>> We are going to go ahead and
call this meeting to order.
And so if we could start
with a roll call
of folks present.
[ CALLING ROLL ]
>> And with that we are going
to start
with our closed session agenda.
And I would note that although
the 9:35 flood item has been
noticed at time certain it will
not be heard
until probably 10:05. Just so
that everyone knows,
because we're going
to be adjourning into closed
session and we'll reconvene
from closed session at 10am so
with that I would like
to ask if any members
of the public wish to speak on
the closed session calendar. I
would like to Note that Item 7
was withdrawn by addendum.
Item 8 was withdrawn
by addendum and Item 9A was
added by addendum. So we will
be receiving comments on 1
through 6. 9 and 9A. Welcome,
Duane.
>> Good morning and good New
Year to you. My name is Duane
DeWitt. I'm from Roseland. On
item number one and number two,
each says there's a proposed
acquisition. It doesn't state
whether that's just for rental
or purchase. I think you should
let us know. And what I'm
really concerned about is how
Airportville is growing. It's
essentially a unincorporated
area that's growing as big as a
town. There's lots of building
that's gone up there. There's
lots of traffic on the roads
now. I would propose that you
folks look into the idea of
getting some housing up there.
Specifically, there are veteran
vouchers. They're called HUD
Housing Urban Development,
Veterans Affairs Supportive
Housing for the homeless.
There's over 90
of them available right now
in the county of Sonoma. And
it's basically overseen
by the city of Santa Rosa.
This morning I'll go from here
to Vet Connect over at the
Vets Memorial Building and
double check
on the number that's available.
The dilemma is getting people
to actually work together from
the various governmental
agencies, the federal
government, which issues the
vouchers, the city of Santa
Rosa, which oversees them,
and the county of Sonoma, which
can actually show where some
new housing could be built
perhaps. If you will remember,
Windsor used a number
of veterans vouchers
to build a new housing complex
for veterans there. So I hope
the city. Excuse me,
I'm already calling Airport
Villa a city. How silly
of me. It's an unincorporated
area. You folks could be the
ones to take the lead on
to get some housing up there.
Even if it's just 10 or 12
housing units,
it really helps. Right now,
even though Caritas has been
built and Catholic Charities is
helping to have homeless here
in Santa Rosa, there's still
dozens of people out here
on the streets
on these cold nights, sleeping
under the underpasses and just
in general not having a
comfortable life. I would not
like to see any veteran be in
that situation. I wish you a
good new year. I'll be back
for the next meeting and
for public comment later
in the day.
>> Thank you so much, Duane.
>> My pleasure. You're not
getting up, are you?
>> I think we're the same
height. Yeah.
>> Good morning.
>> Good morning, members
of the board. Happy New Year.
Ryan Williams with SEIU 10-1.
I'm here to speak about items
1 and 2. SEIU 10-1 is opposed
to the purchase
of the airport buildings
at this moment in time. We
raised concerns back in August
after this was raised and this
was moving forward. We do not
believe that this is right now
the best use
of taxpayer dollars. We do not.
We have not seen anything in
public that there was any kind
of request
for proposal or a outreach done
to different commercial real
estate properties
in the greater Santa Rosa area
to consider the valuation
of 400 aviation compared to
other assets that could be
potentially available within
city limits or just outside
city limits. 400 aviation right
now is. Was
in the lease agreement,
has an exclusive three year
within county. The county can
delay this does not need
to move forward. They can
continue to do outreach to
compare what other real estate
is potentially available. We
are not asking for a delay
in the process here
on construction, rebuilding the
county complex or anything
to change
from the meeting in, in
August. But we do not believe
right now that 400 aviation is
the best use
of taxpayer dollars. In
particular when the county
values it at approximately $40
million and other fair market
valuations also has it
at approximately $40 million.
Yet the county is scheduled
to purchase it at $56 million.
That is real money that can go
priorities that we. You just
heard from this last Friday and
what happens with the Trump
administration. And so that is
with 400 aviation in regards
to Brickway, this board of
supervisors should have eyes
open on who the true owners of
that building is and whether
that is the best use or the
proper use of taxpayer dollars
to go to those individuals
within that investment shell
Corporation. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. Going
once, going twice. Jack, do you
want to chime in or? Okay.
On consent calendar. Okay,
great. All right. With that,
we are going
to go ahead and adjourn
into closed session. We will
return at 10am See you all
soon.
[CLOSED SESSION]
>> Chair Hopkins, we
are ready to begin.
>> Thank you so much. So we are
back from our closed session,
and we are going to start
with a Spanish translation
announcement from CEO Rivera.
[ SPANISH ]
>> Thank you so
much. And with that, I would
ask, how about Jack Buckhorn
lead us in the pledge
of allegiance this morning?
>> Ready, begin.
>> I pledge allegiance
to the flag of the United
States of America and
to the republic
for which it stands,
one nation under God,
indivisible,
with liberty and justice
for all.
>> And that will bring us
to the approval
of the agenda. Item number
seven and item number eight
were both withdrawn
by addendum. And item number
nine A was added by addendum.
So do we have a motion
on the approval
of agenda this morning?
>> Motion
to approve the agenda.
>> Great. All
in favor say aye.
>> Aye.
>> Any opposed or abstain?
Seeing none,
that does carry unanimously.
And with that, we will move on
to the consent calendar. And
first, I would ask my
colleagues if there are any
questions or items that are
requested be pulled
from the consent calendar.
Supervisor Gore.
>> Yeah. Thank you very much,
Chair Hopkins. Happy New
Year. Happy New Year, everybody
who's been here. Item number
14, adjustment to the living
wage hourly rate. I just wanted
to make sure that I stated once
again, and we all are in
agreement and acknowledgement,
that when we decided
to take this action
to amend our contracts,
and every time we do it going
forward, county contracts that
go predominantly
to private businesses or
to nonprofits for delivering,
by and large, county programs
and services is that we have
to own the cost of that. We've
received quite a few notes
recently over the last week.
We did have. When staff
presented this living wage
proposal and we decided to go
for the highest rate that we
could at that time and decided
to move into that area,
we knew and we had
to assume that we were going
to have to amend our contracts
to justify that increased cost.
There are some nonprofits and
others that are concerned that
this would trigger them
with their other contracts
to pay higher. I think there's
a process that can always be
followed to see
about how that resolves itself.
But I do want to state, once
again, that when I voted
for this and when the rest
of the individuals, I think,
on this board voted for this,
we knew there was going
to be a cost. So my question is
really to the county
administrator is that as we
look at this taking effect
with contract renewals or lead
in or how long it takes for it
to happen is I'm assuming this
is going to be reflected
in our annual budget
for contracting, and we have
to account for it when we come
into June of this year and
maybe project some things out.
But I just want to say that
with open eyes,
acknowledgement, and also, I
think, request that there's
continued conversations between
the county administrator's
office and our especially
nonprofit partners that are
writing us so that. So that we
acknowledge their input. And we
acknowledge that if it's hard
to figure
out this transition,
that's one thing,
that we work towards it.
But if on the other side. If
they're worried
about us implementing it,
we're still voting to implement
it is what I'm doing this year
today with this being
on the consent calendar. Thank
you.
>> CEO Rivera, any comments
in terms of the impact
to the budget?
