:58:27] may be a difficult place

[1:58:28] to sit within, but in

[1:58:29] individuals who have

[1:58:30] frustrations

[1:58:31] around site specific locations,

[1:58:32] I think that's one approach.

[1:58:33] But for these areas, regions,

[1:58:34] I'm going to be supportive

[1:58:36] of the action going forward.

[1:58:38] So within the difficulty

[1:58:39] of what we're being presented,

[1:58:41] I want to thank you for doing

[1:58:43] the work and the increased

[1:58:44] outreach. I do support also

[1:58:46] the, the changes in policy to

[1:58:48] make sure that we are owning

[1:58:49] our responsibility as local

[1:58:51] government, even if the federal

[1:58:53] government is not owning its

[1:58:54] responsibilities

[1:58:56] to effectively communicate with

[1:58:57] our residents and constituents.

[1:58:59] So thank you for the items,

[1:59:00] thank you for the

[1:59:02] recommendations and thank you

[1:59:04] to my colleagues.

[1:59:05] >>Thank you very much.

[1:59:07] Supervisor Corsi.

[1:59:09] >>Yeah, I want to thank

[1:59:13] Permit Sonoma staff and Nathan

[1:59:14] for the work that's been done

[1:59:16] on Todd Creek. This came to our

[1:59:20] attention more than three years

[1:59:22] ago, I think, and it was a

[1:59:23] study that was actually

[1:59:25] undertaken pre pandemic and

[1:59:27] wasn't finished and then was

[1:59:29] restarted and the communication

[1:59:33] was not good from the federal

[1:59:36] government letting us know what

[1:59:38] was going on there. Even when

[1:59:40] we did engage with fema, with

[1:59:43] Congressman Thompson's office,

[1:59:44] we're still three years down

[1:59:48] the road and we don't have any

[1:59:50] answer. So, you know,

[1:59:53] I'm supportive of doing the

[1:59:55] restudies that you're talking

[1:59:58] about, the 250 grand there,

[2:00:00] but I just want to manage

[2:00:01] expectations a little bit that

[2:00:04] this is a bigger undertaking

[2:00:06] than Todd Creek by far. And

[2:00:08] Todd Creek is three years and

[2:00:10] counting. Scott, I don't know

[2:00:14] if you have an answer

[2:00:17] to this, but one

[2:00:18] of the questions

[2:00:21] from folks is how, if and when

[2:00:26] restudies are completed and

[2:00:27] maps are revised, how does a

[2:00:30] property owner unwind the

[2:00:32] property insurance burden that

[2:00:35] they've been saddled

[2:00:39] with because of these studies?

[2:00:41] >>So how it should work is that

[2:00:48] the insurance rates are based

[2:00:50] on the insurance maps. So when

[2:00:52] the insurance maps are updated,

[2:00:53] that should cascade outward.

[2:00:56] That being said, it's not

[2:00:59] something that I would have a

[2:01:02] lot of confidence happening

[2:01:03] every single time if it was my

[2:01:04] own property. I would want

[2:01:06] to make sure. So I think that's

[2:01:09] going to be an important step

[2:01:10] for us as we get towards the

[2:01:12] end

[2:01:14] of the process is making sure.

[2:01:17] That we're working

[2:01:19] with our federal partners

[2:01:21] on kind of that information

[2:01:24] proliferating to all the places

[2:01:26] that it needs to. That's the

[2:01:28] best I could do

[2:01:30] at the moment.

[2:01:31] >>Yeah. And I understand that

[2:01:32] we get into,

[2:01:34] as somebody was talking about

[2:01:37] pointing fingers and there are

[2:01:38] a lot of different agencies and

[2:01:40] entities involved in this.

[2:01:42] Your mortgage company,

[2:01:43] your insurance company, the

[2:01:46] county, the federal government,

[2:01:49] federal agencies. So I would

[2:01:51] just hope that when we, we do

[2:01:56] get these revisions that we can

[2:02:00] help help property owners not

[2:02:02] have

[2:02:05] to do this individually piece

[2:02:06] by piece going

[2:02:08] through it and that, that we as

[2:02:10] a county or even a district

[2:02:12] office, I'll make, make that

[2:02:14] pledge right now that we will

[2:02:17] work with property owners to

[2:02:19] help get that insurance thing

[2:02:21] unwound. I think that's all I

[2:02:26] have for now.

[2:02:28] >>Thanks. Thank you very much,

[2:02:29] Supervisor Rabbit.

[2:02:30] >>Yeah, thank you very much.

[2:02:31] Do you know if FEMA does the

[2:02:33] map work in house or do they

[2:02:34] contract that out? And if they

[2:02:36] do contract it out,

[2:02:37] do they have a pool and perhaps

[2:02:40] Todd Creek was done differently

[2:02:42] than the Russian River? Just

[2:02:43] curious.

[2:02:44] >>I think they do often

[2:02:46] contract it out. Everyone is

[2:02:47] balancing resources. Was there

[2:02:51] a follow up question based on.

[2:02:56] >>Well, there is based upon.

[2:02:58] And to be honest, I'll skip to

[2:03:00] my last comment which is I

[2:03:02] really like to see the Todd

[2:03:04] Creek Lomar or the letter

[2:03:06] of map revision decision prior

[2:03:08] to committing funds

[2:03:09] to a significant larger area.

[2:03:11] Especially

[2:03:15] since what we were talking

[2:03:17] about at present really is a

[2:03:18] peer review and not

[2:03:19] necessarily. Have we identified

[2:03:20] any inaccuracies? Correct.

[2:03:21] >>No specific inaccuracies,

[2:03:26] but there are,

[2:03:28] we do have observations about

[2:03:29] particularly the tributaries

[2:03:32] to the Russian river and we

[2:03:34] have seen some anomalies like

[2:03:36] in the airport area, there's a

[2:03:38] very straight line that doesn't

[2:03:41] seem to make sense just from,

[2:03:47] you know, kind of the,

[2:03:51] the initial review.

[2:03:53] >>Okay, I appreciate that. And

[2:03:54] my questions stem from

[2:03:56] Petaluma many years ago and

[2:03:58] prior to even my being on the

[2:04:00] council there did a huge flood

[2:04:02] control project. And what

[2:04:05] happened there was a remapping

[2:04:10] and put other people that

[2:04:12] didn't think they were

[2:04:14] in the floodplain.

[2:04:15] In the floodplain because at

[2:04:17] some extent it's zero sum game,

[2:04:19] especially as you can imagine

[2:04:21] with the additional more

[2:04:22] volatile weather, extreme

[2:04:24] weather conditions that we're

[2:04:25] having. So the later the

[2:04:26] mapping goes,

[2:04:27] the more extreme it's going

[2:04:30] to get. More properties

[2:04:31] undoubtedly are going

[2:04:32] to be involved

[2:04:33] in that. I would just like to

[2:04:34] see and I know it's been three

[2:04:35] years, but I know there's no

[2:04:36] final decision and we're asking

[2:04:37] FEMA to remap something,

[2:04:39] relook at something they've

[2:04:41] already published. I want

[2:04:44] to know what the likelihood of

[2:04:45] going forward and being

[2:04:47] successful in that before we

[2:04:49] actually start putting cash

[2:04:50] on the line. And then my other

[2:04:52] piece is that. Correct me if

[2:04:53] I'm wrong,

[2:04:55] FEMA produces these maps all

[2:04:57] over the US the vast majority

[2:05:01] of local jurisdictions, cities

[2:05:03] and counties accept the maps

[2:05:05] in order to participate

[2:05:08] in the National Flood

[2:05:09] Insurance Program, which

[2:05:11] doesn't just benefit the county

[2:05:14] in terms of disasters,

[2:05:15] but obviously is essential

[2:05:16] for people to get bank loans,

[2:05:19] mortgages, VA loans,

[2:05:20] participate in flood insurance

[2:05:22] for better or worse. And I

[2:05:24] understand the expenses

[2:05:26] of that.

[2:05:27] But what do other counties do?

[2:05:28] The overlay, though? I think

[2:05:30] some county. I believe that

[2:05:31] we're being more transparent

[2:05:32] by putting an F1 or an F2

[2:05:34] on a zoning map

[2:05:35] to let you know that, oh, crap,

[2:05:38] my house is

[2:05:40] in the floodplain or floodway.

[2:05:42] Other jurisdictions adopt the

[2:05:44] maps,

[2:05:45] don't necessarily reflect it

[2:05:47] in zoning,

[2:05:49] and you will only know

[2:05:50] through the bank,

[2:05:51] you will only know

[2:05:52] through your insurance. So

[2:05:54] again, I understand the

[2:05:55] frustration, but I do think our

[2:05:56] county is being more

[2:05:57] transparent by posting it,

[2:05:58] putting it on the zoning. And I

[2:06:00] guess that's. Did I say

[2:06:03] anything wrong?

[2:06:04] >>You did not say anything

[2:06:06] wrong.

[2:06:07] >>Okay. But I do think,

[2:06:09] and I appreciate you

[2:06:10] recognizing, you know, I don't

[2:06:11] think there will ever be carve

[2:06:13] outs in that,

[2:06:14] but I do think that we can look

[2:06:16] at the rebuilding

[2:06:17] like you talked about. You

[2:06:19] know, I want to make sure that

[2:06:20] we're not any stricter and kind

[2:06:21] of for the same reasons that

[2:06:22] the fire rebuilds. And it's

[2:06:24] ironic now that we're, you

[2:06:26] know,

[2:06:27] I think that it's a huge

[2:06:30] dilemma for the state of

[2:06:31] California and beyond

[2:06:33] to talk about, you know,

[2:06:35] rebuilding and has known

[2:06:37] hazardous areas, whether it's

[2:06:38] wildfire or floods. And it's a

[2:06:39] difficult subject matter

[2:06:41] because, you know,

[2:06:42] there'll be another fire,

[2:06:44] there'll be another flood, and

[2:06:45] there's been the expenses that

[2:06:46] will be occurred because

[2:06:49] of that. So I look forward to

[2:06:52] those discussions as we go

[2:06:54] forward. I just want

[2:06:55] to make sure on. And I know

[2:06:56] today is not the commitment

[2:06:57] of any money,

[2:06:58] but I would damn well like

[2:07:00] to see the Todd Creek, excuse

[2:07:01] me, report before we go down

[2:07:02] this other path because I think

[2:07:04] that'll be an indication

[2:07:06] of how successful we may or

[2:07:09] may not be.

[2:07:11] >>Thank you very much. I have a

[2:07:12] very simple question. Why do we

[2:07:16] do this? My understanding is

[2:07:18] that we are one of the only

[2:07:21] jurisdictions who takes this

[2:07:22] additional step. And while it

[2:07:24] may lead itself

[2:07:25] to increased transparency,

[2:07:26] it does actually also Create

[2:07:28] additional restrictions

[2:07:29] on people's proper. And then we

[2:07:31] are actually the ones who are,

[2:07:32] quite frankly,

[2:07:33] taking the property right

[2:07:35] of a property owner

[2:07:36] to rebuild. And I think that,

[2:07:39] you know, one of my chief

[2:07:40] concerns is that we're not just

[2:07:41] talking

[2:07:42] about rebuilding after, you

[2:07:43] know, a major wildfire or a

[2:07:45] major flood when there's a lot

[2:07:46] of political pressure and a lot

[2:07:47] of attention on the community.

[2:07:49] To give the example of

[2:07:50] Stumptown that Peter raised

[2:07:52] during the Mac meeting, you

[2:07:53] know, what if a semi truck or a

[2:07:55] car takes a turn wrong and

[2:07:56] wrecks into his brewery and

[2:07:57] it's just a one one

[2:07:58] off where, you know,

[2:07:59] more than 50%

[2:08:01] of his structure is destroyed,

[2:08:02] then force

[2:08:04] to navigate consultants, try

[2:08:05] to advocate for himself

[2:08:07] without kind

[2:08:08] of having an entire community

[2:08:09] to back him. And, you know,

[2:08:11] to come to board of

[2:08:12] Supervisors meetings to ask

[2:08:13] for the kinds

[2:08:14] of things that we've done in,

[2:08:15] you know, these kinds

[2:08:17] of disasters with mass wildfire

[2:08:18] and mass structure loss. So why

[2:08:20] do we put ourselves

[2:08:21] in this situation of kind

[2:08:22] of making it more difficult on

[2:08:23] property owners?

[2:08:29] >>I'd say that, you know, for a

[2:08:31] time this was the best solution

[2:08:33] to a problem and a way

[2:08:35] to get information out there,

[2:08:37] as Supervisor Rabbit said,

[2:08:41] about being transparent about

[2:08:43] issues affecting properties.

[2:08:46] But you're right,

[2:08:48] it's been a really long time

[2:08:50] since these were enacted and

[2:08:51] they haven't been touched

[2:08:53] since. And they've carried

[2:08:54] forward in general plan, in

[2:08:56] hazard mitigation plans ever

[2:08:58] since. But as everything in the

[2:08:59] world has gotten more

[2:09:02] complicated,

[2:09:03] everything is more regulated,

[2:09:04] it does warrant another look

[2:09:06] at it again, because we should

[2:09:08] always be asking ourselves,

[2:09:09] why are we putting ourselves

[2:09:10] through this and trying

[2:09:11] to be better the next time? So

[2:09:12] as part of our update

[2:09:14] to the safety element,

[2:09:15] we do want

[2:09:16] to reexamine this and a number

[2:09:18] of other zones that we have

[2:09:20] that were created a long time

[2:09:22] ago and maybe accomplished

[2:09:23] in other ways. So it's not to

[2:09:25] say that they don't have value,

[2:09:26] but the language might need

[2:09:28] to change or things might need

[2:09:30] to get more clear. Again, back

[2:09:31] to that earlier comment

[2:09:33] of making it easy for people to

[2:09:34] understand.

[2:09:35] >>Thank you very much. And then

[2:09:37] I was wondering if you had any

[2:09:39] additional information. This is

[2:09:40] something that we just found

[2:09:41] out about, about the community

[2:09:42] rating system. My understanding

[2:09:44] is that if communities, you

[2:09:46] know, undertake kind

[2:09:47] of flood mitigation efforts,

[2:09:48] that they can receive up

[2:09:49] to a 45% discount

[2:09:51] on flood insurance premiums,

[2:09:52] which be, you know, real money

[2:09:54] in the hands of local folks who

[2:09:56] are facing ever increasing cost

[2:09:57] of living escalations. And I

[2:09:58] guess that the county used

[2:10:00] to participate in this

[2:10:02] but it lasts sometime in the

[2:10:04] 90s or early 2000s. I have no

[2:10:05] idea which department was even

[2:10:07] in charge of this. Do you have

[2:10:08] any information about this?

[2:10:09] >>So we do have our floodplain

[2:10:10] manager kind of working

[2:10:11] on an application

[2:10:13] at the moment. And we expect

[2:10:15] to have a, you know, kind

[2:10:17] of set

[2:10:19] of deadlines and an estimate

[2:10:20] on how much time it's going

[2:10:22] to take. It is a pretty

[2:10:23] significant application. One

[2:10:24] thing that we didn't mention

[2:10:26] today, but that did come up

[2:10:28] in the community meetings was

[2:10:29] in the 90s we actually got

[2:10:31] audited by FEMA and were

[2:10:32] essentially placed

[2:10:33] on probation. So they do look

[2:10:35] at things

[2:10:37] like whether we're adhering

[2:10:38] to the federal standards,

[2:10:39] things

[2:10:41] like having the prohibition in

[2:10:43] F1 increase our scorecard

[2:10:47] rating, but also take away

[2:10:49] development potential. So it

[2:10:51] could be something that gets

[2:10:54] everyone countywide a 10%

[2:10:56] discount. But it means that

[2:11:00] certain people, they're out

[2:11:02] of luck. So it's that balancing

[2:11:04] act of how do we get the most

[2:11:05] potential kind of good

[2:11:07] for everybody

[2:11:11] without leaving anybody left

[2:11:12] by the wayside. So we're doing

[2:11:13] that analysis. We are preparing

[2:11:16] a work plan because we do

[2:11:19] understand that it's a very

[2:11:22] time intensive process

[2:11:24] to do that application. Then

[2:11:26] it's another thing that we have

[2:11:27] to stick with and we'll have

[2:11:29] monitoring on. So it's not just

[2:11:30] a one time and we're good

[2:11:32] forever.

[2:11:33] >>Great.

[2:11:36] >>Thank you so much

[2:11:37] for that then. My last question

[2:11:40] is, I love some

[2:11:41] of the suggestions that you had

[2:11:42] of looking again at legal,

[2:11:43] nonconforming, looking at

[2:11:44] possible overlays. I just want

[2:11:46] to say for the record that I

[2:11:47] think that every business

[2:11:48] in an urban surface, surface

[2:11:50] area, small town is an

[2:11:52] essential business and they

[2:11:53] kind of mutually depend

[2:11:54] on one another to essentially

[2:11:55] have that critical mass

[2:11:57] to get folks in, you know,

[2:11:58] to come and, you know,

[2:11:59] purchase things at Stumptown

[2:12:01] Brewery and then, you know, go

[2:12:02] over to Farmhand. And I mean

[2:12:03] it's all, it's all sort

[2:12:05] of part of a common commercial

[2:12:06] ecosystem. And so when we're

[2:12:08] talking about possible policy

[2:12:09] medications,

[2:12:11] what's the timeline

[2:12:12] for bringing that back

[2:12:13] to the board? Is that something

[2:12:14] that we're going to look at

[2:12:15] in the general plan update?

[2:12:16] You know, what are ways that

[2:12:17] the community can provide

[2:12:18] input? Because I know that

[2:12:19] there's some strong feelings

[2:12:21] out in lower Russian river,

[2:12:22] understandably so,

[2:12:24] about this and want to make

[2:12:25] sure that this isn't just

[2:12:26] something that we'll say that

[2:12:27] we'll do sometime,

[2:12:28] but make sure that we actually,

[2:12:30] you know,

[2:12:31] are moving forward and

[2:12:32] committed

[2:12:33] to hearing that feedback,

[2:12:34] receiving that feedback and

[2:12:35] coming up with policy

[2:12:36] modifications.

[2:12:37] >>Well, one thing that I heard

[2:12:38] loud and clear at the lower

[2:12:39] Rush Nuver Mac meeting is any

[2:12:42] policy discussion that affects

[2:12:47] west county starts and ends

[2:12:48] at that body. So that means

[2:12:49] once we start something, that's

[2:12:50] the first place we're going

[2:12:51] to go in terms

[2:12:52] of things that are kind

[2:12:54] of already in process that

[2:12:55] there could be an avenue

[2:12:56] to accelerate the timelines.