>> Thank you for that, Chair
Hopkins. Definitely. I estimate
our community partners and even
our private partners will take
that into account when they're
negotiating with us. And
at the end of the day, it may
be possible or a potential
scenario. Is that not only
that. Yes, we will negotiate
with that understanding
in mind. And the capacity
of funding is not elastic.
Right? So it may be that our
contracts may be
of greater amount because
of the cost
of the living wage, but it may
have to fit a lesser scope
of service in order
to stay within, especially
within our state and federal
funding, that it does not, you
know, flex when we make those
changes.
>> I think we've said it time
and again, but, you know,
from my perspective is, you
know, focusing
on raising the wage floor in
this county and owning our
procurement is an important
part of everything. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Supervisor
Rabbitt.
>> Thank you for that. And
thank you for pointing out, I
mean,
obviously there's consequences
to increasing the cost
of doing business. You're
either going to provide the
less service or you're going
to have higher costs. So not
unanticipated, if I may,
and I know through the chair,
I'm going to vote no today
on consent item number 12. And
I clearly want to communicate
why I'm taking the vote. I am
this has to do
with tourism impact funds.
They were originally,
in my opinion, established to
meet the unique and urgent
needs, as the staff report
says, of unincorporated
Sonoma County and may be used
for activities such as safety
improvement,
environmental impact
mitigation, public safety, and
other tourism mitigation
activities. It's the second
part of the allowances that I
really do have issues with.
Funds may also be used for
projects that benefit the
community or support
organization that coordinate
community improvements, such as
municipal advisory councils and
whatnot. What happens is an
inequitable distribution
of discretionary funds
allocated to each supervisorial
district or more importantly,
to a large percentage
of the county. And until we fix
that and truly have tourism
impact funds address tourism
impacts as opposed to other,
you know, programs that I don't
have a problem with. If the
funding source was different,
such as HIV nutrition program,
well, deserving. But is it a
tourism impact or group therapy
workshops for health workers,
Great program. Hard to argue
that it's a tourism impact. So
until we kind
of straighten that out and
really have an equitable
distribution of funds,
I'm going to be voting no on
those items as they come
forward. Thank you.
>> Any other comments
from my colleagues? I would
like to note that one
of the biggest challenges
with the tourism industry in
west county is the tremendous
income disparity that we
experience where we have folks
driving in cars that cost more
than our employees make
in five years. And that we try
to invest tourism impact funds
into our employees who work
in the tourism industry,
our workforce who really,
really struggle to pay rent and
far too often live literally
in trailers
in floodplains and don't have
$200 to call a tow truck
to actually flee
from the rising waters. And
that also makes me excited that
we are passing this living wage
ordinance because even though
it's just a step towards a true
living wage, which is probably
$35 or $40 an hour in Sonoma
County to be able
to afford the cost
of living here. That that will
put us on a trajectory of
greater equity and less severe
income inequality
in our community. And
with that, I would ask if there
are any members
of the public who wish
to comment on calendar,
which is items 10 through 30
today. You will have two
minutes. Welcome, Duane.
>> Hello, My name is Duane
Dewitt. I'm from Roseland. I
wanted to thank you
for number 10. I'm a member
of that veterans group, and
it's very important that we get
these opportunities
to do a veterans event there
on the 22nd of February. Do any
of you folks remember what that
used to be Washington's
birthday. Nothing
but a good time back
in the old days anyway. Along
with that, I support Mr.
Rabbitt's comments about the
tourism funds not being
appropriately,
perhaps dispersed. Then as we
go further on number 13, I'd
like to volunteer to be
on that oversight committee
for measure H. And I know you
folks would welcome my presence
there. That's why I'm here
to ask. And you could also put
me on the measure M oversight
committee too,
when you get that next opening.
No one ever reaches out
to me though. I come here
to volunteer my time and effort
to help our community. Last,
not least, that was wonderful
what the chair woman just said
about the living wages
in our community back
in the day, growing up here,
you could live on $1.75. My
first jobs were getting paid
that and I was able to live
on that. Now it's gotten so
out of hand that people need
to make a lot of money just
to be able to be here. Young
people are moving away.
They're not getting the
opportunity to stay. And that's
because the affordable housing
that we talk about building
isn't necessarily just
for the extremely low income,
the low income, very low
income, you've been throwing in
the moderate term and allowing
that money
to go towards that. You should
actually make any affordable
monies
for affordable housing, be
for the lowest level for when
those teenagers are getting
out of high school and trying
to have a studio apartment here
in Santa Rosa. It's running
about $3,000 a month. It's out
of hand. So let's help get true
affordable housing
on the ground
at the lowest levels for those
who have the least amount
of money. Thank you kindly
for your time. Good New Year.
>> Thank you very much.
Welcome.
>> Yes, good morning,
Honorable chair Hopkins,
Supervisors, county staff. My
name is Jack Buckhorn,
Executive director of the
North Bay Labor Council. And I
hope to make these comments the
shortest that you might hear
from me all year. I'm here just
to thank you
for all the work that we've
done on the living wage
ordinance together. I
especially want to point
out your staff, Christelle and
Yvonne, who have been exemplary
and fantastic communicators
with us,
really couldn't have asked
for a better process. And we
know it's taken a long time.
Ten years ago we started this
and the latest round has been
four years delayed by Covid.
But we've made it
to the finish line. And I do
sincerely want
to thank each and every one
of you for the help
in raising the floor for the
lowest paid workers that the
county contracts with. So,
thank you.
>> Thank you very much.
Welcome.
>> Good morning, Board of
Supervisors. My name is
Elizabeth Hernandez and I'm the
director of Operations and
clinical services for
Progress Foundation. I
referenced the living wage
ordinance last Friday in
Sebastopol and I'm here today
that if it's increased and it
sounds like it will be,
we want to ensure that the
board is ensuring community
based organizations will
receive a contract increase
that is commensurate
with the cost to employers
for implementation. I want to
emphasize that we recognize the
ever increasing cost of living
in the Bay Area and we are
fully in support
of our staff and those working
at this hourly wage receive an
increase in pay. We are
in support. Progress foundation
is a nonprofit agency that has
provided behavioral health
services in Sonoma County
for the past 15 years. We're
contracted by the Department
of Health services to provide
32 beds of crisis and
residential treatment and those
services are provided 24 7,
365 days a year. Due
to regulatory requirements
by licensing and certification,
staff to client ratios must be
maintained and services cannot
be scaled down. Increase
in living wage to 2315 will
result in an 18 and a half
increase in the starting wage
for our per DM relief
counselors who represent a
significant part of our
staffing imprint and provide
coverage
for our full time counselors.
Furthermore, an increase
in the living wage will result
in an 8% increase
in the starting wage
for our full time counselors.
Both employee classifications
are union represented and
follow a step system
for wages. Once the living
wages increase, salaries across
the steps will be impacted and
salary scales must be adjusted
to protect
against wage compression. This
increase will have a
significant impact on the cost
to provide services in Sonoma
County. We're already facing
increasing operational cost
pressures
in our food and insurance,
particularly in health benefits
and property insurance and
anticipate ongoing pressures
in the area
in these upcoming years. We
reiterate, we understand and
fully support ensuring our
frontline workers are living
earning a livable wage and also
acknowledge we must consider
the impact such a sudden and
significant increase could have
on nonprofit providers who are
already focused on providing
cost effective services. Thank
you.
>> Thank you. Are there any
other members
of public who wish
to comment? Good morning.
>> Good morning. Marty
Bennett. Unite here Local 2 and
North Bay Labor Council. I want
to thank the board again
for moving Forward to approve
$23.15 an hour
of increased living wage rate
on a consent calendar. I want
to remind you that the increase
of the living wage base rate is
effectively phased in. It only
applies when new or renewed
contracts are awarded. Based
on some of the comments
from department heads, I
believe that the cost increase
exceed what for what the actual
costs are going to be. Why?
Because 100% of the living wage
increase is not passed on
to the consumer or
in this case, the county. The
accepted methodology amongst
economists who specialize
in the field of living wage and
minimum wage increases is to
calculate all the ways
employers adjust, including
lower hiring and training costs
due to the higher worker
retention rates,
a slight reduction of profits
and marginal price increases.
Higher retention rates also
increase worker training and
skills, yielding higher
productivity,
enabling employers
to absorb part
of the living wage increase.
Using this methodology,
you see economists in a recent
report estimated that the
impacts
of increasing the minimum wage
to $20 an hour for 550,000
California Fast Workers
employed by large trains,
which was a $4 an hour raise
for the typical worker, the
highest minimum wage increase
in recent American history.
They found that employment
levels remained stable
in industry. Menu prices rose
by about 3% or 15 cents
for the typical $4 hamburger.
Thank you so much.
>> Thank you. Welcome.
>> Thank you. Janice Carmen,
Santa Rosa thank you
for the good meeting on
Friday. It was nice
to see everyone and my kudos
to the food staff. It was
beautiful, was well presented
and it was delicious. Anyway,
moving on. I'm glad I arrived
when I did. I support the rise
in the minimum wage to 23.15. I
think it's a great idea. And I
talk with a lot of people,
a lot of merchants, a lot
of business owners. There's a
lot of people that are leaving
again and it's going
to be sad. The people that stay
are in it. They know it costs
more to live here. It's harder
to live here. But while we were
having a meeting on a lot
of the issues,
which are very huge in Sonoma
County, LA was burning.
We don't want to burn again.
And we really have to pay
with investment of time,
energy, money and knowledge
of the facts
of what's going on. I
know most of you, or some
of you, at least previously,
I know a good part of the
Sonoma County workforce come
from Sonoma State. It's good
to get out of the boat,
see what other people are
doing, how they're preventing
fires, how they're preventing
flooding, et cetera. And we
can't continue to build on
every green space that we see.
Anyway, that's all I'm going
to say. But I don't want the
people leaving. I want the
people to stay,
and I want them to feel like
they can be here and be well
paid.
>> The consent calendar thank
you.
>> Welcome Chair and Board of
Supervisors, Ryan Williams
with SDIU 10-1. Today I stand
with my colleagues from the
North Bay Labor Council
in support and thanking you
of item 14
on the living wage ordinance.
Ever since I've been
with SEIU 10-1,
for the past three years,
I've been working
on this issue with the Labor
Council and
with several members
of the board. And we just want
to say thank you. This has been
a long time coming. This is
at the forefront
of showing a good use
of taxpayer dollars to support
the low wage workers that do
tremendous work. As mentioned
by our nonprofit ally here,
this is a tremendous step
forward. So thank you all for
your support and we continue
looking forward on working
to implement this
with you.
>> Thank you very much. Are
there any other members
of the public who wish
to comment on this item?
Seeing none,
I will bring it back
to my colleagues for any final
remarks or a motion to approve
the consent calendar.
>> I just wanted
to reflect at one point
on my first year
on the board when I was
on the living wage ad hoc. I
just remember having late night
screaming matches on the phone
with Marty Bennett. And
it's pretty amazing
to be here. And I say that
with passion. You know,
that's. That's what it is. So
just acknowledging how far
we've come, but also
for the lowest wage workers
in our county. And I appreciate
that. So thank you all very
much. Happy
to move the consent calendar.
So, so moved.
>> Great. Thank you. And we
have a motion. Do we have a
second, Supervisor Coursey?
>> I'll second. And I just want
to say that I'll support number
12 today. I look forward to
the board is having a workshop
on tourism impact grant funding
in February. February 22nd,
I believe it is. And I look
forward to that. Second the
motion.
>> Thank you. And we will take
a roll call vote because
Supervisor Rabbitt will have a
dissenting vote.
>> So this is
for 10, 11, 13 through 30,
excluding 12.
>> I think we can
include 12. And then he'll just
note that he's voting no
on that.
[ CALLING ROLL ]
>> All right.
And with that,
we will go ahead and move on
to our first item of the day,
which we presented by Permit
Sonoma. Thank you all so much
for coming
for the consent calendar. So
item 31. I apologize
to those members
of the public who are
in the audience waiting
for this item. It was 9:35. We
re noticed it
at 10:10 and we're a little bit
behind the times, but thanks
for your patience. Scott, will
you be introducing the item?
Great.
>> Yes. Good morning, Chair
Hopkins, members
of the board. So what we have
for you today is the return
of an item from November
looking at the flood mapping
along lower Russian River and
Mark West Creek. So what we're
going to do today is the
presentation is going to go
through just kind
of an overview of what the item
is as the first part, and then
at the end we're going to talk
about the next steps that we're
recommending as part
of this overall process. So the
decision in front
of you today is a decision
on the maps, but also whether
to give direction to staff to
bring back further discussion.
So with that, I'll turn it
over to Azine
for the presentation.
>> Good morning, Supervisors.
My name is Azine Spalding, and
today I'm bringing Forward file
number ORD2411, which is the
flood hazard realignment item,
to amend the official zoning
database
to update the boundaries of the
floodway and floodplain
combining districts to
to correspond to new flood
hazard area maps adopted
by FEMA in July of 2024. So
today we'll be discussing the
FEMA mapping timeline and
process and how county
regulations relate
to FEMA maps. We're going
to talk about the National
Flood Insurance Program, along
with its benefits and its
requirements
for participation,
county regulations for flood
hazard areas and what this
update means for property
owners and residents and the
process to Change or modify
FEMA's maps. So I'll go over
some key terms that will
frequently be referenced
throughout this presentation.
So FEMA is the Federal
Emergency Management Agency,
which creates flood and other
disaster information and maps
and provides flood insurance
and disaster relief. The NFIP
is the National Flood
Insurance Program, which is a
federal program that provides
flood insurance
to property owners
in participating communities.
The regulatory floodway is a
channel of a river or other
watercourse and the adjacent
land areas that must be
reserved
to discharge the base flood
without cumulatively increasing
the water surface elevation
more than a designated height.
Sonoma County's floodway
combining district corresponds
to FEMA's mapped regulatory
floodway. Lastly, the
floodplain is any land area
susceptible to being inundated
by flood waters
from any source. Sonoma
County's floodplain combining
district corresponds
to FEMA's mapped floodplain.
So in October 2022, FEMA
released preliminary flood
insurance rate maps called
firms for public review. On
June 22nd and 29th, 2023,
notices of the appeal period
for preliminary firms were
published in the Press
Democrat. A 90 day appeal
period commenced between June
29 and September 27, 2023,
during which residents,
residents, businesses and the
county could appeal flood risk
information
on the preliminary firms. On
July 31, 2024, FEMA published
the final firms,
which are no longer appealable.