[2:12:58] We will be bringing forth the

[2:13:00] public safety and environmental

[2:13:02] justice elements,

[2:13:05] two separate elements that are

[2:13:07] on the significant item

[2:13:08] calendar, I believe, for May or

[2:13:09] possibly the first meeting in

[2:13:13] June before budget. So as part

[2:13:14] of that process, we look

[2:13:15] at programs that are kind

[2:13:20] of going

[2:13:21] to govern the work plan

[2:13:22] for the next few years

[2:13:24] at the very least. So I think

[2:13:26] this perfectly aligns

[2:13:28] with that. And

[2:13:30] through that process we may be

[2:13:33] able to again identify things

[2:13:35] that we can do sooner that

[2:13:36] aren't related to zoning or

[2:13:38] building code or things like

[2:13:40] that that will require the

[2:13:42] multi stage public process and

[2:13:44] hearings and two minutes

[2:13:46] for everyone. So that's another

[2:13:48] thing that we're, we're going

[2:13:50] to be looking into.

[2:13:51] >>Great. So public safety and

[2:13:53] EJ elements coming to the board

[2:13:54] and that's an opportunity

[2:13:55] to provide direction to staff

[2:13:57] to incorporate these kinds

[2:13:58] of policies into the work plan

[2:13:59] going forward. And that's

[2:14:00] something that we can also

[2:14:02] bring to the lower Russian

[2:14:03] River. Mac have a meeting out

[2:14:04] in Greenville, hopefully

[2:14:06] at our retrofitted bank of

[2:14:07] America building. We're trying

[2:14:08] to get that up so that we can

[2:14:09] have community meetings there.

[2:14:10] And that's sort

[2:14:11] of the next steps

[2:14:12] for this.

[2:14:13] >>Yes, And I would add that

[2:14:15] even bigger than that, as part

[2:14:16] of the larger general Plan

[2:14:17] update in 2025, there's going

[2:14:19] to be multiple outreach

[2:14:20] meetings, you know, both

[2:14:22] in person and virtual. And

[2:14:23] we're exploring kind

[2:14:25] of a number of different ways

[2:14:27] to bring in different voices,

[2:14:28] different parts

[2:14:30] of the county. So that'll be

[2:14:31] another opportunity to express

[2:14:33] things that people want to see

[2:14:35] in the next general plan.

[2:14:38] >>Great. And we talked

[2:14:39] at our meeting last Friday

[2:14:40] about actually adding those

[2:14:41] dates to our calendar

[2:14:42] of significant items. So even

[2:14:43] though it's not a board

[2:14:44] meeting, we'll have it

[2:14:45] in every single Board of

[2:14:46] Supervisors agenda packet and

[2:14:47] folks have easily access to

[2:14:49] knowing when those meetings are

[2:14:50] coming up. So. Great. Last

[2:14:52] question is actually really

[2:14:53] more

[2:14:54] for the CEO and I just want

[2:14:56] to share that I feel like New

[2:14:57] Jersey is doing a much better

[2:14:58] job than California in terms

[2:14:59] of looking at flood prone

[2:15:01] communities. I actually heard a

[2:15:03] program

[2:15:04] on KQED quite some time ago

[2:15:06] about how they are proactively

[2:15:07] and totally voluntary basis,

[2:15:09] you know, offering funds

[2:15:11] to buy out properties that are

[2:15:12] in flood prone areas. And it

[2:15:13] feels like we're sort of taking

[2:15:15] the exact opposite approach,

[2:15:17] which is essentially coming in

[2:15:18] and telling people that their

[2:15:20] property in the future could be

[2:15:22] worth nothing

[2:15:24] after they've sort

[2:15:25] of poured their life savings

[2:15:26] into it. And so I just want

[2:15:27] to see if there is room

[2:15:28] in our legislative platform

[2:15:30] to consider advocating for,

[2:15:32] you know, if there are

[2:15:33] voluntary opportunities that

[2:15:34] could potentially feed into,

[2:15:36] say,

[2:15:37] that FEMA community rating

[2:15:38] system, which could help get,

[2:15:39] you know, discounts

[2:15:40] for other folks. That, that's

[2:15:41] something that I would support,

[2:15:43] which is, you know,

[2:15:44] someone who is in a super low

[2:15:45] lying area that floods all the

[2:15:46] time and they're getting tired

[2:15:47] of it, you know,

[2:15:49] wants an opportunity

[2:15:50] to be bought out, but that's an

[2:15:51] opportunity they would have

[2:15:53] available to them as opposed

[2:15:55] to kind of a, you know,

[2:15:56] force feeding approach. And so

[2:15:57] is that something that we could

[2:15:59] potentially look at in terms of

[2:16:00] legislative advocacy? I don't

[2:16:01] know how much traction we're

[2:16:02] going to get

[2:16:03] in the next four years

[2:16:04] at the federal level, but we

[2:16:05] can always ask the state,

[2:16:06] who I believe is also going to

[2:16:07] be taking a big budget hit as a

[2:16:09] result of what happened. Just

[2:16:10] happened in LA.

[2:16:11] >>Correct.

[2:16:12] >>We will take it back and

[2:16:13] consider it. I feel like your

[2:16:14] current legislative platform

[2:16:16] principles in terms

[2:16:17] of the climate, you know,

[2:16:18] protection and resiliency is

[2:16:19] where we could fit that kind

[2:16:20] of conversation.

[2:16:21] But as you said,

[2:16:22] whether or not we'll get a lot

[2:16:23] of traction in the short term

[2:16:25] is probably optimistic.

[2:16:27] >>At least we can start the

[2:16:28] conversation. Maybe five years

[2:16:29] from now we can get the

[2:16:30] funding. All right with that,

[2:16:32] are there any other comments or

[2:16:33] questions from my colleagues?

[2:16:34] Seeing none. If anyone would

[2:16:37] like to make a motion

[2:16:39] on this item,

[2:16:40] would entertain a motion. Oh,

[2:16:43] and I'm gonna officially,

[2:16:45] sorry, officially close the

[2:16:46] public hearing and I heard

[2:16:47] of a motion. Okay. Do we have a

[2:16:48] second from Supervisor Corsi? I

[2:16:49] think he beat you

[2:16:51] by a second. And could we

[2:16:52] please do a voice vote on this

[2:16:53] one or a roll call vote?

[2:16:55] >>[ ROLL CALL ]

[2:17:12] >>Chair Hopkins and I will be a

[2:17:13] no on A and a yes on B. I do

[2:17:15] believe that this needs

[2:17:16] to pass. It has passed

[2:17:17] with the support

[2:17:18] of my colleagues.

[2:17:19] But I just do want

[2:17:20] to register the protest

[2:17:21] of whether it's, you know,

[2:17:22] appropriate for us to take

[2:17:23] actions that negatively impact

[2:17:24] property owners. So no on A,

[2:17:26] yes on B. With that,

[2:17:31] the motion does carry. And

[2:17:33] thank you all so much for your

[2:17:34] presentation and a special

[2:17:35] thank you for heading out to

[2:17:36] Guernville. I know,

[2:17:38] it was a very robust meeting,

[2:17:39] as we would say, out in West

[2:17:40] County. You all were amazing,

[2:17:41] handled the questions

[2:17:42] excellently and I think really

[2:17:44] internalized the feedback and

[2:17:45] brought it back. So I'm looking

[2:17:47] forward to next steps on the EJ

[2:17:48] and public safety elements.

[2:17:50] Thank you very much. And

[2:17:53] with that, we will be going

[2:17:54] ahead and moving on

[2:17:56] to our next agenda item,

[2:17:58] which is agenda item 32. And I

[2:18:01] believe that we have Adam

[2:18:02] Brand from County Council and

[2:18:04] Dan Mason coming up from

[2:18:05] Sonoma Water to present this

[2:18:06] one.

[2:18:12] >>Yeah.

[2:18:24] >>You will have comment

[2:18:25] on matters not listed

[2:18:26] on the agenda. It will be

[2:18:28] after the conclusion of our

[2:18:32] regularly scheduled items,

[2:18:33] so it will be a bit later. We

[2:18:35] have two more after this one.

[2:18:36] No, two more. Total this,

[2:18:37] including this one.

[2:18:40] >>Take it away whenever you're

[2:18:41] ready.

[2:19:17] >>Okay. Good morning,

[2:19:19] chair and board members. My

[2:19:21] name is Dan Mason

[2:19:23] from the real Estate section

[2:19:24] of Sonoma Water. I am here

[2:19:29] to request board approval

[2:19:30] of one of the two resolutions

[2:19:31] being presented declaring our

[2:19:33] Hewitt street property surplus

[2:19:35] land and our intent to sell.

[2:19:37] Sorry. Sonoma Water is required

[2:19:48] to follow the Surplus Land act

[2:19:49] and present to you

[2:19:50] for your approval one of these

[2:19:51] two resolution options.

[2:19:53] Resolution 1 would declare the

[2:19:57] surplus property exempt surplus

[2:19:59] land with our intent to sell.

[2:20:01] Resolution number two would

[2:20:05] declare the surplus property

[2:20:08] surplus land with our intent

[2:20:10] to sell. Either option is

[2:20:13] available to Sonoma Water

[2:20:15] because it is recognized as a

[2:20:17] district within the Surplus

[2:20:19] Land act. Approval approving

[2:20:24] Resolution 1 declaring the

[2:20:27] property exempt surplus land

[2:20:29] would allow us

[2:20:32] to sell the property

[2:20:34] by a public sealed bid auction

[2:20:36] to be held at the office of

[2:20:39] Sonoma Water. We recommend this

[2:20:41] option because it would help

[2:20:43] expedite the sale of the

[2:20:45] property and reduce our current

[2:20:47] holding costs. Our previous

[2:20:49] attempt to sell the property

[2:20:51] for affordable housing was

[2:20:52] unsuccessful and has required

[2:20:54] us to own the property much

[2:20:56] longer than anticipated. The

[2:20:59] process. The process

[2:21:01] to sell the property outlined

[2:21:03] in Resolution 1 would be first

[2:21:05] to notify the California

[2:21:07] Department of Housing and

[2:21:09] Community Development

[2:21:10] of the surplus of the exempt

[2:21:12] surplus land declaration

[2:21:14] for their approval. Next, we

[2:21:17] would hold the public sealed

[2:21:19] bid auction at sonoma Water

[2:21:20] on April 9 and announce the

[2:21:23] highest bidder

[2:21:25] at the auction. Once a purchase

[2:21:27] agreement is approved

[2:21:30] by the buyer and Sonoma

[2:21:32] Water, we will return

[2:21:34] to the board

[2:21:37] for your approval. The

[2:21:38] Surplus Land act would require

[2:21:40] the purchase agreement to

[2:21:42] contain a 15% affordable

[2:21:45] housing requirement if 10 or

[2:21:47] more housing units are built.

[2:21:51] Approving resolution number

[2:21:53] two, declaring the property

[2:21:54] surplus land would require us

[2:21:56] for a second time

[2:21:58] to offer the property for sale

[2:22:00] to local government agencies

[2:22:03] and housing sponsors identified

[2:22:06] by the California Department

[2:22:08] of Housing and Community

[2:22:10] Development. HCD. The process

[2:22:14] to sell the property by

[2:22:16] Resolution 2 would be first

[2:22:19] to send a notice

[2:22:21] of availability an NOA to the

[2:22:23] local government agencies and

[2:22:26] HCD housing sponsors and wait

[2:22:28] 60 days for any interest

[2:22:30] to purchase the property. If

[2:22:32] interest is shown, negotiate

[2:22:33] with potential buyers for

[2:22:35] at least 90 days

[2:22:37] to reach an agreement

[2:22:39] to buy the property. If a

[2:22:41] purchase agreement is reached

[2:22:42] between the buyer and Sonoma

[2:22:44] Water, we will return

[2:22:46] to the board

[2:22:48] for your approval. The

[2:22:49] Surplus Land act would require

[2:22:51] the purchase agreement to

[2:22:52] contain a 25% affordable

[2:22:54] housing requirement. If no

[2:22:57] government agency or housing

[2:22:58] sponsor responds,

[2:23:01] or if negotiations are

[2:23:03] unsuccessful, we will return

[2:23:05] to the board again

[2:23:07] to request approval to hold a

[2:23:08] public sealed bid auction

[2:23:10] to sell the property. Prior

[2:23:17] board actions In 2001, Sonoma

[2:23:19] Water purchased the Hewitt

[2:23:22] street property as part

[2:23:23] of a settlement. In 2015,

[2:23:26] Sonoma Water completed a lot

[2:23:28] line adjustment

[2:23:30] to isolate the Santa Cruz

[2:23:32] Santa Rosa Creek portion

[2:23:34] of the property. In 2017,

[2:23:36] Sonoma Water declared the

[2:23:39] property surplus land and the

[2:23:41] property was offered for sale

[2:23:43] to local and state agencies.

[2:23:46] In 2019, Sonoma Water agreed

[2:23:50] to sell the property to the

[2:23:52] Community Development

[2:23:53] Commission and entered

[2:23:55] into a purchase agreement. In

[2:23:58] 2022, the Community

[2:24:01] Development Commission and

[2:24:02] Sonoma Water canceled the sale

[2:24:04] of the property.

[2:24:06] >>Thank you.

[2:24:12] >>And with that I will bring it

[2:24:13] back and hand it over

[2:24:14] to the district supervisor,

[2:24:15] Supervisor Corsi.

[2:24:16] >>Thank you. Can you. Well,

[2:24:18] in 2019 was community

[2:24:24] development Commission. That

[2:24:26] was that. This was not out

[2:24:27] on the open market. This was

[2:24:29] just an offer

[2:24:30] between the water agency and

[2:24:32] the in the cdc. Is that. Is

[2:24:34] that what I'm hearing here

[2:24:36] through.

[2:24:38] >>The chair, Supervisor

[2:24:39] Corsi? That was through the

[2:24:40] surplus lands process.

[2:24:42] >>Okay. So other people had

[2:24:43] other entities had an

[2:24:44] opportunity to to bid

[2:24:45] at that.

[2:24:46] >>Time to provide us

[2:24:48] notification that they were

[2:24:49] interested.

[2:24:50] >>And to my recollection, CDC

[2:24:51] was the only entity that was

[2:24:53] interested.

[2:24:56] >>Okay, that's what I was

[2:24:57] getting to do. We expect

[2:25:00] different results this time.

[2:25:03] >>I'm not sure.

[2:25:08] >>Is this zone for multi family

[2:25:10] housing?

[2:25:11] >>It is.

[2:25:12] >>It is.

[2:25:14] >>We do frequently both my

[2:25:15] office and Sonoma Water receive

[2:25:16] inquiries

[2:25:17] about the availability

[2:25:18] of this property two,

[2:25:20] three times a year at least.

[2:25:21] Not from agencies or other

[2:25:23] governments, but just from

[2:25:25] interested persons.

[2:25:26] >>Okay, thank you.

[2:25:29] >>Any other questions

[2:25:31] from my colleagues? Seeing

[2:25:32] none. I would ask if any

[2:25:34] members of the public wish

[2:25:35] to speak on this item.

[2:25:36] Welcome, Dwayne Roselyn.

[2:25:37] >>I go past this property all

[2:25:40] the time. I ask you

[2:25:42] to use the option 2. I do

[2:25:44] believe that there are

[2:25:48] opportunities

[2:25:49] to help veterans. Petaluma just

[2:25:51] worked with PEP Housing and did

[2:25:54] a project that utilized project

[2:25:56] based housing vouchers to help

[2:25:59] finance that multi person

[2:26:02] housing situation. Because this

[2:26:06] is not really well known that

[2:26:08] this property is available. I

[2:26:10] believe you should take option

[2:26:11] to open it up, let the

[2:26:14] community know what's possible

[2:26:15] and that affordable housing

[2:26:17] could go in there and we could

[2:26:19] utilize housing vouchers. I've

[2:26:21] mentioned

[2:26:22] in the past that the Santa

[2:26:24] Rosa Housing Authority, which

[2:26:27] has the control for the HUD

[2:26:29] Vash vouchers

[2:26:31] for the whole county, had

[2:26:32] over 90 available and the

[2:26:34] River City Project in Petaluma

[2:26:37] used 20 to get their project

[2:26:39] jump started with funding. So

[2:26:41] this is a way in which we could

[2:26:43] get multi housing built right

[2:26:44] there near the creek. And if

[2:26:46] you made it for veterans, they

[2:26:48] would be somebody that could

[2:26:49] help with local. One might say

[2:26:51] oversight. You know,

[2:26:53] veterans go

[2:26:55] out and they clean up areas.

[2:26:56] We do all kinds

[2:26:57] of good stuff. And this is the

[2:26:59] opportunity for that corner.

[2:27:00] If you put the picture back up

[2:27:02] there,

[2:27:04] you could see it better. That

[2:27:07] corner is really an optimal

[2:27:08] site right next to the creek

[2:27:10] and you have some homeless

[2:27:11] folks live

[2:27:13] across the street coming off

[2:27:16] of Dutton Avenue. This is an

[2:27:17] excellent way to get people

[2:27:19] into housing

[2:27:21] near the city center. Transit

[2:27:22] oriented, all those kinds

[2:27:25] of things that you folks talk

[2:27:28] about with resiliency,

[2:27:29] sustainability, etc. Please go

[2:27:30] to option two, open it up. You

[2:27:31] can always come back and relook

[2:27:32] at it again if it doesn't work.

[2:27:34] But I'm the optimist. I'll come

[2:27:35] back and keep saying we can get

[2:27:37] veterans housing there if you

[2:27:38] will work with us. Thank you.

[2:27:39] >>Thank you very much, Duane.

[2:27:41] Anyone else wish to speak

[2:27:42] on this item? Welcome,

[2:27:43] Gregory.

[2:27:45] >>Thank you, Chair Hopkins. I'm

[2:27:48] optimistic that this property

[2:27:51] can be developed. If we had

[2:27:53] had, if we'd been working only

[2:27:56] with the Community Development

[2:27:59] department when Home Key came

[2:28:01] about, we'd never have had any

[2:28:03] of the applications that were

[2:28:05] successful in Sonoma county

[2:28:07] to turn hotels

[2:28:08] into low income housing. It was

[2:28:10] the energy that came out of

[2:28:11] Dave Kiff and the health

[2:28:13] department that did it, not

[2:28:15] community development. I think

[2:28:17] community development can be

[2:28:19] educated and can be inspired

[2:28:20] to take on this property.

[2:28:22] Because I think there are

[2:28:25] applicants in the community,

[2:28:26] nonprofits, the same people

[2:28:28] who've been building housing

[2:28:30] who use the formula that I used

[2:28:31] long ago, which is if you get

[2:28:33] free land and you get some

[2:28:35] support from the state, you can

[2:28:36] build low income housing. This

[2:28:43] is exactly that design, just

[2:28:44] like the property up on

[2:28:45] Brickway. When the state has

[2:28:47] property, when you have

[2:28:48] property and you're able

[2:28:49] to be able

[2:28:50] to encourage development by

[2:28:52] those nonprofits who will take

[2:28:53] small projects. The problem now

[2:28:55] is every Time I offer something

[2:28:57] to Burbank or Midpen or anybody

[2:28:58] else, they go. Not enough

[2:29:00] profit, not big enough. The

[2:29:02] small projects deserve your

[2:29:04] support. This is a small

[2:29:05] project that can be done. And I

[2:29:07] urge you, like Dwayne did, to

[2:29:08] take option two and give a

[2:29:11] chance for this property to be

[2:29:13] used.