The flood maps were updated
because the Russian river
watershed has not been
restudied by FEMA in over 30
years and technological
advances
over time have allowed
for higher accuracy of flood
risk. FEMA generates these maps
by incorporating data
from climate science, waterway
information, hydrological data,
local engineers and surveyors,
and land use and development
information. The county
implements FEMA maps
through parcel zoning by either
adding or removing the
Floodway F1 or Floodplain F2,
combining districts
to impacted parcels. This
rezoning is necessary to align
with FEMA's flood hazard maps
and remain in compliance
with the National Flood
Insurance program. If the F1 or
F2 is added to a parcel,
the parcel is subject to FEMA
regulations and building codes
that apply when building a new
structure, remodeling,
or making other improvements.
On July 31, 2024, final firms
for the Russian river watershed
were published by FEMA. On
October 17, 2024, the
Planning Commission heard
technical zoning Corrections,
which included proposed parcel
zoning updates to align local
floodway and floodplain mapping
with updated FEMA maps. On
November 12, 2024, the Board
of Supervisors heard the same
technical zoning corrections
item and directed staff
to conduct outreach with
affected communities and return
to the board in January 2025
for final consideration.
Zoning updates
for F1 and F2 changes
for all hearings, public
notices were sent via USPS to
affected property owners and
property owners within 300ft of
affected parcels and published
in the Press Democrat
with support from the Russian
River Chamber of Commerce
Permit Sonoma presented
to the Lower Russian River
Municipal Advisory Council and
the Mark West Area Municipal
Advisory Council. Permit
Sonoma staff also prepared an
interactive GIS map showing
current and proposed flood
hazard zoning
in affected areas. This is one
of four examples where there
have been more significant
changes to the flood hazard
area mapping. This example
demonstrates the change in the
floodway and floodplain
boundaries in Rio Nido with
current floodway and floodplain
boundaries shown in orange and
lighter orange and proposed
boundaries
in blue and lighter blue. This
example demonstrates the change
in the floodway and floodplain
boundaries in Guerneville.
Here we can see the changes
in Monterio and Northwood and
lastly changes near
Londonberry Drive and Wikiup
Drive. As I mentioned earlier,
the F1 combining district
applies to properties within
the regulatory floodway as
shown on FEMA maps. F1
regulations apply only
to portions of the parcel
within the F1, not necessarily
the entire parcel. On
undeveloped or vacant parcels,
no new permanent structures are
allowed within the mapped
floodway areas. On parcels
with existing structures, no
new permanent structures or
additions are allowed.
However, some exceptions
include structural elevation
above flood level, repairs that
do not increase floor area, and
septic and well improvements.
The F2 Combining District
applies to properties
within the 100 year flood
hazard area as shown on FEMA
maps. F2 regulations only apply
to portions of the parcel
within the F2, not necessarily
the entire parcel within the F2
structural development must
comply
with local building code. In
Sonoma County Code Chapter 7B,
which relates
to flood proofing
within the F2, new residential
structures must be elevated one
foot above the base flood
elevation and new commercial
structures have the option
to elevate or flood proof
to one foot above the BFE. If
the county does not rezone,
communities participating in
The NFIP have six months to
implement FEMA's implement
FEMA's updated floodplain
regulations once the final
firms have been published. The
maps were published on July
31, 2024, so the county has
until January 31, 2025 to
implement the regulations or
risk suspension
from the NFIP. If a community
is suspended from the NFIP,
property owners will not be
able to purchase NFIP policies
or renew them. Federal grants
or loans for development will
not be available
in affected areas. Federal
disaster assistance may not be
provided
for any natural disaster,
including flood damage repair
or reconstruction. The Sonoma
County Community Development
Commission Flood Elevation
Mitigation Program would be
unavailable to the county and
flood hazard area residents,
which is since 1997, over 300
homes have been elevated and
$27 million have been spent
on elevation
through this program. Federal
mortgage insurance or loan
guarantees will not be provided
in affected areas and lenders
must disclose that property
within flood hazard areas is
not eligible for federal
disaster assistance and the
hazard mitigation grant program
would be unavailable to the
county and flood hazard area
residents. The county is taking
steps to mitigate impacts
to property owners by
implementing the FEMA maps
three through rezoning
to ensure compliance
with the NFIP and
by assessing options
to work directly with FEMA
on a restudy of the area
to ensure accuracy
of the maps. On October 17,
2024, the Planning Commission
considered the Technical
Corrections item, which
included updated floodway and
floodplain combining district
boundaries, and passed a
resolution recommending that
the Board of Supervisors
approve amendments to the
County General Plan and Land
Use map and the official zoning
database. Amendments to the F1
and F2 combining districts are
consistent with the Sonoma
County General Plan Public
safety element policy PS2V
directs the county
to continue enforcing
Floodplain Management Code
requirements
in flood hazards areas
to implement the NFIP.
Amendments
to the official zoning database
to update the F1 and F2 are
directed by county code and are
thus ministerial and statutory
statutorily exempt from the
California Environmental
Quality act
under CEA guidelines section
15268. With that,
I'll pass it back to Scott.
>> Thank you, Azine so as I
mentioned earlier,
we have two asks for today.
First is to adopt the ordinance
amending the official zoning
database to update the F1 and
F2 zoning areas and also
providing direction to permit
Sonoma to proceed
with a technical review
of these flood hazard maps
for the Russian river watershed
and also the Mark West Creek
area by the airport so west
of 101. And so taking this
action today,
make sure that we stay
in compliance with the FEMA
programs that will keep people
ensured, especially through the
rainy season that we're
currently in. But we also want
to talk
about the next steps as part of
our recommendation and that
we're hoping
for board feedback on. First is
we would like
to resetty the lower Russian
river and Mark West Creek area.
If we get direction
to do this, we'd have
to come back
with a standalone budget item
to make that happen. Based
on our experience with the
Todd Creek study, which was
about 75,000, we're estimating
that this would be about
250,000 because it's a
significantly larger area.
But we do feel that if we were
to undertake this study,
we'd be able to more accurately
assess this reach of the
Russian river as well as the
tributaries that lead into it
that we feel were not analyzed
to the same level. Additional
things that we're looking
at that we don't need any kind
of board action to put
into place. First off is
strengthening our noticing
protocols for instances
like this. Yes, FEMA did
noticing a couple years ago,
but I think that one thing
we've learned, especially
through talking to the public
at the Mac meetings and then
also individuals is,
is that that's not enough. So
even though we don't have a
legal obligation
to notice that like we do
for the meeting today, we've
really heard that the FEMA
noticing just isn't enough
for our community. So we are
going
to proactively be doing a lot
of the steps that we would
for our own item,
for the FEMA items as well
in the future to get this
discussion started sooner, you
know, when we're still in the
preliminary comment period,
when we're still
in the appeal period. We'd also
like to reassess our local
regulations. It's not often
that we're talking about
regulations that were enacted
in the 1940s
like our F1 and F2 were. We
didn't even have a building
code back then. So it's time
for us to go and reassess. Are
those still meeting the needs
for us today? In some areas our
local regulations are stricter
than FEMA's, but particularly
in the F1. And so we do want to
go back and reassess how the
zoning code, building code and
our general plan all align
along with kind of the state
of development and residency
along the river today. Another
thing that we've been
discussing is the idea
of a critical service overlay
for the commercial corridor
along the river. So that
wouldn't necessarily need
to be something that exists
in zoning, but it makes it very
clear that the continued
operation of things like the
Gurnwell Safeway is critical
to the success of folks living
on the river. You know,
we've also been taking a look
at our legal non conforming
language,
which is another section of the
zoning code that governs kind
of the process around
reconstruction and rebuilding
in areas like this. And so it's
another section that we really
need
to reassess whether the kind
of thresholds in that are still
meeting the need for today.
Through the fires,
we made a number of changes
to make it easier for people
to rebuild. And
from a flood standpoint,
we want
to make it clear that we,
we do want to support people
rebuilding what they had in the
event that there's a disaster.
One final thing that I will say
is there is something that
there's a FEMA program called
CRS which stands for, sorry
one minute. Community Rating
System. So basically through
this county led process, we
can,
through areas where we are
going above and
beyond what FEMA requires, we
can potentially lower the
insurance rates
of folks that live
in the county. So this is part
of the balancing act because we
would get extra points towards
lowering rates
by having something
like a stricter F1 or F2.
But again it's balancing. And
so that wasn't in the report.
But we did get a public comment
about that. So I wanted
to mention that as well as for
for future consideration. So
with that we're looking forward
to any questions and hearing
from the public.
>> Thank you very much. And I
actually would like
to go straight to public
comment recognizing that we are
running late and so that we can
hear from folks who may took
time out of their day
to be here. And then I will
bring it back
to the board afterwards
for questions and comments. So
is there anyone
in the public who wishes
to speak on this item? We will
have two minutes per public
comment. I knew I saw some
familiar faces in the audience
so I figured.
>> Good morning supervisors.
Good morning Permits
Sonoma. My name is Peter
Hackett. I have Stumptown
Brewery and Stumptown Car
Wash. I think like a lot of the
people that have been affected
by this and maybe a little
offended at the notification
that we received that there
were zoning alterations that
were going to be made which
seems a lot more minor than the
material effect that this could
potentially have
to our properties and not just
in use, but in value. And
certainly when I read that,
you know,
a parcel that has moved
from F2 to F1 becomes legal non
conforming and the verbiage of
legal nonconforming is pretty
arbitrary and certainly would
affect the resale value
of property, not just the use
of that property. Obviously a
lot
of people who are now moved
into the F2 floodplain and find
themselves
with the additional holding
cost of flood insurance and so
on are also affected. And it
was a challenge to know that
FEMA had actually made this
aware, made us aware of this,
these potential changes back
in 2022. And we just became
aware of them in November. And
frankly by accident that even
the meeting that was
intentionally to ratify. Thank
you very much Supervisor
Hopkins for pulling this off.
So we did have an opportunity
to actually talk about this.
Perhaps gives us a chance
to make some changes to
mitigate the damage which
clearly has to be done. I think
we all understand that we have
to ratify these changes
in order to stay
within the boundaries
of FEMA. But the damage
to those of us whose zoning has
been changed and ultimately
bearing the cost
of that compliance. And there
are hundreds of parcels. I'm
actually surprised there aren't
more people here today figuring
out a way to do that. Whether
perhaps that might be a carve
out like the Kincaid fires had
so that there's more clarity
and less arbitrary decision by
the chief building inspector as
to whether or not we can
rebuild. I know I wouldn't want
to buy a parcel if I couldn't
rebuild, if something happened
to it, whether or not that
damage was incurred during a
natural disaster or otherwise.
>> And thank you so much, that
is time. I apologize.
>> I had two minutes.
>> It goes too fast. I know.
>> Thank you.
>> And also I just want
to state for the record that we
have officially opened the
public hearing. This is sort
of a public hearing. And want
to make sure that Peter's
comments are recognized as part
of that. Welcome. Come
on up.
>> Good morning. My name's Ed
Kleitz. I live at 133 Fleming
Way, Santa Rosa, California, a
little
over a half a mile south
of the Todd Road flood channel.
I haven't heard it yet here
today, but it is on the back
page or somewhere buried
into this report. And I just
want you to know that I became
aware as a 33 year owner of my
home three years ago that FEMA
had declared my neighborhood to
be a flood zone. I wasn't
notified
by FEMA. I was not notified
by the county. I was notified
by my mortgage company who
said, you have 30 days
to get insurance or we're going
to get it for you. We're here
almost three years later and I
have to shout out to
Supervisor Coursey's office
after making about 10 or 12
calls to my realtor, my
friends, my mom,
my neighbors who will speak
in a minute,
Supervisor Coursey's office,
specifically Sean Hamlin is the
one who told me what was going
on, why it was going
on and sorry, I was playing the
parking game. I got insurance.
I'm in my third year of that
flood insurance and I'm nearing
$6,000
in flood insurance. Again, I
live over half a mile
from the Todd Road channel.
Back in November, before
Thanksgiving when we got almost
half of our annual rainfall
in that one week,
my pool didn't even flood,
much less my backyard. Oh, and
by the way, my house is on
three foot post and piers. I
could have disputed the claims
of FEMA back in 2022 and
commissioned an engineering
study and found the plans
for my house that was built
in 1952,
but that was cost prohibitive.
So I have two asks of you today
as the red light is looming,
who and when do I notify my
mortgage company to stop taking
those monthly payments out of
my newly created impound
account? And who do we contact
to get reimbursed from this
erroneous study so that we can
be made whole again.
By the way, I'm a 10 year
county retiree having worked
27 years
in the county jail. I'm
on a fixed income. These
numbers are rising just like
every other expense there is
out there. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you. Good morning.
>> Good morning. My name is
Kathy Pezantine. Everything
that Ed said is what I was
going to say also. I'm his
neighbor and I've been
in our house for 47 years,
never flooded. And the zone,
we have flood zone outside,
not that far away. And three
years ago we received a notice
from our bank and then we went
through a big process
with them. And I just want
to hold this up real quick.
This is what we got from FEMA
and it has a little arrow
pointing
to where our little flood,our
small building in back of our
property had a little corner
that was in that flood zone.
And We've paid over $3,000
for our insurance and we,
we didn't know what to do,
where to go, who to talk to
about this map and our flood
zone. So we're hoping
to get some answers today.
Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. Is
there anyone else who wishes
to comment on this item?
Welcome.
>> Hi. Thank you. Good morning.
I didn't come to speak
on this topic today,
but hearing it, I wanted
to mention that with insurance
rates there are multiple
factors
to consider. I do not live
in a floodway. I live adjacent
to a floodplain
within the city limits of
Petaluma, California. While I
don't share the same
characteristics, my,
my home doesn't. The land that
it's on. As some
of the speakers today, I would
like you to know that
in the past couple years,
merely because our home is
adjacent to a floodplain
near the Petaluma River, our
flood insurance went from just
under $1,000 a year to $5,000 a
year. I'm retired. I'm
on a fixed income. We're all
getting squeezed
from fire insurance, flood
insurance, car insurance. The
squeeze is too much
to bear and the stress of
having your expenses go sky
high in an uncertain future
of what the heck would happen
to you in your safe place,
that you plan to retire and
work hard your whole life when
that is unnecessarily
compromised
with planning that is,
is not acceptable
to the people
of the electorate.