[2:29:16] >>Thank you very much. Are

[2:29:18] there any other members

[2:29:19] of the public who wish

[2:29:21] to speak? Welcome.

[2:29:23] >>How you doing? My name is

[2:29:24] Jason. I'm

[2:29:25] with a local nonprofit. We

[2:29:26] actually have an affordable

[2:29:27] housing solution that we're

[2:29:28] working on and we want

[2:29:29] to invite people to come look

[2:29:31] at our models that the first

[2:29:35] three that just came

[2:29:38] to our headquarters were

[2:29:39] at the corner of Fulton and

[2:29:40] River Road. They're aircraft

[2:29:42] aluminum. They're extremely

[2:29:45] durable. We are working

[2:29:48] with local nonprofits, the

[2:29:50] Line foundation, on doing

[2:29:52] vocational training and

[2:29:54] actually assembling these here,

[2:29:56] hopefully in Sonoma County.

[2:29:57] >>And our CEO is

[2:29:59] in talks right.

[2:30:01] >>Now with people from LA

[2:30:03] to get these units possibly

[2:30:04] down there.

[2:30:06] >>And we want to.

[2:30:07] >>He was affected by the fire

[2:30:09] from 2017 and because of that

[2:30:11] came up.

[2:30:12] >>With a solution and we can

[2:30:14] all.

[2:30:16] >>Come together as a community.

[2:30:17] >>That's what I love doing.

[2:30:18] >>I love networking.

[2:30:20] >>I'm a volunteer for this

[2:30:23] organization and.

[2:30:24] >>Organizations like the Lyme

[2:30:26] foundation that does vocational

[2:30:27] training, empowering youth and

[2:30:30] veterans.

[2:30:31] >>We want to work

[2:30:32] with veterans.

[2:30:33] >>We can, we have a solution.

[2:30:34] We can launch this from Sonoma

[2:30:36] county and it could be disaster

[2:30:38] relief, housing,

[2:30:39] permanent housing. They're

[2:30:40] multi purpose housing.

[2:30:42] >>So we just want

[2:30:43] to invite everybody

[2:30:45] to come check them out

[2:30:46] firsthand.

[2:30:47] >>We can give you a Tour.

[2:30:48] We're at 3362 Fulton Road as

[2:30:49] our headquarters and we have

[2:30:51] three of these units.

[2:30:53] >>400 square feet, one

[2:30:56] of them and.

[2:30:58] >>The other one's 200 square

[2:30:59] feet.

[2:31:01] >>Studio housing.

[2:31:03] >>Permanent solution, disaster

[2:31:04] relief solution.

[2:31:07] >>It's a win, win. We can,

[2:31:08] we can totally launch from this

[2:31:10] county something that can

[2:31:11] impact the whole world,

[2:31:12] the whole country. Thank you.

[2:31:16] >>Thank you so much

[2:31:17] for coming. I drive

[2:31:18] by those all the time. And

[2:31:19] there was a lengthy debate

[2:31:20] on social media about whether

[2:31:21] the dog was real or not. And it

[2:31:22] is a cardboard dog. It never

[2:31:23] moves. No one is trapping a dog

[2:31:25] in this thing on the side of

[2:31:26] Fulton Road. Do any other

[2:31:27] members of the public wish

[2:31:30] to speak on this item? And I

[2:31:31] really want to check it out.

[2:31:33] By the way, those look really,

[2:31:35] really amazing. Seeing none. I

[2:31:37] will bring it back

[2:31:38] to the board and I will look

[2:31:39] at my colleague from the third

[2:31:40] district.

[2:31:42] >>Just one more quick question.

[2:31:43] Does staff have an opinion

[2:31:44] on which of these two

[2:31:46] resolutions is more likely

[2:31:47] to result in A successful,

[2:31:48] successful transaction.

[2:31:49] >>Well, we recommend solution

[2:31:51] one, and we do because

[2:31:54] after speaking with the city

[2:31:57] planning department, they kind

[2:31:58] of emphasize because it's

[2:32:00] in a historical district,

[2:32:02] preservation district,

[2:32:06] and the challenges with getting

[2:32:07] something developed there under

[2:32:10] those terms and conditions.

[2:32:13] And the size of the parcel

[2:32:17] would not necessarily lend

[2:32:19] itself attractive

[2:32:21] to affordable housing

[2:32:24] developers out of the area. So

[2:32:27] we would prefer

[2:32:32] to expedite the sale of it. We

[2:32:35] would notify everybody, all the

[2:32:37] affordable housing sponsors

[2:32:39] on HCD's list to the auction

[2:32:41] that we would hold at Sonoma

[2:32:43] Water and allow them,

[2:32:48] of course, to come make a bid

[2:32:52] for the property. As Adam has

[2:32:53] mentioned, we have had a couple

[2:32:57] local neighbors interested

[2:32:58] in the property,

[2:33:01] not necessarily

[2:33:03] for multi unit, but

[2:33:04] to develop the property

[2:33:06] for their own home.

[2:33:08] >>Okay. All right, I'll move.

[2:33:13] Staff's Recommendation of

[2:33:15] Resolution 1.

[2:33:17] >>And do we have a second

[2:33:18] on that?

[2:33:19] >>Yeah, I'm second that.

[2:33:20] >>All right, second from

[2:33:21] Supervisor Gore. And we will do

[2:33:22] a roll call vote

[2:33:23] on this item, please.

[2:33:24] >>[ ROLL CALL ]

[2:33:46] >>And a quick question for

[2:33:47] County Council. When

[2:33:48] Supervisor Hermosio comes back,

[2:33:49] can she sort of add her vote

[2:33:50] to this item or will we need to

[2:33:51] retake that?

[2:33:52] >>I would recommend we either

[2:33:53] wait till she comes back

[2:33:54] to take the formal vote or. Or

[2:33:55] counter as an absent.

[2:33:56] >>Okay, she might. Okay, we'll

[2:33:58] count her as an absent and go

[2:33:59] ahead and move forward. Thank

[2:34:01] you very much. Thank you

[2:34:02] for the public comment. Really

[2:34:04] want to check out those cool,

[2:34:05] tiny homes in Fulton. So thank

[2:34:07] you for bringing that up. And

[2:34:09] with that, we're just going

[2:34:11] to take a moment to transition

[2:34:13] between staff teams and we'll

[2:34:15] be moving on to item 33, which

[2:34:18] is our options to establish a

[2:34:20] two year county imposed

[2:34:21] development impact fee

[2:34:22] reduction program. And thank

[2:34:28] you so much to the Sonoma

[2:34:29] Water team, hoping that we get

[2:34:30] to see that property turned

[2:34:31] into housing. It's exciting.

[2:34:32] Good morning, Chair Hopkins,

[2:34:40] members of the board,

[2:34:41] I'm happy to be here for our

[2:34:42] team's first word presentation.

[2:34:44] >>Crystal Carry Harrow, deputy

[2:34:47] County Administrator for.

[2:34:49] >>The Strategic Initiatives

[2:34:50] division.

[2:34:52] >>And I am here with Ethan

[2:34:53] Pawson.

[2:34:54] >>From county Council's office

[2:34:55] and Jennifer larocque.

[2:34:56] >>One of the CAO analysts here

[2:34:58] to discuss the impact

[2:34:59] of these reductions

[2:35:00] for affordable housing. And I'm

[2:35:02] going to turn it over to

[2:35:05] Jennifer, who's been the lead

[2:35:07] on this effort.

[2:35:09] >>Thank you, Christel.

[2:35:12] Before I get going, I'll offer

[2:35:15] the chair an option. I can go

[2:35:16] through our brief slide

[2:35:18] presentation which contains

[2:35:21] information

[2:35:22] in the staff report, or you can

[2:35:24] provide a brief verbal overview

[2:35:25] and then we can jump into

[2:35:26] discussion.

[2:35:28] >>Why don't we do a brief

[2:35:31] verbal overview and then we can

[2:35:32] refer to slides if there are

[2:35:33] any questions

[2:35:34] from my colleagues. Thank you

[2:35:36] so much.

[2:35:37] >>Sounds great. First and

[2:35:39] foremost, I would like to thank

[2:35:40] my department and partners in

[2:35:41] the audience here who provided

[2:35:43] data and feedback on program

[2:35:46] options that really made this

[2:35:47] item possible today. My verbal

[2:35:49] comments will include three

[2:35:53] parts, Brief Background, the

[2:35:55] Program and Next Steps as

[2:35:56] background, the Board directed

[2:35:58] staff

[2:36:00] to pursue a nexus study based

[2:36:01] on square footage and

[2:36:03] compliance with AB602 and

[2:36:04] present interim options

[2:36:05] to reduce fees

[2:36:08] for affordable housing. So the

[2:36:09] options you have here today

[2:36:11] represent reduced parks and

[2:36:12] traffic fees, the traffic fees

[2:36:14] for both countywide and

[2:36:15] Sonoma Valley for a two year

[2:36:17] period while the county

[2:36:19] establishes that nexus fee or

[2:36:21] nexus study with regards to the

[2:36:25] program and program

[2:36:27] development. The units that

[2:36:28] would likely come through

[2:36:31] to receive a building permit,

[2:36:33] which is when we would issue a

[2:36:34] fee reduction,

[2:36:36] are units that are already

[2:36:38] in our entitlement process.

[2:36:40] You'll hear us refer

[2:36:41] to those as the pipeline.

[2:36:42] That's the land use approval

[2:36:44] process. Of note,

[2:36:45] there are currently 30 times

[2:36:46] more very low, low and moderate

[2:36:48] income pipeline units than the

[2:36:49] recent average. And

[2:36:51] over the past 20 years we've

[2:36:52] seen that 25%

[2:36:57] of pipeline units do not make

[2:36:58] it to building permits. So

[2:36:59] that's what this program would

[2:37:01] be trying to solve. We're

[2:37:02] trying to reduce that dropout

[2:37:03] rate knowing that the majority

[2:37:05] of that 25% is likely

[2:37:07] affordable housing units.

[2:37:08] In terms of where to apply this

[2:37:09] program and where we need

[2:37:13] to see increased housing in

[2:37:15] Sonoma county, we evaluated our

[2:37:17] regional housing needs

[2:37:18] allocation, arena allocation.

[2:37:20] We need

[2:37:21] to see increased production

[2:37:25] in very low low units

[2:37:26] in our arena allocation. We

[2:37:31] also recognize that the

[2:37:32] majority of moderate units are

[2:37:33] usually accessory dwelling

[2:37:35] units that we can count towards

[2:37:36] arena but aren't necessarily

[2:37:37] deed restricted. So the program

[2:37:39] options we've developed we use

[2:37:43] criteria identified

[2:37:45] in the staff report. Part

[2:37:46] of that relies on rena. The

[2:37:48] three options that are

[2:37:49] presented to the board today

[2:37:52] for consideration are to reduce

[2:37:55] the parks and traffic fee

[2:37:58] by 100% for very low,

[2:38:01] low and moderate units,

[2:38:04] to reduce parks and traffic

[2:38:06] with square footage based tiers

[2:38:07] for very low,

[2:38:10] low and moderate or to reduce

[2:38:12] parks and traffic square

[2:38:14] footage based tiers

[2:38:15] for very low and low

[2:38:17] with a separate tier

[2:38:19] for moderate income. Each of

[2:38:21] those options the board has the

[2:38:24] ability

[2:38:25] to consider capping the program

[2:38:27] at either half arena

[2:38:28] obligation, our full arena

[2:38:29] obligation, or no cap, which

[2:38:31] essentially would have the

[2:38:33] potential of including all

[2:38:34] affordable pipeline units.

[2:38:35] Staff identified that Option 3

[2:38:39] Captive the full Rena

[2:38:41] obligation best meets the

[2:38:43] program criteria outlined

[2:38:44] in the staff report. Of note,

[2:38:48] in fiscal year 2324, Roads and

[2:38:50] Parks received a combined 1.5

[2:38:51] million

[2:38:52] in impact fee revenue. So staff

[2:38:53] recommend allocating 1.5

[2:38:55] million per year

[2:38:57] during the program. The two

[2:38:58] year program to backfill actual

[2:39:00] waived fees capped at that 1.5

[2:39:01] so that departments can

[2:39:04] continue the current level of

[2:39:06] project planning and

[2:39:07] implementation in terms

[2:39:14] of next steps. If the board

[2:39:16] finds one

[2:39:17] of these options suitable,

[2:39:19] staff will return

[2:39:20] with a resolution

[2:39:21] to implement reduced fees in

[2:39:23] February and a request for

[2:39:25] $1.5 million in contingencies

[2:39:27] for the first year of the

[2:39:29] program and staff would

[2:39:30] recommend allocating 1.5

[2:39:32] million to the program

[2:39:35] in fiscal year 2526 budget and

[2:39:36] the program would continue

[2:39:37] through the end

[2:39:38] of calendar year 2026 or until

[2:39:40] the county adopts an updated

[2:39:41] NEXUS study and fee schedule

[2:39:42] for traffic and parks,

[2:39:44] whichever comes first. That

[2:39:45] concludes my comments.

[2:39:46] >>Thank you so much

[2:39:47] for the overview and for the

[2:39:48] excellent staff report. I am

[2:39:49] going to go to members of the

[2:39:50] public. I know there are some

[2:39:51] folks who have been waiting

[2:39:52] quite some time

[2:39:53] for this item. So everyone will

[2:39:54] have two minutes and I would

[2:39:56] welcome the first commenter.

[2:39:58] It looks like it's going

[2:39:59] to be Duane

[2:40:01] to the podium.

[2:40:02] >>My name is Duane Duitt. I'm a

[2:40:03] member of the Sonoma County

[2:40:04] Housing Advocacy Group which

[2:40:05] was formed fully 30 years ago

[2:40:08] because of the dearth of rental

[2:40:09] residential affordable housing.

[2:40:11] I have just listened to the

[2:40:15] short staff presentation number

[2:40:16] three, the option that seems

[2:40:19] to be the best in the way. We

[2:40:21] want to recommend that you only

[2:40:23] apply these things to very low

[2:40:24] and low income units. Moderate

[2:40:27] gets built. They're not having

[2:40:30] any problem getting that done.

[2:40:31] The biggest problem is getting

[2:40:33] the housing

[2:40:34] for extremely low income, very

[2:40:36] low income and low income

[2:40:39] people. This is where it's

[2:40:40] always been a problem. That's

[2:40:42] why housing authorities were

[2:40:43] formed in sonoma county over

[2:40:46] 60 years ago and we've always

[2:40:49] been running behind

[2:40:50] on the affordable housing

[2:40:52] for rental residential, not

[2:40:54] for moderate. That's getting

[2:40:56] taken care of. So please,

[2:40:58] because you have

[2:40:59] to carefully tailor this to

[2:41:01] make sure you don't lose the

[2:41:02] money that might be helpful.

[2:41:03] Staff has presented something

[2:41:05] that seems reasonable. Give it

[2:41:07] a try, come back and revisit it

[2:41:09] if need be. But make sure that

[2:41:11] this is targeted specifically.

[2:41:12] Extremely low income,

[2:41:14] very low income and low income.

[2:41:17] Moderate always takes care

[2:41:18] of itself. Thank you kindly for

[2:41:20] your time.

[2:41:22] >>Thank you very much. Good

[2:41:23] morning and so good to see you

[2:41:31] in chambers.

[2:41:32] >>Yeah hello there. Sorry, I

[2:41:33] just had foot surgery. That's

[2:41:34] why I'm a Little slower than

[2:41:35] usual.

[2:41:36] >>Good morning, members

[2:41:37] of the board.

[2:41:38] >>Special shout out to

[2:41:39] Supervisor Ed Morcillo.

[2:41:40] Congratulations.

[2:41:42] >>I'm Al Erma. I'm representing

[2:41:44] the Sonoma County Hospitality

[2:41:45] association this morning. We

[2:41:46] like to say we represent

[2:41:48] about 20,000 employees across

[2:41:49] the various hospitality sector

[2:41:51] and businesses in Sonoma

[2:41:53] County. We're really here

[2:41:54] housing, affordable housing is

[2:41:56] ike a top priority. As

[2:41:57] mentioned, I think Sue Rice

[2:41:59] Hopkins mentioned,

[2:42:00] as I was driving in, really

[2:42:01] supporting our workforce and

[2:42:02] housing is like job one. So

[2:42:04] we're here to support that. We

[2:42:05] think these impact fees,

[2:42:06] whether right izing them,

[2:42:08] lowering them or waiving them

[2:42:09] entirely, is very important if

[2:42:10] it provides. A modest incentive

[2:42:12] to housing developers. And the

[2:42:14] hospitality association

[2:42:16] supports that. So we support

[2:42:17] the board adopting today. One

[2:42:20] of the recommendations or one

[2:42:22] of the recommendations from the

[2:42:25] department regarding that. And

[2:42:28] thank you for your

[2:42:29] consideration.

[2:42:30] >>I did want to just throw in

[2:42:33] another comment regarding the

[2:42:34] discussion

[2:42:35] about insurance that was

[2:42:36] on the previous item. It's a

[2:42:37] huge issue. And as you know,

[2:42:38] I work

[2:42:39] with economic development more

[2:42:40] before So it's like a huge

[2:42:41] issue requires I think,

[2:42:42] a separate whole discussion

[2:42:44] about it So I would encourage

[2:42:46] you to do that. And regarding

[2:42:47] the FEMA mapping. Supervisor

[2:42:48] Rabbit mentioned,

[2:42:50] I think that's an issue too,

[2:42:51] something that needs to be

[2:42:53] taken up. I think the mapping

[2:42:54] just comes top down

[2:42:55] to our local units

[2:42:56] of government. The lady in

[2:42:57] Petaluma mentioned that she

[2:42:59] lives two blocks or three

[2:43:00] blocks from the river and they

[2:43:01] arbitrarily increased her

[2:43:02] insurance, I think, which I

[2:43:04] think that river hasn't flooded

[2:43:07] in, I don't know, 100 years

[2:43:08] maybe. So it is worth some more

[2:43:10] attention. Thank you for your

[2:43:12] time.

[2:43:15] >>Thank you so much for your

[2:43:17] comments. Welcome.

[2:43:18] >>Hi, good morning, board.

[2:43:20] Pat McDonnell. I'm the housing

[2:43:21] team supervisor at Legal Aid

[2:43:23] of Sonoma County. I am

[2:43:24] in support

[2:43:26] of the proposal brought

[2:43:27] before you today to waive or

[2:43:29] diminish impact fees. As a

[2:43:32] housing attorney who works full

[2:43:35] time on trying to keep people

[2:43:37] in housing, I can tell you that

[2:43:39] the work that we do at Legal

[2:43:41] Aid is very important,

[2:43:43] but it is not the full solution

[2:43:45] by any stretch

[2:43:47] of the imagination. What so

[2:43:48] many of my clients need is

[2:43:50] housing options. You know,

[2:43:52] more attorneys are great, but

[2:43:53] more attorneys can't save

[2:43:55] everyone. We need to make sure

[2:43:57] that we have sufficient housing

[2:43:58] to put people in. We talk all

[2:43:59] the time

[2:44:01] about a housing crisis, and I'm

[2:44:02] sure pretty much everyone up at

[2:44:03] the dais has had the experience

[2:44:05] of talking

[2:44:06] to a first responder, a fire

[2:44:07] chief, a police chief, and,

[2:44:09] you know,

[2:44:10] saying anything that you need,

[2:44:12] let me know, it's yours.

[2:44:14] Right. That is,

[2:44:15] the response that we often have

[2:44:16] in a crisis is we pull any

[2:44:17] resource, any policy tool, any

[2:44:19] policy lever that might be

[2:44:20] needed to resolve the crisis.

[2:44:21] But when it comes to housing,

[2:44:23] because of the nature

[2:44:24] of the crisis that it builds

[2:44:25] over the course of generations

[2:44:27] and it takes so long

[2:44:28] to resolve,

[2:44:29] we often don't put everything

[2:44:31] on the table that we ought

[2:44:32] to when we talk about trying

[2:44:33] to resolve the crisis. And so I

[2:44:35] encourage you to think of this

[2:44:36] crisis the way you would think

[2:44:37] of any other crisis. Any policy

[2:44:39] lever that is at your disposal

[2:44:40] is something that should be

[2:44:42] on the table. I encourage you

[2:44:44] to pull all of the levers. We

[2:44:46] are in such a crisis,

[2:44:47] and it requires the leadership

[2:44:49] of this board

[2:44:50] to make sure that we get out

[2:44:52] of it. Thank you.

[2:44:54] >>Thank you so much, Pat.

[2:44:56] Welcome.

[2:44:57] >>Good morning, chair and board

[2:44:58] members Nicholas Birtzel,

[2:44:59] representing Providence and our

[2:45:00] three acute care hospitals in

[2:45:03] Sonoma County. Providence is

[2:45:05] very supportive

[2:45:06] of housing development,

[2:45:09] specifically low and moderate

[2:45:10] income housing. We invest a

[2:45:12] significant amount specifically

[2:45:20] via our community benefit

[2:45:21] program, again here in support

[2:45:23] of the proposal to eliminate or

[2:45:24] reduce impact fees. It will

[2:45:25] spur economic development. We

[2:45:26] thank your wonderful staff here

[2:45:27] who has pointed out that

[2:45:28] significant resources are

[2:45:29] needed to address this issue

[2:45:30] and waiving these fees will

[2:45:31] spur development. We are

[2:45:32] supportive specifically

[2:45:33] of option one, which is the

[2:45:34] largest investment obviously

[2:45:35] in housing development.

[2:45:36] However, again,

[2:45:37] very supportive of all three.

[2:45:38] >>Options or the two additional

[2:45:39] options as.

[2:45:40] >>Well, should the board find

[2:45:41] that more preferable. Again,

[2:45:43] all

[2:45:44] of these are budget conscious.

[2:45:45] They're achievable, and within

[2:45:46] a short term.

[2:45:48] >>Will spur additional

[2:45:49] development,

[2:45:50] which is important.

[2:45:51] >>Not only to our patients,

[2:45:53] but to our caregivers. So,

[2:45:54] again, thank you for

[2:45:55] considering this very important

[2:45:56] issue. Thank you so much.

[2:45:57] >>Thank you so much.

[2:45:58] Nicholas. Welcome.

[2:45:59] >>Good morning. I'm Harry

[2:46:00] Davidian. I'm CEO of Digital

[2:46:02] Sensing and Control, a company

[2:46:03] based here in Sonoma County. I

[2:46:04] want to start out

[2:46:06] by commending the staff

[2:46:07] for this work they have done

[2:46:09] into developing these three

[2:46:10] proposals that you're

[2:46:11] considering today. And I think

[2:46:13] they provide a sound basis

[2:46:14] for you to make a decision.

[2:46:15] For me, the starting point of

[2:46:16] this discussion is this

[2:46:17] terrific report that was

[2:46:20] prepared by Generation

[2:46:21] Housing. Key points that I take

[2:46:23] away from that report are

[2:46:24] Sonoma County's population is

[2:46:25] aging and is aging faster than

[2:46:27] the state as a whole. An older

[2:46:28] population tends

[2:46:30] to need smaller housing units,

[2:46:33] but our housing stock is skewed

[2:46:36] toward larger units and there's

[2:46:40] a significant deficit with one

[2:46:42] to two bedroom units. 3. The

[2:46:43] cost

[2:46:44] of housing have risen rapidly.

[2:46:47] This has priced many people

[2:46:48] out of the market,

[2:46:49] especially younger People just

[2:46:51] starting out. What do these

[2:46:52] facts mean? There is a mismatch

[2:46:54] between the type of housing

[2:46:56] needed and the housing that's

[2:46:58] available in the county.

[2:47:00] There's a mishmash

[2:47:01] between the quantity of housing

[2:47:02] needed versus what's available

[2:47:04] in the county. And there's a

[2:47:06] mismatch between the cost of

[2:47:09] housing and what people can

[2:47:11] afford. This lack of affordable

[2:47:13] housing has negative regional

[2:47:14] economic consequences. It

[2:47:16] drives out younger workers and

[2:47:18] only those

[2:47:19] with high paying jobs can

[2:47:22] afford to live here. And the

[2:47:23] composition of our labor force

[2:47:24] gets skewed because of this.

[2:47:26] And businesses can't find

[2:47:27] people

[2:47:29] with the skills that they need.

[2:47:30] And a final point. The

[2:47:31] economics of building

[2:47:32] affordable housing units are

[2:47:33] lousy. It's difficult

[2:47:34] for developers

[2:47:35] to make the numbers work.

[2:47:37] Where does this leave us? We

[2:47:38] need more housing. We need more

[2:47:40] affordable housing. We need to

[2:47:42] rebalance our population

[2:47:43] distribution. Our economy needs

[2:47:44] more young people who are just

[2:47:45] starting out. And this requires

[2:47:46] that we rebalance the type of

[2:47:49] housing that stock that we

[2:47:51] have. Reducing the impact fees

[2:47:52] will help improve the economics

[2:47:54] of building the kind

[2:47:56] of housing we need. Please

[2:47:57] support option 1, which

[2:47:58] provides the most benefits and

[2:48:00] the most incentive

[2:48:01] for producing the kind

[2:48:03] of housing that we need. Thank

[2:48:06] you for the opportunity

[2:48:07] to speak today.

[2:48:09] >>Good to see you.

[2:48:10] >>Thank you so much. Harry,

[2:48:12] good to see you. Good morning.

[2:48:14] >>Good morning, supervisors.

[2:48:16] My name is Jocelyn Lynn and I'm

[2:48:17] the chief real estate

[2:48:19] development officer for

[2:48:20] Burbank Housing. As you know,

[2:48:22] Burbank Housing is a leading

[2:48:24] nonprofit affordable housing

[2:48:25] provider in Sonoma County. And

[2:48:26] I've been with Burbank

[2:48:28] for eight years. And I can tell

[2:48:30] you with firsthand experience

[2:48:32] that building hard. Building

[2:48:33] housing is hard. And the reason

[2:48:35] it's hard is because

[2:48:36] construction costs continue

[2:48:38] to rise, lending costs are

[2:48:39] high, and federal,

[2:48:40] state and local resources for

[2:48:42] affordable housing funding have

[2:48:43] dwindled. And while we've had a

[2:48:45] construction boom a little bit,

[2:48:47] with the disaster relief

[2:48:48] dollars that came into

[2:48:50] to our region, those disaster

[2:48:52] recovery funds have been

[2:48:54] exhausted. And so we're back

[2:48:55] to the drawing board

[2:48:57] of competing with other

[2:48:58] affordable housing providers

[2:49:00] throughout the state for very

[2:49:01] scarce and limited resources.

[2:49:03] My development team at

[2:49:04] Burbank Housing has the task

[2:49:05] of trying

[2:49:07] to make projects pencil. And so

[2:49:09] we put together development

[2:49:10] budgets, sources and uses. We

[2:49:12] run pro formas and financial

[2:49:13] projections. But no matter

[2:49:15] which way we thin slice it,

[2:49:17] the problem's always the same.

[2:49:18] Costs are high and there's not

[2:49:20] enough funding. One

[2:49:22] of the things we do is we go

[2:49:23] through our development budgets

[2:49:25] line by line. And one of those

[2:49:26] line items are development

[2:49:28] impact fees. And it's one of

[2:49:30] those where we can't squeeze,

[2:49:31] we can't cut,

[2:49:33] unless something changes

[2:49:34] at the higher level here. And

[2:49:36] so I'm in support

[2:49:38] of option one, which is

[2:49:39] to reduce 100% impact fees

[2:49:43] for affordable housing.

[2:49:45] Oftentimes these impact fees

[2:49:46] are typically

[2:49:47] over a million dollars,

[2:49:49] sometimes over $2 million,

[2:49:51] depending on the size

[2:49:52] of our project. To be able

[2:49:54] to eliminate it and to zero it

[2:49:55] out makes a huge difference

[2:49:57] in our development budget.

[2:49:58] Oftentimes, it's the tipping

[2:49:59] point for whether a project can

[2:50:01] move forward or not. So I ask

[2:50:02] that you consider option one,

[2:50:07] which is something we sorely

[2:50:08] need. Thank you.

[2:50:10] >>Thank you so much. Jocelyn.

[2:50:11] Good morning.

[2:50:12] >>Good morning. I'm Abby

[2:50:14] Arnold. I'm a homeowner

[2:50:17] in the Montgomery Village

[2:50:19] neighborhood. I often engage

[2:50:21] with people

[2:50:23] about their living situations,

[2:50:24] people who I come into contact

[2:50:27] with in my daily life. And I

[2:50:29] hear more and more people

[2:50:31] talking

[2:50:32] about their long commutes

[2:50:34] from Lake County, Alameda

[2:50:37] County, Contra Costa County.

[2:50:38] There are people who work here

[2:50:40] in Sonoma county and they live

[2:50:43] with friends and family members

[2:50:44] in these faraway places. And

[2:50:46] they end up commuting,

[2:50:48] polluting our air,

[2:50:50] burning fossil fuels, causing

[2:50:52] traffic,

[2:50:53] and adding three unpaid hours

[2:50:54] to their workday every day

[2:50:55] because they can't afford

[2:50:58] to live here. Our school

[2:51:00] districts are looking at

[2:51:01] closing schools because there

[2:51:03] aren't enough kids

[2:51:05] to fill them. This should be a

[2:51:07] huge wake up notice to all

[2:51:08] of us that we need to make new

[2:51:10] housing accessible and

[2:51:11] affordable

[2:51:12] for young families. You can do

[2:51:14] something about the high cost

[2:51:16] of new housing by adopting the

[2:51:18] proposed fee waivers. We

[2:51:20] understand that the cost

[2:51:21] of materials can't be

[2:51:23] controlled by the Board of

[2:51:25] Supervisors. And of course, we

[2:51:27] want the people who are doing

[2:51:28] the building

[2:51:29] to be paid fairly.

[2:51:30] But the fees,

[2:51:31] as the previous speaker

[2:51:32] described,

[2:51:33] are a significant part

[2:51:35] of the problem, along

[2:51:36] with the length

[2:51:37] of time it takes

[2:51:38] to get local approval. Reform

[2:51:39] of the development fee can make

[2:51:40] a big difference

[2:51:41] in how long it takes to get

[2:51:43] housing built. I encourage you

[2:51:44] to waive the impact fees today

[2:51:45] and help make Sonoma County a

[2:51:47] place where our workforce can

[2:51:49] find a place to live. Thank

[2:51:52] you.

[2:51:54] >>Thank you so much, Abby.

[2:51:56] Good morning.

[2:51:59] >>Good morning. I'm Renee Bick

[2:52:00] with Paradise Ridge Winery

[2:52:01] on the Sonoma County

[2:52:03] Hospitality association board

[2:52:04] and the Santa Rosa Metro

[2:52:06] Advocacy Council. And housing

[2:52:07] is affordable housing is one

[2:52:09] of the top subjects we talk

[2:52:12] about all the time. Actually,

[2:52:15] an investment

[2:52:18] in our housing is an investment

[2:52:20] in our community. I actually

[2:52:22] just got a two week notice

[2:52:25] of one of our employees who's

[2:52:29] pregnant and she is getting

[2:52:31] evicted because she can't

[2:52:32] afford to stay here in Santa

[2:52:34] Rosa. She's moving to

[2:52:36] Sacramento. And we need more

[2:52:39] affordable housing for the

[2:52:42] hospitality community and the

[2:52:43] community in general. It helps

[2:52:45] families,

[2:52:46] businesses and workforce more

[2:52:48] jobs, less crime, and increased

[2:52:51] tax revenue and decreased

[2:52:55] spending on social safety

[2:52:56] services. I encourage you

[2:52:59] to choose option one,

[2:53:01] eliminating the fees.

[2:53:02] >>Thank you so much. Good

[2:53:06] morning.

[2:53:09] >>Hello. Good to see you. I'm

[2:53:15] Bea Fernandez, and I'm actually

[2:53:16] wearing two hats

[2:53:17] to be up here today. The first

[2:53:18] one is just. For most

[2:53:21] of my life,

[2:53:22] I haven't been able

[2:53:24] to afford a home, and so I've

[2:53:25] been the dreaded renter. And I

[2:53:27] know that as when we would move

[2:53:32] into a neighborhood,

[2:53:34] we would hear. There was one

[2:53:36] particular woman that seemed to

[2:53:37] encapsulate what you guys hear

[2:53:38] all the time about building

[2:53:39] more housing and having renters

[2:53:40] come in. She came over and

[2:53:42] introduced herself and she

[2:53:44] said, just want to make sure

[2:53:45] that you guys know not to park

[2:53:47] in front

[2:53:49] of my house. I don't want

[2:53:50] to look at your car in front

[2:53:51] of your window. You know,

[2:53:52] it's totally public street.

[2:53:54] She wanted to make sure that

[2:53:55] she didn't want her property

[2:53:56] values

[2:53:58] to get lowered because, you

[2:54:01] know, we would make a mess

[2:54:03] in our yard. I mean,

[2:54:04] it was just like all the things

[2:54:06] that you hear from really

[2:54:07] entitled homeowners. And so,

[2:54:08] you know, we killed her

[2:54:13] with kindness. We were living

[2:54:14] there a long time,

[2:54:15] and we ended up. My husband's a

[2:54:16] saxophone player, and she would

[2:54:18] hear the music coming out

[2:54:19] of our apartment, and

[2:54:21] eventually she went and saw the

[2:54:24] band, and then he played

[2:54:25] for her daughter's wedding.

[2:54:26] You know, it was kind of

[2:54:28] like all of a sudden we were

[2:54:30] real people. And for me,

[2:54:32] as a graphic designer,

[2:54:35] I ended up. She hired me

[2:54:36] to do donor event materials.

[2:54:38] And so it was just. It was just

[2:54:41] in my own personal life, you

[2:54:43] could see how people can change

[2:54:45] their mind. And that. That

[2:54:47] in my other hat

[2:54:50] of generation housing,

[2:54:52] that's what I'm being tasked

[2:54:54] with is coming up with the

[2:54:55] public awareness campaigns that

[2:54:57] are going to give you guys a

[2:54:59] little bit more protection

[2:55:01] in a way, because I know a lot

[2:55:02] of homeowners are not very nice

[2:55:04] about these big apartment

[2:55:05] buildings getting put up and

[2:55:07] like, who lives there. So

[2:55:09] that's part

[2:55:11] of what generation housing, the

[2:55:12] public awareness is that real

[2:55:15] people live there. People that

[2:55:16] work here need to be able

[2:55:18] to afford to live here. And so

[2:55:19] I say impact fees are just one

[2:55:20] tiny little thing that we can

[2:55:22] do.

[2:55:24] But every little thing adds up.

[2:55:26] And I ask that you.

[2:55:28] >>Thank you.

[2:55:30] >>Be number one.

[2:55:31] >>Thank you. Thank you very

[2:55:32] much. Good to see you. Welcome

[2:55:35] and good morning.

[2:55:36] >>Good morning. My name is

[2:55:38] Jamie and Studley and I own a

[2:55:39] home between Sebastopol and

[2:55:41] Freestone. This is my first

[2:55:42] time before the Board of

[2:55:43] Supervisors. I'm also a member

[2:55:45] of Generation Housing, here to

[2:55:46] support a strong and bold

[2:55:48] impact fee reduction policy. I

[2:55:51] know you understand the urgency

[2:55:53] of adding housing. You don't

[2:55:54] have to be convinced of that.

[2:55:56] We all know that our economy,

[2:55:57] family well being, health and

[2:55:59] safety, safety and environment

[2:56:01] are dependent on the choices

[2:56:02] that you make and that we all

[2:56:04] make to increase housing. As a

[2:56:06] former president of Public

[2:56:08] Advocates, a statewide policy

[2:56:10] advocacy group, I know how

[2:56:11] important local rules and

[2:56:13] public understanding are to

[2:56:14] achieving our housing goals and

[2:56:16] arena allocation

[2:56:18] for our county. As a member

[2:56:19] of the board of the Sebastopol

[2:56:21] center for the Arts, I see how

[2:56:23] vital housing is to preserving

[2:56:24] the lively artistic and

[2:56:27] cultural community that is so

[2:56:28] central to our understanding

[2:56:30] of the glories of Sonoma

[2:56:31] County County. And as a former

[2:56:33] deputy under secretary of the

[2:56:34] U.S. department of Education, I

[2:56:36] understand the challenge that

[2:56:37] you face

[2:56:39] of matching goals and policy to

[2:56:40] decisions and values. I'm here

[2:56:42] to support the Generation

[2:56:44] Housing public proposed policy

[2:56:46] position. And number one,

[2:56:48] today I simply ask you

[2:56:50] to choose the best,

[2:56:52] boldest option

[2:56:53] for impact fee reform and

[2:56:55] to act now so that our values,

[2:56:57] commitments and words can turn

[2:56:59] into projects,

[2:57:00] shovels and homes

[2:57:02] for our neighbors. Thank you.

[2:57:04] >>Thank you so much. Good

[2:57:06] morning.