Electorate. So please elevate
their comments and help them to
have a secure and safe future.
Thank you.
>> Thank you. Very much.
Good morning.
>> Good morning. My name is
Mark. I live in Scenic Avenue
in Santa Rosa or county.
Excuse me if I'm going to be
ignorant on this topic,
but I've lived at my place
for 18 years.
From what I understand,
Sonoma County Water Agency is
supposed to be responsible
for the drainage ditches. In
18 years they have not,
I'll use a farmer's term,
mucked out the ditches once.
It's been over two weeks since
we had rain and we still have
standing water
in the culverts. We got
to start with the basic level
before we go to the flood stuff
because if it's not going
anywhere,
it's standing there waiting
for the next rain to happen.
Now, there are fields
with water in them, but my main
concern is the roadways. They
need to get fixed and that's
mucking them out. That's
weeding them during summertime.
I've got notices from the
permits resources say I need
to cut the weeds
in my culvert. Well, if I can't
build on it, it's not mine.
That's the water agency's
responsibility. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. Are
there any other members
of the public who wish
to speak on this item? Going
once, going twice,
and I will bring it back
to the board. I first wanted
to give staff an opportunity
to answer any of the questions
from members of the public,
public that came up. And
with respect to culverts,
that is not your department,
fortunately not your problem.
And I just want
to note that it, it could be
the private property owner's
responsibility or it could be
public infrastructure or it
could be the water agency,
sort of depending upon the
jurisdiction. And I'm going
to look at Johannes and make
sure I got that right. Is that
accurate? Okay. So we would
need to kind of work
with you and find
out a little bit more about
your particular situation,
which we can do afterwards. So
reach out to your district
supervisor and we can try
to figure out what, you know,
what the jurisdiction is so
that we can work
on that challenge. Any other
responses to any
of the public comment?
>> So in regards to the Todd
Creek, so we are
at the tail end of a restudy
of that creek. We're hoping
for it to be completed by
March 2025. So
in the next couple of months.
In our most recent update
on that, it's basically down
to some what we consider kind
of more minor or administrative
back and forth
between the two sides. So we're
hoping that's going
to be resolved soon. And
after that study is finished,
then we would work
with making those maps realized
through this similar process
of updating zones
to hopefully have that
reflected
on the insurance side
of things. Also I would add
in regards to clarity
on rebuilding, we totally
agree. I acknowledge that when
I look at it,
I can see paths forward
for someone to rebuild,
but that's not enough clarity
for someone who doesn't do this
40 hours a week. So as part
of our next steps, we do want
to make it crystal clear that
folks have the ability
to rebuild.
>> Thank you very much
for that. And I would add that
for someone who doesn't do this
40 hours a week,
then they have to pay someone
that often is very expensive
to try to find those creative
solutions, which presents a
challenge. I want to first go
to Vice Chair Hermosillo, who
has some personal experience
working
in the federal government
on FEMA. So take it away.
>> Todd Creek was great. I
think that if you can elaborate
on a workaround with FEMA, it's
my understanding they're not
accepting map revisions
through 2028 because
of a lawsuit. And so what does
that mean for west county and
adopting the FEMA map and then
making sure that the people
that do own their property,
that bought with the intention
to expand or protect, you know,
build on their property,
can't. What local zoning or
modifications can be made to
make sure that they have made a
wise investment.
>> So just for awareness,
so today we also have Nathan
Quarles, who are is our deputy
director of construction and
engineering. So
in case I misspeak on any
of the technical issues,
he will swoop in
to the microphone. So as far as
the reset, we're not seeing
anything that would prevent us
from beginning that process on
our own and getting a
consultant the way that we
would do
for the way that we did for
Todd Creek. So we feel that we
can get started on that right
of way and we're confident that
we'll be able
to move that forward. So
in terms of the 2028 number,
that's something I would have
to look more into.
But thank you
for bringing that up.
>> Any other questions or
comments on this one?
>> No. Thank you.
>> Supervisor Gore.
Thank you, Supervisor Gore.
>>Thank you, Chair Hopkins. I
want to acknowledge the work
that's taken place
since this came last year
under duress from time. And I
want to acknowledge everybody
who spent two years and others
out here who are trying
to figure out what this really
means. I first of all
appreciate the mapping
recommendations. It's going
to cost us some money, but I
think that's our job as local
government. Right. This is one
of our only tools in our
toolbox that actually can
impact these maps sent
from the federal government.
From female. So the addition
of Mark west and Lower Russian
river and other areas,
or whether we say lower
Russian river or areas that
intersect with mid reach
of the Russian river,
what have you, Geyserville,
places like that,
whatever you need to look at,
I am going to support that.
And that allocation of funding
to come back
to us because you got to pay
to play you
like we can't just go back to
FEMA that sets a broad based
policy that covers regions,
which is very normal
for an insurer, whether it's a
public insurer or a private
insurer that says we are going
to designate this area as high
risk and you have to prove us
otherwise or there's no ability
to even prove otherwise. You
just have
to pay the extra money. That
may be a difficult place
to sit within, but in
individuals who have
frustrations
around site specific locations,
I think that's one approach.
But for these areas, regions,
I'm going to be supportive
of the action going forward.
So within the difficulty
of what we're being presented,
I want to thank you for doing
the work and the increased
outreach. I do support also
the, the changes in policy to
make sure that we are owning
our responsibility as local
government, even if the federal
government is not owning its
responsibilities
to effectively communicate with
our residents and constituents.
So thank you for the items,
thank you for the
recommendations and thank you
to my colleagues.
>>Thank you very much.
Supervisor Corsi.
>>Yeah, I want to thank
Permit Sonoma staff and Nathan
for the work that's been done
on Todd Creek. This came to our
attention more than three years
ago, I think, and it was a
study that was actually
undertaken pre pandemic and
wasn't finished and then was
restarted and the communication
was not good from the federal
government letting us know what
was going on there. Even when
we did engage with fema, with
Congressman Thompson's office,
we're still three years down
the road and we don't have any
answer. So, you know,
I'm supportive of doing the
restudies that you're talking
about, the 250 grand there,
but I just want to manage
expectations a little bit that
this is a bigger undertaking
than Todd Creek by far. And
Todd Creek is three years and
counting. Scott, I don't know
if you have an answer
to this, but one
of the questions
from folks is how, if and when
restudies are completed and
maps are revised, how does a
property owner unwind the
property insurance burden that
they've been saddled
with because of these studies?
>>So how it should work is that
the insurance rates are based
on the insurance maps. So when
the insurance maps are updated,
that should cascade outward.
That being said, it's not
something that I would have a
lot of confidence happening
every single time if it was my
own property. I would want
to make sure. So I think that's
going to be an important step
for us as we get towards the
end
of the process is making sure.
That we're working
with our federal partners
on kind of that information
proliferating to all the places
that it needs to. That's the
best I could do
at the moment.
>>Yeah. And I understand that
we get into,
as somebody was talking about
pointing fingers and there are
a lot of different agencies and
entities involved in this.
Your mortgage company,
your insurance company, the
county, the federal government,
federal agencies. So I would
just hope that when we, we do
get these revisions that we can
help help property owners not
have
to do this individually piece
by piece going
through it and that, that we as
a county or even a district
office, I'll make, make that
pledge right now that we will
work with property owners to
help get that insurance thing
unwound. I think that's all I
have for now.