[2:57:12] >>Good morning. My name is

[2:57:13] Brenda Smith. I'm a proud

[2:57:15] resident in Rohnert park and

[2:57:16] currently living in an

[2:57:18] affordable senior housing

[2:57:19] community called Copland

[2:57:20] Creek Apartments. As a recently

[2:57:21] retired elementary school

[2:57:23] teacher from San Rosa City

[2:57:25] school, as of October 1,

[2:57:26] 2024, moving into Copland

[2:57:28] Creek Apartments allowed me

[2:57:30] affordable rent. 1300amonth.

[2:57:32] It's 170 units with cottages

[2:57:34] and apartments that includes

[2:57:36] free water, sewer, garbage. It

[2:57:40] has solar power, so I have

[2:57:42] solar panels. I have

[2:57:44] electricity covered,

[2:57:45] free parking with an income

[2:57:47] of 3700 now I can afford health

[2:57:50] care through covered

[2:57:51] California rent, my cell phone,

[2:57:53] groceries, gas,

[2:57:56] etc and I can substitute

[2:57:57] for additional income yet.

[2:57:59] Where are the Copland Creek

[2:58:02] apartments in Sonoma County?

[2:58:03] Prior to retiring I lived at

[2:58:06] Oak View of Sonoma Hills and

[2:58:07] Rohner Park. A 55 plus

[2:58:08] community paying a market value

[2:58:10] rent of 2300amonth with $40

[2:58:12] parking fee. Water, sewer and

[2:58:16] garbage was not included. That

[2:58:17] was an additional hundred or

[2:58:21] $100 a month when my income was

[2:58:22] $90,000 and healthcare was

[2:58:24] included in my salary. Seniors

[2:58:27] are 30% of the population of

[2:58:29] Sonoma County. How are you

[2:58:31] preparing and caring for the

[2:58:33] golden years? I support

[2:58:34] generation housing. I'm also a

[2:58:37] member to address the

[2:58:39] affordable housing issues. And

[2:58:41] I ask

[2:58:42] for bold leadership now. Be

[2:58:43] bold. Be brave. Be a leader. I

[2:58:46] look forward to seeing more

[2:58:47] affordable senior housing

[2:58:48] projects

[2:58:49] to support our teachers,

[2:58:50] nurses, firefighters,

[2:58:51] police officers who want

[2:58:52] to retire live in affordable

[2:58:53] housing projects that honor

[2:58:54] their pensions and their

[2:58:55] quality of life. Thank you.

[2:58:56] >>Thank you so much. Welcome.

[2:58:58] >>Thank you. Beth Craven,

[2:59:03] resident of Rohnert Park. I'm

[2:59:05] here to speak from two

[2:59:06] perspectives this morning. One

[2:59:08] is a parent of young adults,

[2:59:10] a student who's

[2:59:13] at the JC and as a volunteer

[2:59:14] with the homeless community.

[2:59:17] You may remember I spoke

[2:59:21] to you all

[2:59:22] about six months ago

[2:59:24] about a young man, a friend

[2:59:25] of my son, who I asked to move

[2:59:26] in with us for the summer

[2:59:27] because he could not afford

[2:59:29] to live. His parents were first

[2:59:30] responders

[2:59:32] in the county and had chose to

[2:59:34] leave the state because they

[2:59:36] could not afford to stay. And

[2:59:39] we're also suffering the

[2:59:41] effects of trauma given our

[2:59:44] recent years. And we. He was

[2:59:46] trying to do it on his own,

[2:59:48] living in the dorms at the jc

[2:59:49] didn't have enough money. So he

[2:59:51] said, come stay with us

[2:59:53] for the summer. Well, it hasn't

[2:59:55] worked out. He's left the

[2:59:57] state. And this was a young man

[2:59:59] who was studying to go into

[3:00:00] counseling and therapy again,

[3:00:03] wanted to be a public servant

[3:00:04] like his parents. And so we are

[3:00:06] losing our homegrown

[3:00:08] individuals who are the support

[3:00:10] for our community

[3:00:13] to the working folks. We're

[3:00:15] losing them. And as a volunteer

[3:00:17] at the Unitarian Universalist

[3:00:20] congregation Saturday breakfast

[3:00:23] that has been serving breakfast

[3:00:25] to our homeless community for

[3:00:27] 25 years, we're in there,

[3:00:29] we're doing it every weekend.

[3:00:33] We're serving these people.

[3:00:36] We've been doing it 25 years,

[3:00:38] and it's getting worse. It's

[3:00:41] not getting better. And we're

[3:00:43] burning out. These

[3:00:45] organizations that are

[3:00:47] providing services that our

[3:00:49] federal government should be

[3:00:50] providing for are struggling,

[3:00:53] and we're burning out. And

[3:00:54] we're looking for you

[3:00:56] to give us some support

[3:01:01] to go a little further. So

[3:01:03] please support Gen H

[3:01:04] on this proposal. Thank you.

[3:01:06] >>Thank you so much. Good

[3:01:10] afternoon.

[3:01:12] >>Good afternoon, Madam

[3:01:13] Chair, Honorable Supervisors

[3:01:14] of Franca Rio Gallaher

[3:01:15] Community Housing. I'll start

[3:01:17] with a thank you to the board

[3:01:19] for continuing

[3:01:21] to keep this issue and this

[3:01:23] item at the forefront. We know

[3:01:24] that it's been years and months

[3:01:26] of pressing forward good policy

[3:01:29] and intentionality

[3:01:30] around breaking barriers,

[3:01:32] of creating housing, workforce,

[3:01:34] housing, affordable housing and

[3:01:35] housing that's necessary. You

[3:01:37] know, it's unfortunate that

[3:01:38] in this state of California we

[3:01:40] need fires to remind us

[3:01:43] of the housing crisis. And that

[3:01:45] becomes almost a Present

[3:01:46] reminder for those individuals

[3:01:48] that are impacted

[3:01:49] by the fires. We certainly felt

[3:01:51] it here in 2017. There was

[3:01:53] movement

[3:01:55] around streamlining permits,

[3:01:56] impact fees. And unfortunately,

[3:01:58] there are those that are

[3:02:00] unhoused or precariously housed

[3:02:02] that have never had the

[3:02:03] opportunity

[3:02:05] to have their homes be lost

[3:02:06] through wildfire,

[3:02:08] that face the same crises

[3:02:10] of housing affordability,

[3:02:11] being able to live

[3:02:13] in the community they work. So

[3:02:14] with that,

[3:02:16] I would just continue

[3:02:17] to encourage the board to be as

[3:02:19] aggressive and as flexible as

[3:02:20] you can to continue

[3:02:22] to move forward. The dichotomy

[3:02:23] that we do

[3:02:25] in fact have a housing crisis

[3:02:27] in this county,

[3:02:28] we need thousands

[3:02:29] of units built,

[3:02:30] we need thousands

[3:02:32] of units moved through,

[3:02:33] not just the entitlement

[3:02:34] process, being able

[3:02:35] to have a shovel

[3:02:36] in the ground. And I do

[3:02:38] appreciate staff's perspective

[3:02:40] that includes that as an

[3:02:41] identifying principle,

[3:02:43] that it's not just

[3:02:45] about getting projects through

[3:02:46] the entitlement pipeline, but

[3:02:47] actually getting them

[3:02:49] constructed and occupied

[3:02:50] by the residents and leave

[3:02:51] to live in them. So I still

[3:02:53] believe that right sizing is

[3:02:54] the right approach. Smaller

[3:02:56] units should pay smaller impact

[3:02:57] fees. I do believe that this is

[3:02:59] a step

[3:03:00] in the right direction. And I

[3:03:02] would encourage you

[3:03:03] to continue to break away those

[3:03:04] barriers that prevent us from

[3:03:06] housing the people that need

[3:03:07] to live in this community.

[3:03:08] Thank you.

[3:03:10] >>Thank you so much, friend.

[3:03:11] Welcome.

[3:03:14] >>Good morning, Chair

[3:03:17] Hopkins, supervisors,

[3:03:19] county executives and staff.

[3:03:20] It was more than a year ago

[3:03:22] when GENH made a public plea

[3:03:23] for common sense impact fee

[3:03:25] reform to ease the persistent

[3:03:26] pipeline paralysis resulting

[3:03:28] from the confluence

[3:03:30] of inflation, interest rate

[3:03:32] hikes, and the general

[3:03:34] unfavorable developer math

[3:03:36] unique to Sonoma County. We

[3:03:38] want to thank the staff,

[3:03:41] in particular Jennifer

[3:03:42] Larocque, for diving

[3:03:44] in and working creatively,

[3:03:45] internally and collaboratively

[3:03:47] with our team to bring back the

[3:03:49] options that have been

[3:03:50] presented to you today. We hope

[3:03:51] that this is the beginning of a

[3:03:53] productive working relationship

[3:03:54] going forward. Staff has

[3:03:56] presented you with three

[3:03:59] program options and recommended

[3:04:01] the mid level reduction

[3:04:03] in impact fees. Impact fee

[3:04:04] reform is a powerful and

[3:04:06] necessary asset in our effort

[3:04:08] to spur the housing production

[3:04:10] we need. And so we are asking

[3:04:12] that you choose the highest

[3:04:18] reduction which would be

[3:04:20] on par with the program voted

[3:04:22] in by the city of Santa Rosa

[3:04:24] in November. Today, we are

[3:04:26] looking forward to you moving

[3:04:28] forward a policy that is a bold

[3:04:29] first step in policy response

[3:04:31] to our housing crisis. Our

[3:04:33] vision of a future where

[3:04:36] everyone has a place

[3:04:38] to call home and the ability

[3:04:39] to engage in and contribute

[3:04:41] to an equitable, healthy,

[3:04:44] prosperous and resilient

[3:04:45] Sonoma county depends on it.

[3:04:47] Thank you.

[3:04:49] >>Thank you. So great. Yeah,

[3:04:54] you can distribute them. Our

[3:04:55] clerk can grab them and then

[3:04:56] share them with us and copy

[3:04:57] them if we need copies made.

[3:04:58] Thank you. Good afternoon.

[3:05:03] >>Good afternoon, Chair

[3:05:06] Hopkins, Supervisors, Staff.

[3:05:07] So what I want to present

[3:05:09] in front of you today is just

[3:05:11] some charts that show really

[3:05:13] just the breadth

[3:05:15] of the housing crisis. You all

[3:05:17] know this information,

[3:05:19] but I just want

[3:05:20] to hammer the point home. This

[3:05:21] first chart I have in front of

[3:05:23] me here shows our housing

[3:05:24] production over the past 40

[3:05:26] years. And it demonstrates that

[3:05:28] after the Great Recession, you

[3:05:30] had a 10 year slowdown. And

[3:05:32] while right now we see a boom

[3:05:34] in housing production,

[3:05:36] when you look at Santa Rosa's

[3:05:38] housing production,

[3:05:39] to really drill down

[3:05:40] into that data,

[3:05:41] we know that a lot

[3:05:43] of that recent boom has been

[3:05:45] due to fire rebuilds. It's been

[3:05:47] due to recent temporary

[3:05:48] disaster relief money. I just

[3:05:50] want to end that. This uptick

[3:05:52] of production that we see here

[3:05:54] still isn't really getting us

[3:05:55] to the historical average

[3:05:57] over the past four years

[3:05:58] of housing production. We're

[3:06:00] still really operating at a

[3:06:02] below average level. That's

[3:06:03] what got us into this crisis.

[3:06:06] Next chart after that,

[3:06:07] it's some information from one

[3:06:09] of your staff reports just

[3:06:11] showing the comparison

[3:06:13] between permits in 2023 and

[3:06:14] 2024. You can see a really

[3:06:16] steep decline

[3:06:17] in just that recent period.

[3:06:19] And this is the consequence

[3:06:21] of inflation. This is the

[3:06:22] consequence of high interest

[3:06:25] rates. A really unfavorable

[3:06:27] economic climate for building

[3:06:28] housing just further

[3:06:29] underscores the need

[3:06:31] to take action now

[3:06:32] to do something about that.

[3:06:35] Our fourth chart is just

[3:06:37] another chart that shows the

[3:06:38] lack of production

[3:06:40] in recent years. We're actually

[3:06:42] on pace to produce fewer units

[3:06:43] this decade than we were in the

[3:06:44] decade following the recession.

[3:06:46] And then our last chart is just

[3:06:47] a comparison of Santa Rosa and

[3:06:48] the county

[3:06:50] to other jurisdictions. When

[3:06:51] you keep fire rebuilds

[3:06:53] in our data, it looks like

[3:06:54] we're doing pretty well

[3:06:56] compared

[3:06:57] to similar jurisdictions

[3:06:58] across the state. But when you

[3:06:59] take those fire rebuilds out,

[3:07:00] it really shows that we're

[3:07:01] lagging behind. And so all this

[3:07:02] data is just

[3:07:03] to show the significance of

[3:07:05] this program that you guys are

[3:07:06] considering today. Thank you.

[3:07:07] >>Thank you. Great information.

[3:07:09] Appreciate it. Good afternoon,

[3:07:10] Jen.

[3:07:13] >>Good afternoon. Chair

[3:07:15] Hopkins, Vice Chair Macio.

[3:07:16] Welcome, Supervisors, County

[3:07:18] Executive Rivera and staff.

[3:07:21] Jen, Close Generation Housing

[3:07:24] Ed here to urge you to choose

[3:07:25] the greatest reduction

[3:07:26] presented here because it's

[3:07:28] necessary to move stalled

[3:07:29] projects forward, necessary

[3:07:30] to ensure projects move forward

[3:07:32] with as many use as possible

[3:07:33] to incentivize new units to

[3:07:35] make affordable housing

[3:07:36] production here economically

[3:07:39] feasible and competitive

[3:07:40] with other jurisdictions.

[3:07:42] Because it pays for itself

[3:07:43] through increased property tax

[3:07:44] revenue created by

[3:07:46] reassessments when vacancy

[3:07:47] rates rise,

[3:07:48] supporting movement

[3:07:49] in the housing system through

[3:07:51] increased sales tax revenue,

[3:07:52] through decreased investments

[3:07:54] in managing and mitigating

[3:07:55] homelessness, through greater

[3:07:57] local economic activity created

[3:07:58] by new residents and residents

[3:07:59] with more money

[3:08:01] in their pockets. Because you

[3:08:03] will not find a healthcare

[3:08:04] community needs assessment,

[3:08:06] a climate action plan, a

[3:08:07] community resilience and

[3:08:09] disaster preparedness plan, a

[3:08:10] social justice plans or an

[3:08:12] economic development plan

[3:08:13] without a significant

[3:08:14] affordable housing component.

[3:08:16] We cannot get a handle

[3:08:18] on our if we don't get a handle

[3:08:20] on our housing crisis, we

[3:08:21] simply cannot make meaningful

[3:08:23] progress on any of the other

[3:08:25] community wide goals that we

[3:08:26] share. Finally, in addition

[3:08:29] to going forward with, we hope,

[3:08:30] the greatest reduction, we ask

[3:08:33] that you provide direction

[3:08:34] to staff

[3:08:36] on two additional points. The

[3:08:38] first is please request a NEXUS

[3:08:39] study progress report

[3:08:41] with enough time

[3:08:43] to extend this program in the

[3:08:44] event that that study is

[3:08:46] progressing slowly, as you

[3:08:47] know, sometimes happens. And

[3:08:49] second, please continue diving

[3:08:51] into the issue of fees,

[3:08:52] particularly about right sizing

[3:08:54] wastewater fees, which are

[3:08:55] significant, and how we can

[3:08:57] create a parallel track for

[3:08:59] large projects that ensures

[3:09:00] that they get the same level

[3:09:01] of incentives as provided

[3:09:02] with this program

[3:09:03] without limiting access

[3:09:05] to this program to smaller

[3:09:06] projects that add gentle

[3:09:08] density throughout the county.

[3:09:10] One last thing. According

[3:09:11] to a California Housing

[3:09:13] Partnership model,

[3:09:15] meeting arena goals up to 120

[3:09:16] will provide approximately

[3:09:18] 50,000 people

[3:09:19] over the deed housing,

[3:09:21] affordable housing over the

[3:09:23] deed restricted period. So

[3:09:24] let's get these folks keys

[3:09:25] asap. Thank you for your

[3:09:27] leadership.

[3:09:28] >>Thank you very much, Jen.

[3:09:29] Are there any other members

[3:09:30] of the public who wish

[3:09:32] to comment on this item?

[3:09:33] Seeing none,

[3:09:34] it will bring it back

[3:09:35] to my colleagues for questions

[3:09:36] and discussion.

[3:09:37] >>Supervisor Gore thank you

[3:09:39] Chair Hopkins, and I think

[3:09:41] everybody sitting here. I'm

[3:09:42] really interested

[3:09:43] in where my colleagues want

[3:09:45] to go. There's as much as

[3:09:46] there's discussion. I mean

[3:09:47] we've reviewed this ad nauseam

[3:09:49] last year, but it's a pleasure

[3:09:50] to have a new colleague here.

[3:09:53] You know, number one is I think

[3:09:54] acknowledging that this is

[3:09:55] called a fee, but it's really a

[3:09:56] tax. I think another thing

[3:09:59] that's come up, I'll just state

[3:10:00] my opinion is that strongly in

[3:10:02] last year's revisions and what

[3:10:03] we looked at is that we have

[3:10:05] withdrew sales taxes and county

[3:10:06] investments, especially with

[3:10:09] the departments most directly

[3:10:11] impacted partners and

[3:10:14] transportation, public works,

[3:10:16] that is public infrastructure,

[3:10:17] we have drastically increased

[3:10:18] the revenues into those areas.

[3:10:20] I do not think that these

[3:10:21] projects

[3:10:22] in the amount that we're

[3:10:24] talking about that comes back

[3:10:25] to the county in these areas

[3:10:29] should be banked upon

[3:10:30] in the future for the risk

[3:10:31] of another tax on housing. So

[3:10:33] I'm really Interested

[3:10:34] in where my colleagues are

[3:10:36] on that. I think, you know,

[3:10:39] all probably be for the most.

[3:10:41] For the most, in my mind,

[3:10:43] proactive opportunity here. I

[3:10:45] don't really distinguish

[3:10:49] between low income and moderate

[3:10:52] because moderate is not really

[3:10:55] livable here in Sonoma county

[3:10:57] as it is. This idea, you know,

[3:10:59] of all the projects that we

[3:11:00] come

[3:11:01] across that people actually

[3:11:03] have to stay

[3:11:04] in their current jobs

[3:11:05] to not be moved

[3:11:06] into other areas for subsidized

[3:11:07] rates. I know this is

[3:11:09] like a one time fee

[3:11:10] for what it goes into, but I

[3:11:12] just think that this is one of

[3:11:13] many reasons why we're not

[3:11:15] producing the housing that we

[3:11:17] need in this area. And I want

[3:11:18] to thank individuals here and I

[3:11:19] want to thank staff for

[3:11:20] bringing this forward. I think

[3:11:21] the options are great. I would

[3:11:23] approve

[3:11:25] of staff recommendation,

[3:11:26] but I'd like to go further.

[3:11:28] And so I'm looking

[3:11:30] for questions and comments

[3:11:32] from my colleagues as well.

[3:11:33] Thank you.

[3:11:34] >>Thank you very much,

[3:11:35] Supervisor Rabbit,

[3:11:36] >>Thank you very much and I

[3:11:37] appreciate all the comments

[3:11:38] today. And obviously this issue

[3:11:39] is near and dear

[3:11:40] to me as an architect, being

[3:11:41] on both sides of the counter,

[3:11:42] paying and writing some pretty

[3:11:43] significant checks for clients

[3:11:44] over the year, as I know some

[3:11:46] of my colleagues

[3:11:47] in the audience know and trying

[3:11:49] to understand. When I was first

[3:11:50] elected in the city of

[3:11:51] Petaluma, I was running about

[3:11:52] parks and the lack thereof and

[3:11:54] the fact that we had. And

[3:11:55] actually Petaluma has three

[3:11:57] separate park impact fees. Not

[3:11:59] just one, but three. Park

[3:12:01] acquisition, park development,

[3:12:03] then open space, which actually

[3:12:04] was brought forward

[3:12:06] to finance Lucchese up

[3:12:08] on the hill, which is amazing

[3:12:10] to me. Lafferty, I'm sorry.

[3:12:12] Yeah, I said Lucchese, I'm

[3:12:16] sorry. So not only do I support

[3:12:18] reducing the development impact

[3:12:20] fees, actually I can support

[3:12:21] eliminating development impact

[3:12:22] fees entirely until we adopt a

[3:12:24] new nexus study which ties the

[3:12:26] infrastructure impact

[3:12:28] improvements needed as a result

[3:12:30] of the new development being

[3:12:32] proposed. I think, as

[3:12:33] Supervisor Gore just said,

[3:12:35] unfortunately, development

[3:12:36] impact fees have just become a

[3:12:38] revenue line item tax

[3:12:39] on a budget. In.

[3:12:42] In my understanding, and again,

[3:12:43] correct me if I'm wrong,

[3:12:45] anyone, it's supposed to be.

[3:12:47] And I always picture, you know,

[3:12:49] we as a community own all the

[3:12:51] assets. These parks, these

[3:12:52] roads, we're paying for this.

[3:12:54] We've paid our taxes. We pay

[3:12:56] our taxes. You're going

[3:12:57] to come

[3:12:58] in and join our community.

[3:13:00] You're going to have to buy

[3:13:01] into that. And we're going to.

[3:13:02] And we want the same standard.

[3:13:04] And that's why for me,

[3:13:05] we've talked

[3:13:07] about park standards. It's

[3:13:08] important

[3:13:09] to have a park standard. So you

[3:13:10] know what you're charging the

[3:13:12] new people that are coming in.

[3:13:13] My hometown, Petaluma has a

[3:13:16] park standard. I think it's 3

[3:13:17] acres for community parks, 2

[3:13:18] acres per thousand residents,

[3:13:20] 3 acres

[3:13:21] for per thousand residents

[3:13:23] for a community park, 2 acres

[3:13:24] per thousand residents

[3:13:25] for a neighborhood park. If

[3:13:26] you're adding a thousand

[3:13:28] people, it's pretty easy. You

[3:13:29] can do the math. Here's what

[3:13:31] you need to add. You can build

[3:13:33] it yourself or, and,

[3:13:34] or you can pay the

[3:13:36] in lieu fees

[3:13:37] on that. I think we need

[3:13:39] to make sure that we get

[3:13:40] to that. That's why I look

[3:13:41] forward to the NEXUS study.

[3:13:43] Truly tying, truly tying the

[3:13:44] impacts that those new

[3:13:45] developments and there are real

[3:13:47] impacts that, you know,

[3:13:48] put a couple thousand units

[3:13:50] at the end of Airport

[3:13:53] Boulevard, there's going

[3:13:55] to be impacts and they need

[3:13:57] to be mitigated accordingly.

[3:13:58] But it shouldn't just go

[3:14:00] into a general fund and be used

[3:14:01] for haphazard projects here and

[3:14:03] there. And I believe that we've

[3:14:04] gone down into that place.

[3:14:08] So, you know,

[3:14:10] my only caveat would be

[3:14:12] to look to the county

[3:14:15] administrator's office and

[3:14:17] understand

[3:14:18] of the fees that we've

[3:14:20] collected to date and through

[3:14:22] this year what have been

[3:14:23] allocated. Because yes, we can

[3:14:25] backfill, but I think

[3:14:27] above and

[3:14:29] beyond that we're backfilling.

[3:14:30] It's just an internal shell

[3:14:31] game of paying for projects

[3:14:33] in a different manner. But if

[3:14:36] we're charging the development

[3:14:37] impact fee, it should really

[3:14:40] mitigate the development as

[3:14:43] it's intended. And I do think,

[3:14:45] and there's been a lot

[3:14:49] of legislation on the trying

[3:14:50] to fix and I've been as part of

[3:14:52] these housing groups that I've

[3:14:54] been on in the region. Every

[3:14:55] time I see Scott Wiener, I will

[3:14:57] tell the senator you need

[3:14:59] to look

[3:15:01] at development impact fees.

[3:15:02] They vary widely. And I think

[3:15:04] I've mentioned this before,

[3:15:05] a single family home and city

[3:15:07] of Sacramento has one

[3:15:09] of the lower impact fees,

[3:15:11] according to the Turner center

[3:15:13] for housing innovation,

[3:15:15] $20,000 and change in Fremont

[3:15:16] of all places. Fremont was

[3:15:19] about 150,000. Why, why would

[3:15:21] one be that and one be the

[3:15:23] other? And actually, you know,

[3:15:24] I would even say in terms

[3:15:27] of fair housing, what's

[3:15:29] Fremont's and not

[3:15:31] to disparage Fremont, you can

[3:15:32] pick any other city,

[3:15:34] Hillsborough, Atherton, you

[3:15:35] name it. The cities that want

[3:15:37] to steer housing

[3:15:38] in a certain direction and. Or

[3:15:40] stop it at all. So I think that

[3:15:42] this discussion is timely.

[3:15:44] It's been timely. It should

[3:15:46] have happened 20 years ago,

[3:15:50] should have happened in 1978

[3:15:52] when or seven when Prop 13 came

[3:15:54] in,

[3:15:55] because they've only started

[3:15:58] since Prop 13 and it's just a

[3:15:59] way to offset the revenue loss

[3:16:01] from Prop 13 initially. So I

[3:16:03] think it's timely. I think that

[3:16:05] we need to make sure that again

[3:16:07] there's been the legislation

[3:16:09] that I talked about, even,

[3:16:11] even the latest legislation,

[3:16:13] square footage based upon that.

[3:16:15] I do think that there's nuances

[3:16:17] to that too though, because

[3:16:19] while I think the market rate

[3:16:21] homes are typically built

[3:16:23] larger with more bedrooms.

[3:16:25] Bedrooms are the cheaper

[3:16:26] building, you know, rooms

[3:16:28] to build on the rental side of

[3:16:30] the market. I don't think that

[3:16:31] we should necessarily forego a

[3:16:32] three bedroom unit because

[3:16:34] there are a lot

[3:16:36] of multi generational families,

[3:16:37] perhaps first generation,

[3:16:39] that would benefit from that.

[3:16:42] And the only way that their

[3:16:43] housing is affordable is

[3:16:45] to have more people

[3:16:47] in the unit,

[3:16:48] not necessarily have more units

[3:16:50] in the building. So there is,

[3:16:52] it's not as cut and dry and I

[3:16:55] think we need

[3:16:56] to make sure we go

[3:16:57] after the type

[3:16:59] of housing that we want. And

[3:17:00] again, I will say this for

[3:17:01] folks here and I had this

[3:17:03] discussion

[3:17:04] with the good executive

[3:17:06] director of GenH. I do wish

[3:17:07] that, you know, our fees,

[3:17:09] Sonoma county really only has

[3:17:11] two fees under the auspices

[3:17:13] of the Mitigation Fee Act,

[3:17:14] Parks and transportation. And

[3:17:15] again, depending

[3:17:17] on what you're building,

[3:17:18] they total about between 12,

[3:17:20] $15,000 thereabouts. It's not a

[3:17:21] lot

[3:17:23] in the big picture as compared

[3:17:24] to other jurisdictions. It's

[3:17:26] probably the lowest

[3:17:28] of any jurisdiction

[3:17:29] in the county to be honest.

[3:17:31] And so I wish, and I can say

[3:17:33] this, I have a family member

[3:17:34] now,

[3:17:36] I'm not financially associated

[3:17:37] with it, that has a multi unit

[3:17:39] building project in the county

[3:17:40] that doesn't pencil out and

[3:17:42] it's not necessarily the impact

[3:17:43] fees that are keeping that

[3:17:44] from being built. I wish, you

[3:17:46] know, and I one could argue

[3:17:48] that every penny counts and it

[3:17:49] does, but this is,

[3:17:51] there are so many other issues.

[3:17:52] But again, I think I just want

[3:17:55] to lay the groundwork that this

[3:17:56] is not going to be the panacea

[3:17:58] that will start construction

[3:18:00] tomorrow. It's not. And again,

[3:18:01] cities where the development

[3:18:03] should occur generally have

[3:18:05] many more categories. There's

[3:18:07] one city in this county that

[3:18:09] has the following categories

[3:18:12] of impact fees. Fire

[3:18:14] suppression impact fee,

[3:18:16] law enforcement impact fee,

[3:18:18] aquatic center impact fee,

[3:18:19] public facilities impact fee,

[3:18:21] traffic impact fee, parkland

[3:18:23] acquisition, parkland

[3:18:24] development, maybe I gave away

[3:18:26] which city. I'm talking about

[3:18:27] open space acquisition fees,

[3:18:29] library facility fees,

[3:18:30] community center fees and

[3:18:31] among others. And that's just

[3:18:33] one. You know,

[3:18:35] over the years, the reason that

[3:18:36] we have a housing crisis is

[3:18:38] that many jurisdictions just

[3:18:39] looked upon the increased

[3:18:41] market that we all either

[3:18:43] benefit or are cursed by and

[3:18:45] kept adding different taxes

[3:18:48] to it. You can't do this in

[3:18:50] Kansas, that Kansas is not

[3:18:54] going to take care of their

[3:18:55] facilities this way because

[3:18:57] you'll never get it because the

[3:18:59] property values are not what

[3:19:00] they are here. So It's a catch

[3:19:02] 22. So as for myself,

[3:19:03] I'm certainly supportive

[3:19:08] of going full bore

[3:19:09] on reduction

[3:19:10] for the pilot program until the

[3:19:12] NEXUS study comes in. I do

[3:19:13] would even go further looking

[3:19:16] at what obligated dollars are

[3:19:19] out there because I don't want

[3:19:21] to cut us short.

[3:19:22] But I would encourage both on

[3:19:24] the transportation side and I

[3:19:25] know that some of this is

[3:19:27] general plan. CEQA also place

[3:19:30] projects that need to be built

[3:19:35] for the build out within the

[3:19:38] general plan. I know that

[3:19:39] that's part of it. So I don't

[3:19:41] want

[3:19:44] to go and put put ourselves

[3:19:46] in any liability in that way.

[3:19:47] So I look to staff

[3:19:49] to help us, guide us

[3:19:50] on how best

[3:19:52] to make sure that we don't fall

[3:19:54] off that cliff. But I do look

[3:19:56] for the NEXUS study and I just

[3:19:58] talked

[3:19:59] to the county administrator

[3:20:01] about the how we scope that

[3:20:03] out that we, you know, too many

[3:20:05] nexus studies are numerator

[3:20:06] over denominator and that's

[3:20:08] what it is. And that's why the

[3:20:09] fees range in the range that I

[3:20:11] mentioned before. We need

[3:20:12] to do a much,

[3:20:14] much better job. We need

[3:20:15] to tie it directly to the true

[3:20:18] impacts that the development

[3:20:19] brings and then build that out

[3:20:22] accordingly so that we can all

[3:20:24] enjoy having places

[3:20:25] for our kids

[3:20:27] to live and places

[3:20:28] for the next generation

[3:20:30] to live within the county and

[3:20:32] also contributing to the

[3:20:33] overall infrastructure which

[3:20:35] definitely needs to happen.

[3:20:37] Thank you and I apologize

[3:20:38] for the getting

[3:20:40] on the soapbox.

[3:20:43] >>Thank you. Supervisor

[3:20:45] Corsi.

[3:20:47] >>I want to thank the staff for

[3:20:48] a well researched and thought

[3:20:51] recommendation here. A couple

[3:20:53] of quick questions. You Ms.

[3:20:55] LaRock, you mentioned a couple

[3:20:58] times in your presentation

[3:21:00] about a cap. The cap is the

[3:21:01] $1.5 million, is that correct?

[3:21:03] >>It's a great question because

[3:21:05] there are a couple caps. So

[3:21:08] good

[3:21:09] to provide clarification. Our

[3:21:11] backfill cap would be $1.5

[3:21:12] million. What departments

[3:21:14] collected in fiscal year 2324

[3:21:18] to continue that current level

[3:21:20] of programming and project

[3:21:22] development. The other caps

[3:21:24] that I mentioned are up for

[3:21:25] board discussion today and

[3:21:29] that's how many units we

[3:21:30] include in the program. So you

[3:21:32] know we've got the three

[3:21:34] options with different levels

[3:21:36] of fee reductions

[3:21:38] within each option. The board

[3:21:40] has a choice

[3:21:42] of capping the program

[3:21:44] at either half

[3:21:45] of our RENA obligation. Our

[3:21:46] full RENA obligation or

[3:21:48] essentially not having a cap

[3:21:49] allowing projects that are

[3:21:50] in the current pipeline

[3:21:52] to come through even if we

[3:21:53] exceed our RENA obligation.

[3:21:54] >>So my back of the envelope,

[3:21:59] the number one option, which is

[3:22:05] the one that's being

[3:22:06] recommended by Gen h, it's

[3:22:08] about $10,000 a unit. If we cap

[3:22:11] it at $1.5 million, the

[3:22:14] backfill, that's 150 units. If

[3:22:16] we go to number three,

[3:22:23] which is not a single figure

[3:22:28] but a range, I get about 175

[3:22:30] units for $1.5 million there.

[3:22:33] If we went all the way to our

[3:22:37] RENA obligation or beyond,

[3:22:39] what would the cost? What would

[3:22:40] the loss be?

[3:22:47] >>I appreciate the question

[3:22:48] because it indicates that I

[3:22:49] need to do a little bit more

[3:22:51] explanation here. So I'll start

[3:22:53] by saying that we wouldn't

[3:22:54] necessarily. We would not stop

[3:22:56] providing reductions when we

[3:22:57] hit our backfill cap. We just

[3:22:59] wouldn't provide any more

[3:23:01] backfill two departments. So we

[3:23:05] would be able to extend up to.

[3:23:07] In our. Let me see.

[3:23:17] >>That's why I'm asking here.

[3:23:18] I'm wondering what we're

[3:23:19] committing to.

[3:23:21] >>Yeah. So in option one,

[3:23:22] if we were to go up to half

[3:23:24] of arena cap, we'd be looking

[3:23:25] at about 562 units. And the

[3:23:26] potential total fees

[3:23:27] in that universe would be

[3:23:29] about 5.6 million.

[3:23:31] For full reno, we'd be looking

[3:23:33] at about 953 units for 9.6

[3:23:35] million total universe of

[3:23:37] potential fees that could have

[3:23:39] been collected

[3:23:42] during that time. And then if

[3:23:44] we were to look

[3:23:47] at all the units

[3:23:49] in the affordable pipeline,

[3:23:51] that's about 1900 units and

[3:23:52] would have a total potential

[3:23:54] fee universe of about 19

[3:23:56] million.

[3:23:58] >>And just for clarity,

[3:24:00] that those figures that Ms.

[3:24:02] Larocque provided are

[3:24:03] on slide 4 of your packet.

[3:24:05] >>Correct.

[3:24:07] >>So you could see the three

[3:24:08] options. And then she designed

[3:24:10] it so you could go horizontally

[3:24:12] and look

[3:24:13] at the different variations of

[3:24:15] it.

[3:24:16] >>Thank you.

[3:24:17] >>And I want to echo,

[3:24:19] and you're welcome to project

[3:24:20] it just so that the public gets

[3:24:23] an opportunity to view what

[3:24:25] we're talking about. And again,

[3:24:27] it. I really appreciate the

[3:24:30] exchange here because there's a

[3:24:33] backfill cap, which is the cost

[3:24:34] that we would want the board

[3:24:37] to recognize

[3:24:39] in their decision making. But

[3:24:41] that backfill cap doesn't have

[3:24:44] to translate into the units

[3:24:46] that would be capped. Right.

[3:24:48] Because what we're trying

[3:24:49] to respect from our colleagues

[3:24:51] at Rote and Regional Parks is

[3:24:52] that for a time now,

[3:24:55] they've been operating in

[3:24:56] about a million and a half

[3:24:58] of mitigation planning.

[3:24:59] Anything that would have

[3:25:01] Collected more than that. They

[3:25:02] would probably would have

[3:25:03] to start considering what kind

[3:25:04] of planning would that be. So

[3:25:06] we're not considering that

[3:25:07] for backfill. And the slide is

[3:25:10] up.

[3:25:14] >>Yeah, somehow I missed this

[3:25:15] and it's not in the,

[3:25:16] the presentation that I printed

[3:25:17] out for myself.

[3:25:18] >>So. So.

[3:25:27] >>Okay, this is not. We have a

[3:25:28] number here, but we don't know

[3:25:29] exactly what the full impact is

[3:25:32] that hasn't been analyzed. We

[3:25:34] haven't heard

[3:25:35] from regional parks,

[3:25:37] for example, or

[3:25:39] from public infrastructure

[3:25:41] on what this would mean. And

[3:25:43] I'm a little uncomfortable

[3:25:46] with the size of those figures

[3:25:48] in the full.

[3:25:50] >>Impact is going to be

[3:25:52] something that will forever

[3:25:53] continue to escape us because

[3:25:54] these numbers here assumes all

[3:25:57] these projects are going

[3:26:01] to go through, right? And these

[3:26:03] projects, as you will see

[3:26:05] in the attachment

[3:26:07] of your report, they are

[3:26:09] at various stages. Right. And

[3:26:11] even if they were

[3:26:13] to all be completed,

[3:26:15] they'd probably be completed

[3:26:16] within the next three

[3:26:17] to five years type

[3:26:19] of situation. Right. So I guess

[3:26:20] what I'm trying to have you

[3:26:21] visualize is that the fees

[3:26:23] being reduced are not all going

[3:26:28] to come

[3:26:30] in year one or all going

[3:26:31] to come completely

[3:26:33] between year one and two and

[3:26:35] by the time we get

[3:26:36] to the next study is probable.