>>Thanks. Thank you very much,
Supervisor Rabbit.
>>Yeah, thank you very much.
Do you know if FEMA does the
map work in house or do they
contract that out? And if they
do contract it out,
do they have a pool and perhaps
Todd Creek was done differently
than the Russian River? Just
curious.
>>I think they do often
contract it out. Everyone is
balancing resources. Was there
a follow up question based on.
>>Well, there is based upon.
And to be honest, I'll skip to
my last comment which is I
really like to see the Todd
Creek Lomar or the letter
of map revision decision prior
to committing funds
to a significant larger area.
Especially
since what we were talking
about at present really is a
peer review and not
necessarily. Have we identified
any inaccuracies? Correct.
>>No specific inaccuracies,
but there are,
we do have observations about
particularly the tributaries
to the Russian river and we
have seen some anomalies like
in the airport area, there's a
very straight line that doesn't
seem to make sense just from,
you know, kind of the,
the initial review.
>>Okay, I appreciate that. And
my questions stem from
Petaluma many years ago and
prior to even my being on the
council there did a huge flood
control project. And what
happened there was a remapping
and put other people that
didn't think they were
in the floodplain.
In the floodplain because at
some extent it's zero sum game,
especially as you can imagine
with the additional more
volatile weather, extreme
weather conditions that we're
having. So the later the
mapping goes,
the more extreme it's going
to get. More properties
undoubtedly are going
to be involved
in that. I would just like to
see and I know it's been three
years, but I know there's no
final decision and we're asking
FEMA to remap something,
relook at something they've
already published. I want
to know what the likelihood of
going forward and being
successful in that before we
actually start putting cash
on the line. And then my other
piece is that. Correct me if
I'm wrong,
FEMA produces these maps all
over the US the vast majority
of local jurisdictions, cities
and counties accept the maps
in order to participate
in the National Flood
Insurance Program, which
doesn't just benefit the county
in terms of disasters,
but obviously is essential
for people to get bank loans,
mortgages, VA loans,
participate in flood insurance
for better or worse. And I
understand the expenses
of that.
But what do other counties do?
The overlay, though? I think
some county. I believe that
we're being more transparent
by putting an F1 or an F2
on a zoning map
to let you know that, oh, crap,
my house is
in the floodplain or floodway.
Other jurisdictions adopt the
maps,
don't necessarily reflect it
in zoning,
and you will only know
through the bank,
you will only know
through your insurance. So
again, I understand the
frustration, but I do think our
county is being more
transparent by posting it,
putting it on the zoning. And I
guess that's. Did I say
anything wrong?
>>You did not say anything
wrong.
>>Okay. But I do think,
and I appreciate you
recognizing, you know, I don't
think there will ever be carve
outs in that,
but I do think that we can look
at the rebuilding
like you talked about. You
know, I want to make sure that
we're not any stricter and kind
of for the same reasons that
the fire rebuilds. And it's
ironic now that we're, you
know,
I think that it's a huge
dilemma for the state of
California and beyond
to talk about, you know,
rebuilding and has known
hazardous areas, whether it's
wildfire or floods. And it's a
difficult subject matter
because, you know,
there'll be another fire,
there'll be another flood, and
there's been the expenses that
will be occurred because
of that. So I look forward to
those discussions as we go
forward. I just want
to make sure on. And I know
today is not the commitment
of any money,
but I would damn well like
to see the Todd Creek, excuse
me, report before we go down
this other path because I think
that'll be an indication
of how successful we may or
may not be.
>>Thank you very much. I have a
very simple question. Why do we
do this? My understanding is
that we are one of the only
jurisdictions who takes this
additional step. And while it
may lead itself
to increased transparency,
it does actually also Create
additional restrictions
on people's proper. And then we
are actually the ones who are,
quite frankly,
taking the property right
of a property owner
to rebuild. And I think that,
you know, one of my chief
concerns is that we're not just
talking
about rebuilding after, you
know, a major wildfire or a
major flood when there's a lot
of political pressure and a lot
of attention on the community.
To give the example of
Stumptown that Peter raised
during the Mac meeting, you
know, what if a semi truck or a
car takes a turn wrong and
wrecks into his brewery and
it's just a one one
off where, you know,
more than 50%
of his structure is destroyed,
then force
to navigate consultants, try
to advocate for himself
without kind
of having an entire community
to back him. And, you know,
to come to board of
Supervisors meetings to ask
for the kinds
of things that we've done in,
you know, these kinds
of disasters with mass wildfire
and mass structure loss. So why
do we put ourselves
in this situation of kind
of making it more difficult on
property owners?
>>I'd say that, you know, for a
time this was the best solution
to a problem and a way
to get information out there,
as Supervisor Rabbit said,
about being transparent about
issues affecting properties.
But you're right,
it's been a really long time
since these were enacted and
they haven't been touched
since. And they've carried
forward in general plan, in
hazard mitigation plans ever
since. But as everything in the
world has gotten more
complicated,
everything is more regulated,
it does warrant another look
at it again, because we should
always be asking ourselves,
why are we putting ourselves
through this and trying
to be better the next time? So
as part of our update
to the safety element,
we do want
to reexamine this and a number
of other zones that we have
that were created a long time
ago and maybe accomplished
in other ways. So it's not to
say that they don't have value,
but the language might need
to change or things might need
to get more clear. Again, back
to that earlier comment
of making it easy for people to
understand.
>>Thank you very much. And then
I was wondering if you had any
additional information. This is
something that we just found
out about, about the community
rating system. My understanding
is that if communities, you
know, undertake kind
of flood mitigation efforts,
that they can receive up
to a 45% discount
on flood insurance premiums,
which be, you know, real money
in the hands of local folks who
are facing ever increasing cost
of living escalations. And I
guess that the county used
to participate in this
but it lasts sometime in the
90s or early 2000s. I have no
idea which department was even
in charge of this. Do you have
any information about this?
>>So we do have our floodplain
manager kind of working
on an application
at the moment. And we expect
to have a, you know, kind
of set
of deadlines and an estimate
on how much time it's going
to take. It is a pretty
significant application. One
thing that we didn't mention
today, but that did come up
in the community meetings was
in the 90s we actually got
audited by FEMA and were
essentially placed
on probation. So they do look
at things
like whether we're adhering
to the federal standards,
things
like having the prohibition in
F1 increase our scorecard
rating, but also take away
development potential. So it
could be something that gets
everyone countywide a 10%
discount. But it means that
certain people, they're out
of luck. So it's that balancing
act of how do we get the most
potential kind of good
for everybody
without leaving anybody left
by the wayside. So we're doing
that analysis. We are preparing
a work plan because we do
understand that it's a very
time intensive process
to do that application. Then
it's another thing that we have
to stick with and we'll have
monitoring on. So it's not just
a one time and we're good
forever.
>>Great.