[3:26:38] And again, that's the impact

[3:26:40] analysis that escapes us

[3:26:42] because it's all

[3:26:43] about probability now, right.

[3:26:44] By the time we get to the NEXUS

[3:26:47] study and we might establish

[3:26:48] per square footage fees because

[3:26:50] of AB602 or do something

[3:26:53] different as suggested by

[3:26:54] Cher Rabbit, we will be in a

[3:26:55] different world.

[3:26:57] >>Right.

[3:26:58] >>And it's possible that many

[3:26:59] of those units will be in that

[3:27:02] time continuum and not the

[3:27:04] immediate term.

[3:27:07] >>Okay.

[3:27:11] >>In the end, you know,

[3:27:13] I'm not willing to go

[3:27:14] down the road

[3:27:15] of no impact fees

[3:27:17] at all because

[3:27:20] in the end there's an impact to

[3:27:21] the general plan or the general

[3:27:23] general fund. We're starting

[3:27:24] with this $3 million

[3:27:26] over two years,

[3:27:27] but we already have an impact

[3:27:31] to the general fund on the

[3:27:32] roadside where we put extra

[3:27:33] money in every year

[3:27:34] for good reasons.

[3:27:35] But the general fund, the loss

[3:27:38] of income to the general fund

[3:27:46] impacts everyone. And a lot

[3:27:48] of the people who depend on the

[3:27:52] general fund are the same

[3:27:53] people who are trying to help

[3:27:55] with housing, the folks

[3:27:57] with greater needs,

[3:28:00] lower incomes. I'm going

[3:28:01] to just go with my feeling that

[3:28:03] we take option number three

[3:28:06] here because the lower cost

[3:28:08] gives us more bang

[3:28:11] for the buck, more units

[3:28:17] for the effort here. And it

[3:28:18] also includes the size

[3:28:22] of the units which, you know,

[3:28:26] we've been talking about,

[3:28:30] right. Sizing fees. And this is

[3:28:33] the one that does it best

[3:28:35] in my View. Thank you.

[3:28:41] >>Thank you, Vice Chair

[3:28:42] Hermosillo.

[3:28:45] >>Thank you. I think the only

[3:28:47] feedback I have is first,

[3:28:48] thank you for your work

[3:28:52] on this. And it is important

[3:28:53] to right size fees. We know

[3:28:55] that there is a significant

[3:28:56] need of housing

[3:28:58] in the very low, low income.

[3:29:00] But also last year I was

[3:29:02] at a pinning ceremony for fire

[3:29:04] department firefighters and the

[3:29:05] majority of them are coming

[3:29:10] from out of town. One

[3:29:12] firefighter comes from

[3:29:13] Arnold, California to work

[3:29:16] in the Valley. And so we need

[3:29:18] to right size fees

[3:29:19] in all types of housing. So

[3:29:24] thank you,

[3:29:27] >>Supervisor Gore.

[3:29:29] >>Yeah, I appreciate the

[3:29:31] conversation. I think it's a

[3:29:33] really back

[3:29:34] to that slide that you put up.

[3:29:36] You don't have

[3:29:38] to pull it back up again,

[3:29:40] by the way, but back to the

[3:29:42] slide that you pulled up.

[3:29:43] Let's remind ourselves that

[3:29:44] that is all unrealized revenue

[3:29:47] from a tax on future housing

[3:29:49] for which we are not building

[3:29:50] that housing now. So the true

[3:29:52] impact of these impact fees, in

[3:29:53] essence could be less housing

[3:29:55] or is less housing

[3:29:56] like that's what I said before

[3:29:57] in kind

[3:30:00] of a way was if the real impact

[3:30:01] of these impact fees is less

[3:30:03] housing, then we failed, you

[3:30:05] know, the budget to potentially

[3:30:06] manage our existing parks, our

[3:30:10] infrastructure and our other

[3:30:12] things for more people being

[3:30:17] in our unincorporated areas or

[3:30:19] in our cities that use our

[3:30:22] unincorporated areas. I would

[3:30:25] challenge that that analysis

[3:30:27] of what it's not commensurate

[3:30:32] with every single individual

[3:30:34] coming in of how much needs

[3:30:35] to be paid. A lot

[3:30:37] of parks get paid

[3:30:38] to a certain level

[3:30:40] in a standard

[3:30:41] of service and they get built

[3:30:43] out and then people coming

[3:30:46] to those. The investment was

[3:30:48] made by a lot of people

[3:30:49] individually beforehand. So.

[3:30:50] So my thing here is kind

[3:30:52] of back to this point is

[3:30:53] whether no matter where the

[3:30:54] colleagues vote for the levels

[3:30:56] of reduction, I want

[3:30:59] to echo that. The program for

[3:31:00] my druthers should not be

[3:31:02] capped at the amount

[3:31:04] of money that we put into it. I

[3:31:06] would say if we put the $3

[3:31:07] million over two years,

[3:31:08] which seems to be supported

[3:31:10] for backfill,

[3:31:12] that's enough backfill. If the

[3:31:14] program continues

[3:31:16] at that point,

[3:31:18] if we fill up that backfill,

[3:31:21] maybe a way to do it is we

[3:31:22] could request that you all come

[3:31:27] forward and we do an update

[3:31:29] right

[3:31:31] before we just start eating

[3:31:33] into not accepting fees. But I

[3:31:36] would rather not put a

[3:31:38] arbitrary stop the program

[3:31:40] based upon that.

[3:31:44] >>Right.

[3:31:45] >>Just based upon how much

[3:31:46] money we are willing

[3:31:47] to backfill. The irony is that

[3:31:48] as supervisors said on this

[3:31:49] side is that once the nexus fee

[3:31:52] comes back, then we're going

[3:31:53] to have an opportunity

[3:31:55] to see where this is. But I,

[3:31:57] but That's, I think that's a

[3:31:59] different provision. So

[3:32:00] in one degree, I'd like us,

[3:32:02] I'd like to us

[3:32:03] to consider voting

[3:32:04] on the options herein. And then

[3:32:06] on the second side is maybe see

[3:32:09] if the colleagues are

[3:32:11] interested in supporting

[3:32:12] capping the program or not

[3:32:14] capping the program based upon

[3:32:16] the dollars. I'd love

[3:32:17] to see what the demand is

[3:32:19] out there, personally. Thank

[3:32:21] you.

[3:32:23] >>And so just for

[3:32:24] clarification, my understanding

[3:32:25] was that we are essentially

[3:32:26] backfilling our departments at

[3:32:28] a level that has been actually,

[3:32:30] that's a relatively high year

[3:32:32] that we chose. So they will be

[3:32:34] kept whole, but the program

[3:32:35] could still continue, right,

[3:32:36] to that sort of a set amount

[3:32:39] that can be drawn

[3:32:40] down and then we can continue

[3:32:42] to waive the fees and just

[3:32:44] simply not collect them and not

[3:32:46] add to the departments. Is that

[3:32:47] correct?

[3:32:48] >>Bingo.

[3:32:49] >>Correct.

[3:32:50] >>It is correct. And I don't

[3:32:51] want the audience and the board

[3:32:52] to recognize that what we have

[3:32:53] framed

[3:32:55] for you is a two year program.

[3:32:57] That, that it's in place for

[3:33:00] two years or when the nexus

[3:33:02] study comes, whichever comes

[3:33:03] earlier.

[3:33:04] >>Well put.

[3:33:06] >>Because again, you,

[3:33:07] you've asked staff

[3:33:08] to do the work

[3:33:09] of the nexus study. As

[3:33:11] Supervisor Rabbit said to.

[3:33:12] This is intended to be an exist

[3:33:14] study that really analyzes

[3:33:15] impacts from development and

[3:33:16] you'll have then a more

[3:33:18] detailed information for what

[3:33:19] would happen once this ends.

[3:33:21] >>Right.

[3:33:23] >>And we're trying to

[3:33:24] synchronize them to be. At the

[3:33:25] same time.

[3:33:26] >>I'm just going to keep my

[3:33:29] remarks really brief and then

[3:33:30] go over to my colleague who's

[3:33:32] leaning in. I support parks. I

[3:33:33] support, you know, traffic

[3:33:36] mitigation and improvements

[3:33:37] in our public infrastructure.

[3:33:39] And I support, and I think that

[3:33:40] what is beautiful is that no

[3:33:41] matter what option we choose

[3:33:43] today, staff has come forward

[3:33:44] with solutions that keep our

[3:33:45] departments whole while also

[3:33:47] allowing us

[3:33:48] to incentivize the development

[3:33:49] of affordable housing. So I

[3:33:50] just want to say thank you

[3:33:51] to staff. I look forward to

[3:33:52] seeing where we have a

[3:33:53] majority. I want

[3:33:55] to acknowledge my colleague,

[3:33:56] Supervisor Abbott, you're

[3:33:57] leaning in for a comment. And

[3:34:00] then we can also, I mean, we

[3:34:01] can either take a straw poll or

[3:34:02] we can just. I heard a couple,

[3:34:03] I think on option one,

[3:34:04] if someone wants

[3:34:05] to make a motion, we can see

[3:34:06] where the votes fall.

[3:34:08] >>I was just going to say

[3:34:09] for myself,

[3:34:10] and I think this has been true

[3:34:11] over the course of many, many

[3:34:12] years, if you believe there is

[3:34:14] a housing crisis and that

[3:34:15] crisis can be addressed or

[3:34:17] mitigated by lowering these two

[3:34:18] development impact fees. And

[3:34:20] again, I was honest. And

[3:34:21] whether or not this will make

[3:34:22] the huge difference

[3:34:24] in the world to be seen.

[3:34:26] But also remember,

[3:34:28] it never was intended

[3:34:30] to be a hit to the general fund

[3:34:34] because these aren't

[3:34:37] necessarily while they're

[3:34:39] in the general fund,

[3:34:40] they're dedicated dollars

[3:34:42] to mitigate the impact

[3:34:44] of the development. All the

[3:34:45] projects on that list have not

[3:34:46] been built. There are no

[3:34:47] impacts until they are built.

[3:34:49] And again it goes to the

[3:34:51] problem that we have that we

[3:34:52] have a line item attacks that

[3:34:54] we've been putting into

[3:34:56] projects that aren't

[3:34:58] necessarily always related

[3:35:00] to the development. And I think

[3:35:01] that to me that's why this is

[3:35:03] different. And we could

[3:35:05] prioritize infrastructure

[3:35:07] projects. And I think all the

[3:35:09] projects that parks have done

[3:35:11] over the years are wonderful

[3:35:12] and great. And I think the

[3:35:15] projects that have been

[3:35:17] identified through

[3:35:18] transportation are wonderful

[3:35:19] and great. We can certainly

[3:35:21] always identify those and

[3:35:23] prioritize those and go through

[3:35:24] our general fund dollars and

[3:35:25] act accordingly. But again,

[3:35:28] I go back to the intent

[3:35:29] of development impact fees were

[3:35:31] to mitigate impact of

[3:35:32] development identified. I also

[3:35:33] am a big fan of development

[3:35:43] agreements where you can mix

[3:35:45] and match and really go

[3:35:46] above and

[3:35:48] beyond and maybe shift to all

[3:35:49] parks if there's not a

[3:35:51] transportation impact and those

[3:35:53] kind of things. And I think

[3:35:55] that we should be creative as

[3:35:56] we do that. But again,

[3:35:58] if there's a. If this helps

[3:36:00] spur housing,

[3:36:02] let's spur housing. And again

[3:36:03] I. The caveat is that I don't

[3:36:05] want to have a hole

[3:36:06] in the existing budget with

[3:36:07] monies that have been

[3:36:08] appropriated,

[3:36:10] but not necessarily coming out.

[3:36:12] But I look forward to the nexus

[3:36:14] study.

[3:36:15] >>Thank you. Supervisor Gore.

[3:36:18] >>It would be appropriate to

[3:36:21] put a motion. I move that we

[3:36:26] boldly select item number one

[3:36:31] which is reduce parks and

[3:36:33] traffic fees by 100%. That

[3:36:35] average reduction is 10,144 per

[3:36:37] unit. Furthermore, I request

[3:36:40] that we bring back maybe six

[3:36:45] months or during budget. It

[3:36:50] could be a consent calendar

[3:36:51] item or an update

[3:36:53] on the nexus fee study.

[3:36:56] However you all determine when

[3:36:58] is an appropriate time in

[3:36:59] between now and 12 to 18 months

[3:37:01] from now so that we don't blink

[3:37:03] this away. So I'm requesting

[3:37:06] maybe a six month update. Have

[3:37:08] we allocated, do we have the

[3:37:10] how much allocation towards

[3:37:12] that 3 million dollar backfill?

[3:37:16] Are we at. So we're not just

[3:37:17] disappearing

[3:37:19] into that. I think

[3:37:21] at that time we could talk

[3:37:22] about if further policy

[3:37:23] discussions because I'm still

[3:37:26] very interested in existing and

[3:37:27] future law which is

[3:37:29] around sewers, water hookups

[3:37:31] which are very expensive.

[3:37:35] But I have been told

[3:37:37] by county staff are not allowed

[3:37:40] for us to move forward

[3:37:42] under the current,

[3:37:44] these current proposals. Is

[3:37:45] that correct?

[3:37:48] >>The county Council's

[3:37:50] perspective is that we would be

[3:37:52] required

[3:37:54] to backfill any reduction to

[3:37:55] the sanitation connection

[3:37:56] district. That fee with county

[3:37:58] general fund required.

[3:38:01] >>We couldn't just. And once

[3:38:02] again, I'm interested. So some

[3:38:06] of that I'm getting lost

[3:38:08] in my motion. So I had a motion

[3:38:10] on the table which was to

[3:38:11] approve item number one and

[3:38:13] then have a program update six

[3:38:14] months

[3:38:16] from now or appropriately

[3:38:17] during budget. And then I feel

[3:38:18] like at that time we would

[3:38:20] discuss these other items. I'll

[3:38:21] leave that there

[3:38:23] through the chair.

[3:38:24] >>A point

[3:38:25] of clarification.

[3:38:27] >>So under item one,

[3:38:28] if we could.

[3:38:29] >>Go back to the slide, there

[3:38:31] are three sub options.

[3:38:33] >>Basically. Do we want to cap

[3:38:34] the number.

[3:38:36] >>Of units that this applies

[3:38:37] to, to half of our arena,

[3:38:38] the full arena,

[3:38:40] or the entire pipeline of

[3:38:41] affordable projects currently?

[3:38:43] >>And so those three options

[3:38:45] are laid.

[3:38:46] >>Out on that slide.

[3:38:50] >>I apologize. Thank you. The

[3:38:52] entire 1C affordable pipeline.

[3:38:53] >>Got it.

[3:38:56] >>And do we have a second

[3:39:00] for that motion? There is a

[3:39:02] motion and a second from

[3:39:03] Supervisor Rabbit. We will take

[3:39:05] a roll call vote on this one.

[3:39:06] And before we do,

[3:39:08] I just want to.

[3:39:09] To say thank you so much. I. I

[3:39:10] neglected to do this earlier

[3:39:11] to members of the public who

[3:39:12] provided such thoughtful,

[3:39:13] compelling testimony. And I

[3:39:14] always appreciate testimony

[3:39:16] that comes with data,

[3:39:17] so thank you for that, too.

[3:39:19] But thank you

[3:39:20] for being here today and

[3:39:21] for participating

[3:39:22] in that process. Marcy, unless

[3:39:23] there are any other comments.

[3:39:24] Going once, going twice.

[3:39:25] Great. Call it. Oh, wait. Damn

[3:39:27] it. I was not fast enough.

[3:39:28] Supervisor.

[3:39:30] >>Buzzer beater.

[3:39:31] >>I just think, as we. And I

[3:39:32] appreciate Supervisor Gore's

[3:39:34] comment, I just think as we go

[3:39:35] forward, a food for thought.

[3:39:37] You know, I think what happens

[3:39:38] with especially the utility

[3:39:39] connection fees is the last.

[3:39:41] It's like this room is the last

[3:39:43] person in the room. Did that

[3:39:44] last. Last person make it

[3:39:46] crowded or did the first. If

[3:39:48] you're in traffic, is it the

[3:39:49] first car that makes the

[3:39:50] congestion or is it the last?

[3:39:52] We have this habit

[3:39:54] of charging that last person.

[3:39:55] You know, I would say

[3:39:56] at least 80% or 90% or more

[3:39:59] of mitigation and not taking

[3:40:02] into account the cumulative

[3:40:04] effect. And I think that those

[3:40:06] fees, in my opinion,

[3:40:08] really fall that way and need

[3:40:09] to be looked at.

[3:40:10] >>All right. I think now anyone

[3:40:12] else going one's going with.

[3:40:15] Great. Marcy.

[3:40:17] >>[ ROLL CALL ]

[3:40:32] >>And that does carry

[3:40:33] unanimously. So thank you all

[3:40:34] so much for being here.

[3:40:35] >>And for clarification,

[3:40:36] this item will come back to the

[3:40:37] board as a resolution to. So we

[3:40:38] can mechanize this. Thank you.

[3:40:40] >>Thank you very much. And also

[3:40:41] thank you

[3:40:44] to everyone who has been

[3:40:45] waiting for comments

[3:40:46] on matters not listed

[3:40:48] on the agenda. We are just

[3:40:49] going to take a brief 10 minute

[3:40:50] bio break and then we will come

[3:40:52] back for the public comment

[3:40:54] on matters not on the agenda.

[3:40:55] [ RECESS ]

[3:48:52] >>And with that, thank you all

[3:48:53] for your patience. We will be

[3:48:54] taking public comment

[3:48:55] on matters not listed on the

[3:48:56] agenda and you will have two

[3:48:58] minutes to make your public

[3:48:59] comment welcome.

[3:49:01] >>It surprised you today when I

[3:49:05] said today or excuse me,

[3:49:08] today I said that February 22nd

[3:49:09] is George Washington's

[3:49:10] birthday. A lot

[3:49:12] of folks don't even think

[3:49:13] about that anymore. Used to be

[3:49:15] a holiday when I was a

[3:49:18] youngster. So keep this

[3:49:20] in mind about George

[3:49:23] Washington. Born 1732, died

[3:49:24] 1799, 225 years ago. Important

[3:49:25] things have happened

[3:49:27] since obviously, but he was the

[3:49:28] guy that was the first

[3:49:30] commander in chief of the

[3:49:31] Continental Army. They were

[3:49:33] called the Patriots forces and

[3:49:35] also the British called them

[3:49:39] rebels and revolutionaries. So

[3:49:40] what's really important is that

[3:49:43] he implemented a strong, well

[3:49:44] financed national government at

[3:49:46] the time and he set the

[3:49:48] precedents for not just

[3:49:51] Republicanism in our nation,

[3:49:54] but a peaceful transfer of

[3:49:57] power and the two term

[3:50:00] traditional. These are very

[3:50:02] important things to have. And

[3:50:03] in his farewell address he

[3:50:05] pointed out that we had to have

[3:50:06] national unity and avoid

[3:50:09] regionalism. Well, this is

[3:50:12] important right now because

[3:50:13] of what's happening at the

[3:50:14] federal level. I hope you had a

[3:50:16] chance to see the news article

[3:50:17] about Jack Smith's article

[3:50:19] being his report partially

[3:50:21] allowed out into the public.

[3:50:23] You should really read what was

[3:50:25] put in there. It's very

[3:50:28] important. And I brought

[3:50:29] something else too. This is a

[3:50:31] book about becoming a US

[3:50:32] citizen. I can bet you that

[3:50:39] almost all Native American.

[3:50:40] I'll rephrase that. Americans

[3:50:42] born here in the United States

[3:50:43] may not know how to become an

[3:50:44] American citizen. This is a

[3:50:46] very difficult book, full

[3:50:48] of difficult questions

[3:50:49] about being an American. So I'm

[3:50:52] one of those guys that wants to

[3:50:53] be a full service citizen. I

[3:50:54] try to do my best

[3:50:56] within the limitations of the

[3:50:59] way our governmental system

[3:51:01] works. I hope you'll understand

[3:51:02] that I'm a firm believer in

[3:51:04] having more citizens and I'm

[3:51:05] going

[3:51:07] to be the best one I can.

[3:51:08] Thank you.

[3:51:09] >>Some time Put yourself

[3:51:10] to sleep.

[3:51:11] >>Appreciate it. Thank you.

[3:51:14] >>Good afternoon.

[3:51:15] >>Good afternoon, Madam Chair

[3:51:17] members. Welcome to the Vice

[3:51:19] Chair. My name is Katherine

[3:51:21] Dodd. I live in WikiUp and I

[3:51:25] just had a disappointing chat

[3:51:27] with Supervisor Gore briefly

[3:51:30] about the casino and how

[3:51:33] Important it is to negotiate

[3:51:35] fire safety and road safety

[3:51:37] in the WikiUp MarkWest area

[3:51:41] where the highway patrol is

[3:51:42] responsible

[3:51:44] for traffic control. So I'm

[3:51:46] hoping that there'll be robust

[3:51:47] public hearings on that. But

[3:51:48] I'm here today as an

[3:51:49] environmental health

[3:51:50] specialist. I'm a retired

[3:51:52] public health nurse and I've

[3:51:53] done environmental policy

[3:51:54] for several years. The

[3:51:56] information I'm presenting is

[3:51:57] from UMass Loyal Toxics

[3:51:58] Reduction Institute called

[3:51:59] TURI. It's a report from 2018

[3:52:01] and for more recently the

[3:52:02] Santa Clara County Medical

[3:52:03] Society. All of us want to be

[3:52:05] in healthy environments

[3:52:07] for work and play. And we

[3:52:08] expect our public spaces, we

[3:52:09] expect our elected officials

[3:52:11] are ensuring that there are no

[3:52:12] poisonous dangers.

[3:52:14] Specifically, concerns exist

[3:52:16] for children who are uniquely

[3:52:17] vulnerable to the effects of

[3:52:19] toxic chemicals because their

[3:52:20] organ systems aren't developed.

[3:52:22] They breathe more air and

[3:52:23] faster and per body unit they

[3:52:26] absorb more toxins.

[3:52:28] For these reasons, it's

[3:52:30] particularly disappointing that

[3:52:32] you approved an expenditure

[3:52:34] of almost a million dollars

[3:52:37] on poisonous plastic grass in

[3:52:38] December which I just learned

[3:52:40] about. I don't follow the

[3:52:41] agendas that carefully.

[3:52:43] Plastic grass has over 16,000

[3:52:47] chemicals that only 4,000

[3:52:49] of which have ever been tested

[3:52:51] for safety. Artificial turf. I

[3:52:54] will come every week if I have

[3:52:56] to do an education on

[3:52:58] artificial turf and how

[3:52:59] dangerous it is. PFAS

[3:53:01] in particular. But the fills

[3:53:03] that they're proposing are are

[3:53:05] held together with plasticizers

[3:53:07] that have phthalates in them

[3:53:08] that are endocrine disruptors.

[3:53:10] They're causing premature

[3:53:12] development of young girls and

[3:53:14] infertility amongst young boys.

[3:53:16] >>But I do want you

[3:53:19] to know that that will be

[3:53:22] on our calendar

[3:53:23] for later this year

[3:53:25] to discuss. And so we haven't

[3:53:27] yet published the calendar

[3:53:30] of some even items. But there

[3:53:31] was direction the artificial

[3:53:33] turf issue as well as also

[3:53:34] artificial or a policy going

[3:53:36] forward. So thank you very

[3:53:37] much.

[3:53:39] >>Thanks. You'll hear more. Is

[3:53:40] it two minutes?

[3:53:42] >>It's two minutes. Yes. Hello

[3:53:52] again.

[3:53:53] >>Hi.

[3:53:54] >>Good afternoon. Thank you

[3:53:55] for appointing me to the

[3:53:56] Local Integrated Waste

[3:53:57] Management Task force. I'm here

[3:53:58] today to talk

[3:53:59] about contamination. Toxic

[3:54:01] pollution that's being shredded

[3:54:03] up and distributed all

[3:54:04] across our county land. We live

[3:54:06] in one big watershed. I want

[3:54:08] to thank you for your support

[3:54:12] for measure J

[3:54:14] in our agricultural industry.

[3:54:15] Critically important.

[3:54:17] But we have another Oh gosh.

[3:54:20] Critically important also is

[3:54:25] the financial and environmental

[3:54:30] risks of artificial turf

[3:54:31] for our ag economy. And this is

[3:54:33] preventable if we stop

[3:54:35] distributing shredded toxic

[3:54:38] forever chemicals across our

[3:54:40] land which kills the soil and

[3:54:42] eliminates carbon sequestration

[3:54:44] capacity. Artificial turf may

[3:54:45] seem convenient but it carries

[3:54:47] long term consequences. The

[3:54:49] Forever chemicals. They are

[3:54:50] such an issue that they are

[3:54:55] shutting

[3:54:57] down farms and ranchers

[3:54:58] across the country. Please

[3:55:00] notice these articles when they

[3:55:02] come up across your newspapers

[3:55:04] in Maine, where milk was deemed

[3:55:05] unsafe,

[3:55:07] farms are being shut down. In

[3:55:09] Texas, the PFAS runoff from

[3:55:12] adjacent farms is getting onto

[3:55:14] other farms and causing

[3:55:15] livestock deaths and destroying

[3:55:18] those businesses. Supervisor

[3:55:21] Hopkins, you cited at the

[3:55:23] Measure J kickoff that we have

[3:55:25] the best butter here,

[3:55:26] organic butter. What a disaster

[3:55:29] it will be if we contaminate

[3:55:30] the well water, which the

[3:55:32] Farm Bureau is shutting

[3:55:34] down wells in Southern

[3:55:36] California due to forever

[3:55:37] chemical contamination. We

[3:55:39] gotta get ahead of this risk.

[3:55:40] And protect our ag economy.

[3:55:42] Thank you.

[3:55:45] >>Thank you very much. Good

[3:55:47] afternoon.

[3:55:49] >>Good afternoon. Please don't

[3:55:50] stop start the clock yet. I

[3:55:51] just want

[3:55:52] to mention how detrimental

[3:55:53] to public comment it is

[3:55:54] for the time to be delayed

[3:55:56] by two hours. And I've been

[3:55:57] here before. But consider that

[3:55:59] it's not enough time

[3:56:01] for you guys

[3:56:02] to express any comments now.

[3:56:04] And this is part

[3:56:06] of public comment, so we have

[3:56:08] to start the clock. Thank you.

[3:56:11] >>Okay, I want to say. Sonoma

[3:56:13] County Agricultural

[3:56:16] Preservation and Open Space

[3:56:20] District December 10, 2024.

[3:56:21] U. K. Almost a million dollars

[3:56:22] to put plastic grass in

[3:56:23] Shopland Park. It wasn't well

[3:56:24] publicized. It was

[3:56:25] surreptitiously included in

[3:56:27] your meeting that day. I can't

[3:56:29] even find it in the agenda,

[3:56:31] but I did watch the tape. I

[3:56:32] went to watch the video

[3:56:35] for a minute. I'd like

[3:56:38] to quote David Robinson, the

[3:56:42] park manager from Sonoma

[3:56:43] County Regional Parks, who

[3:56:45] said,

[3:56:47] for the past five years, we've

[3:56:48] been watching climate change

[3:56:51] unfold in Sonoma county before

[3:56:53] our very eyes. I began

[3:56:57] thinking, why isn't addressing

[3:56:59] climate change one

[3:57:00] of the top priorities

[3:57:01] at regional parks? How do we

[3:57:02] get everybody, field staff,

[3:57:03] visitors,

[3:57:04] park managers involved

[3:57:05] in making a difference?

[3:57:06] That's David Robinson of

[3:57:07] Regional Parks. I came here

[3:57:08] today to tell you

[3:57:09] about my capitulation, my

[3:57:10] quitting, okay? You guys

[3:57:11] decided to put this stuff in

[3:57:12] Shoflin Park. You could have

[3:57:13] stopped it. You didn't. I've

[3:57:14] been losing sleep over this.

[3:57:16] I'm not losing sleep anymore

[3:57:17] because I'm giving up

[3:57:19] on that particular issue. Not

[3:57:21] on the issue of plastic grass

[3:57:22] on public lands in Sonoma

[3:57:23] County. But you beat me,

[3:57:25] okay? So that's what I'm here

[3:57:27] to publicly declare. I wish the

[3:57:29] newspaper was still here.

[3:57:30] They're not. I wish the

[3:57:32] audience was still here.

[3:57:34] They're not. You're stifling

[3:57:35] public comment. That's all I

[3:57:37] have to say. You're doing a lot

[3:57:40] of good things, too. Sorry

[3:57:43] about that. Thank you and

[3:57:44] again, this will be agendized

[3:57:46] at some point

[3:57:47] for our discussion, which means

[3:57:48] that we could actually respond

[3:57:49] to you later in the year. And

[3:57:50] we expect the calendar

[3:57:52] of significant items

[3:57:53] to be brought before the board

[3:57:54] to vote and adopt sometime in

[3:57:56] February. Is that correct?

[3:57:57] Yes. All right,

[3:57:58] thank you and apologies

[3:58:00] for the lateness.

[3:58:02] With that we are going

[3:58:03] to adjourn

[3:58:04] into closed session. We will be

[3:58:05] back to report out

[3:58:06] on closed session. Or do you

[3:58:08] have other report outs you want

[3:58:09] to do? I said the calendar has

[3:58:10] it or the agenda has it listed

[3:58:11] that will report out

[3:58:12] on the 28th. I can do the

[3:58:13] report out if we want

[3:58:14] to come back out. Otherwise I

[3:58:16] would suggest that the board do

[3:58:17] its disclosures report outs now

[3:58:19] and then we'll go

[3:58:23] into closed session and.

[3:58:25] Report

[3:58:26] out next time.

[3:58:27] >>Okay. All right, so you want

[3:58:28] to stick with the 28th. Okay.

[3:58:30] So we'll report out

[3:58:31] on closed session

[3:58:32] on the 28th, but we can report

[3:58:35] on meetings. Is that the next

[3:58:45] schedule? Okay. The report

[3:58:46] out will be at the next

[3:58:47] scheduled meeting which is

[3:58:48] January 28th

[3:58:49] for closed session. Okay. And

[3:58:50] with that, anyone want

[3:58:51] to report on their meeting?

[3:58:52] Supervisor Rabbit?

[3:58:53] >>Yeah. Last Thursday 9

[3:58:54] January I did chair the state

[3:58:58] seismic safety commission up

[3:58:59] in Sacramento where a couple of

[3:59:01] the actions taken I remained as

[3:59:02] chair. There's a long

[3:59:04] discussion on fire

[3:59:05] after earthquake especially

[3:59:06] in light of what was happening

[3:59:07] in the south land. There's a UC

[3:59:09] Berkeley Pierce research that's

[3:59:11] going to be taking place

[3:59:12] although we're working

[3:59:14] on the scope

[3:59:15] of that conflagrations

[3:59:17] like wildfire. Less the winds

[3:59:19] but multiple ignition sources.

[3:59:20] So just as dangerous Update

[3:59:21] on the shake table that

[3:59:22] with the 10 story building that

[3:59:24] we're going to shake apart.

[3:59:26] Down in San Diego There was a

[3:59:29] 7.0 earthquake in late

[3:59:30] December at what's called the

[3:59:32] Mendocino triple junction

[3:59:34] off the coast of Rio Del where

[3:59:36] the Cascadian fault begins

[3:59:39] going north. The San Andreas

[3:59:42] fault ends from the south and

[3:59:44] another fault that

[3:59:47] perpendicular off of there. So

[3:59:49] very active. And I do want

[3:59:51] to make note of this because I

[3:59:52] think it's really interesting

[3:59:54] if you have the Myshake app. I

[3:59:56] did not know this. I probably

[3:59:58] should have. There's been $3.8

[3:59:59] million 8 million downloads.

[4:00:03] One in 20 phones have this app.

[4:00:04] It's actually owned and

[4:00:06] operated by Cal oes which is a

[4:00:07] good thing because I'll tell

[4:00:08] you that it has an

[4:00:09] accelerometer within the app.

[4:00:11] So if you leave that app

[4:00:13] on your bedside table,

[4:00:15] it'll report back the frequency

[4:00:18] of the building. And there's a

[4:00:21] research program that we just

[4:00:22] invested in last week that will

[4:00:23] use that app

[4:00:26] in all the buildings around to

[4:00:28] identify damage post earthquake

[4:00:29] because the frequency changes

[4:00:32] when the earthquake occurs and

[4:00:34] it is supposed to rebound back

[4:00:36] to what it was prior.

[4:00:38] But it won't because it may be

[4:00:40] an indication of damage and

[4:00:41] by the percentage of frequency

[4:00:42] change or rebound will indicate

[4:00:44] whether or not the building has

[4:00:47] significant damage. Which I

[4:00:51] think is pretty interesting.

[4:00:52] You could imagine after a huge

[4:00:53] earthquake that that could be a

[4:00:56] real quick indicator of initial

[4:00:58] damage and then allow identify

[4:01:01] places for engineers to go

[4:01:03] in and to make sure that the

[4:01:05] building is safe. So I just

[4:01:06] thought that was really

[4:01:09] interesting. There's one that

[4:01:13] had a. It was 3.25 Hz pre

[4:01:14] quake, 2.42 during the quake

[4:01:17] which is again as you expected

[4:01:19] because it's a softening of the

[4:01:20] building and then it bounced

[4:01:22] back to 3.17 lower than what it

[4:01:24] was before. Now you'd have

[4:01:27] to look

[4:01:28] at that individual building to

[4:01:30] see what the frequencies

[4:01:31] they're starting off with the

[4:01:32] high rises because they move

[4:01:33] more but they could also do it

[4:01:34] for lower,

[4:01:35] lower buildings as well. So I

[4:01:36] thought I'd mention that

[4:01:37] because I found that pretty

[4:01:38] interesting. The good thing

[4:01:39] that it's owned by Cal OES is

[4:01:40] that immediately afterwards you

[4:01:42] won't get advertisements

[4:01:43] from structural engineers,

[4:01:44] engineers and or you know, your

[4:01:46] insurance companies as what I

[4:01:47] would imagine if it was

[4:01:49] privately held.

[4:01:50] >>Who else is ready

[4:01:53] with meetings to report out

[4:01:54] on Supervisor Gore?

[4:01:59] >>Just a couple things. Number

[4:02:02] one is yesterday I joined

[4:02:03] Regional Parks

[4:02:05] on a prescribed burn at

[4:02:06] Foothill Regional Park. Just

[4:02:09] great work. I wanted

[4:02:11] to give just mention that to

[4:02:13] the colleagues that it was

[4:02:14] great to see them. We're going

[4:02:16] to post some videos along

[4:02:17] with them and other things. It

[4:02:18] was even though it was a gusty

[4:02:19] day because this was not a

[4:02:20] ground prescribed fire,

[4:02:23] a controlled burn. It was piles

[4:02:24] that they've been doing

[4:02:26] in a lot of our districts and

[4:02:27] in other areas they were able

[4:02:29] to light them one at a time and

[4:02:30] manage them appropriately. It

[4:02:32] was just very impressive, you

[4:02:33] know,

[4:02:35] from a culture perspective

[4:02:36] of being able to do that. We,

[4:02:38] that we're, we're all afraid.

[4:02:39] Second thing is,

[4:02:41] is that we're going to meet

[4:02:43] on the 28th, but on the 29th

[4:02:45] and the 30th we're hosting

[4:02:47] for the North Coast Resource

[4:02:48] Partnership which is one of the

[4:02:49] appointments that I hold and

[4:02:50] I'm the co chair of at the

[4:02:52] Greaton Casino which has

[4:02:55] sponsored us. It'll be seven

[4:02:57] counties, 35 tribes and I know

[4:03:00] Supervisor Hopkins is the

[4:03:02] chair. We have you making some

[4:03:03] comments there, but if any

[4:03:04] of my other colleagues want

[4:03:05] to attend any of it,

[4:03:06] I just wanted

[4:03:07] to make sure that you follow up

[4:03:08] with me if there's anything.

[4:03:09] Okay. Thank you. I would just

[4:03:12] say a lot of it is that group

[4:03:13] is a primary conduit of climate

[4:03:17] bond or water bond money and

[4:03:19] that's really going to be what

[4:03:20] we focus on.

[4:03:26] >>Great. Vice Chair

[4:03:28] Hermosillo, anything to report?

[4:03:29] >>No meetings yet.

[4:03:32] >>Great. Supervisor Corsi.

[4:03:35] Okay. I just wanted to mention

[4:03:36] that we did have a joint

[4:03:38] meeting of the Lower Russian

[4:03:39] river and Coast Municipal

[4:03:40] Advisory Councils on Thursday

[4:03:41] night

[4:03:43] for their BROWN act training.

[4:03:44] Have lots of new members,

[4:03:45] which is very exciting. And

[4:03:47] then had a regional measure ad

[4:03:49] hoc with SCT rcpa,

[4:03:50] which I also had with

[4:03:51] Supervisor Rabbit to discuss

[4:03:52] the regional transportation

[4:03:54] measures still in conversation

[4:03:57] around the Bay Area. And with

[4:03:59] that we have no adjournments

[4:04:01] today,

[4:04:02] but we will be adjourning into

[4:04:04] closed session and we'll report

[4:04:05] out at our next regularly

[4:04:07] scheduled meeting on January 28.

Board of Supervisors on 2025-01-14 9:00 AM - Jan 14th, 2025

Agenda

Transcript