>>Thank you so much
for that then. My last question
is, I love some
of the suggestions that you had
of looking again at legal,
nonconforming, looking at
possible overlays. I just want
to say for the record that I
think that every business
in an urban surface, surface
area, small town is an
essential business and they
kind of mutually depend
on one another to essentially
have that critical mass
to get folks in, you know,
to come and, you know,
purchase things at Stumptown
Brewery and then, you know, go
over to Farmhand. And I mean
it's all, it's all sort
of part of a common commercial
ecosystem. And so when we're
talking about possible policy
medications,
what's the timeline
for bringing that back
to the board? Is that something
that we're going to look at
in the general plan update?
You know, what are ways that
the community can provide
input? Because I know that
there's some strong feelings
out in lower Russian river,
understandably so,
about this and want to make
sure that this isn't just
something that we'll say that
we'll do sometime,
but make sure that we actually,
you know,
are moving forward and
committed
to hearing that feedback,
receiving that feedback and
coming up with policy
modifications.
>>Well, one thing that I heard
loud and clear at the lower
Rush Nuver Mac meeting is any
policy discussion that affects
west county starts and ends
at that body. So that means
once we start something, that's
the first place we're going
to go in terms
of things that are kind
of already in process that
there could be an avenue
to accelerate the timelines.
We will be bringing forth the
public safety and environmental
justice elements,
two separate elements that are
on the significant item
calendar, I believe, for May or
possibly the first meeting in
June before budget. So as part
of that process, we look
at programs that are kind
of going
to govern the work plan
for the next few years
at the very least. So I think
this perfectly aligns
with that. And
through that process we may be
able to again identify things
that we can do sooner that
aren't related to zoning or
building code or things like
that that will require the
multi stage public process and
hearings and two minutes
for everyone. So that's another
thing that we're, we're going
to be looking into.
>>Great. So public safety and
EJ elements coming to the board
and that's an opportunity
to provide direction to staff
to incorporate these kinds
of policies into the work plan
going forward. And that's
something that we can also
bring to the lower Russian
River. Mac have a meeting out
in Greenville, hopefully
at our retrofitted bank of
America building. We're trying
to get that up so that we can
have community meetings there.
And that's sort
of the next steps
for this.
>>Yes, And I would add that
even bigger than that, as part
of the larger general Plan
update in 2025, there's going
to be multiple outreach
meetings, you know, both
in person and virtual. And
we're exploring kind
of a number of different ways
to bring in different voices,
different parts
of the county. So that'll be
another opportunity to express
things that people want to see
in the next general plan.
>>Great. And we talked
at our meeting last Friday
about actually adding those
dates to our calendar
of significant items. So even
though it's not a board
meeting, we'll have it
in every single Board of
Supervisors agenda packet and
folks have easily access to
knowing when those meetings are
coming up. So. Great. Last
question is actually really
more
for the CEO and I just want
to share that I feel like New
Jersey is doing a much better
job than California in terms
of looking at flood prone
communities. I actually heard a
program
on KQED quite some time ago
about how they are proactively
and totally voluntary basis,
you know, offering funds
to buy out properties that are
in flood prone areas. And it
feels like we're sort of taking
the exact opposite approach,
which is essentially coming in
and telling people that their
property in the future could be
worth nothing
after they've sort
of poured their life savings
into it. And so I just want
to see if there is room
in our legislative platform
to consider advocating for,
you know, if there are
voluntary opportunities that
could potentially feed into,
say,
that FEMA community rating
system, which could help get,
you know, discounts
for other folks. That, that's
something that I would support,
which is, you know,
someone who is in a super low
lying area that floods all the
time and they're getting tired
of it, you know,
wants an opportunity
to be bought out, but that's an
opportunity they would have
available to them as opposed
to kind of a, you know,
force feeding approach. And so
is that something that we could
potentially look at in terms of
legislative advocacy? I don't
know how much traction we're
going to get
in the next four years
at the federal level, but we
can always ask the state,
who I believe is also going to
be taking a big budget hit as a
result of what happened. Just
happened in LA.
>>Correct.
>>We will take it back and
consider it. I feel like your
current legislative platform
principles in terms
of the climate, you know,
protection and resiliency is
where we could fit that kind
of conversation.
But as you said,
whether or not we'll get a lot
of traction in the short term
is probably optimistic.
>>At least we can start the
conversation. Maybe five years
from now we can get the
funding. All right with that,
are there any other comments or
questions from my colleagues?
Seeing none. If anyone would
like to make a motion
on this item,
would entertain a motion. Oh,
and I'm gonna officially,
sorry, officially close the
public hearing and I heard
of a motion. Okay. Do we have a
second from Supervisor Corsi? I
think he beat you
by a second. And could we
please do a voice vote on this
one or a roll call vote?
>>[ ROLL CALL ]
>>Chair Hopkins and I will be a
no on A and a yes on B. I do
believe that this needs
to pass. It has passed
with the support
of my colleagues.
But I just do want
to register the protest
of whether it's, you know,
appropriate for us to take
actions that negatively impact
property owners. So no on A,
yes on B. With that,
the motion does carry. And
thank you all so much for your
presentation and a special
thank you for heading out to
Guernville. I know,
it was a very robust meeting,
as we would say, out in West
County. You all were amazing,
handled the questions
excellently and I think really
internalized the feedback and
brought it back. So I'm looking
forward to next steps on the EJ
and public safety elements.
Thank you very much. And
with that, we will be going
ahead and moving on
to our next agenda item,
which is agenda item 32. And I
believe that we have Adam
Brand from County Council and
Dan Mason coming up from
Sonoma Water to present this
one.
>>Yeah.
>>You will have comment
on matters not listed
on the agenda. It will be
after the conclusion of our
regularly scheduled items,
so it will be a bit later. We
have two more after this one.
No, two more. Total this,
including this one.
>>Take it away whenever you're
ready.
>>Okay. Good morning,
chair and board members. My
name is Dan Mason
from the real Estate section
of Sonoma Water. I am here
to request board approval
of one of the two resolutions
being presented declaring our
Hewitt street property surplus
land and our intent to sell.
Sorry. Sonoma Water is required
to follow the Surplus Land act
and present to you
for your approval one of these
two resolution options.
Resolution 1 would declare the
surplus property exempt surplus
land with our intent to sell.
Resolution number two would
declare the surplus property
surplus land with our intent
to sell. Either option is
available to Sonoma Water
because it is recognized as a
district within the Surplus
Land act. Approval approving
Resolution 1 declaring the
property exempt surplus land
would allow us
to sell the property
by a public sealed bid auction
to be held at the office of
Sonoma Water. We recommend this
option because it would help
expedite the sale of the
property and reduce our current
holding costs. Our previous
attempt to sell the property
for affordable housing was
unsuccessful and has required
us to own the property much
longer than anticipated. The
process. The process
to sell the property outlined
in Resolution 1 would be first
to notify the California
Department of Housing and
Community Development
of the surplus of the exempt
surplus land declaration
for their approval. Next, we
would hold the public sealed
bid auction at sonoma Water
on April 9 and announce the
highest bidder
at the auction. Once a purchase
agreement is approved
by the buyer and Sonoma
Water, we will return
to the board
for your approval. The
Surplus Land act would require
the purchase agreement to
contain a 15% affordable
housing requirement if 10 or
more housing units are built.
Approving resolution number
two, declaring the property
surplus land would require us
for a second time
to offer the property for sale
to local government agencies
and housing sponsors identified
by the California Department
of Housing and Community
Development. HCD. The process
to sell the property by
Resolution 2 would be first
to send a notice
of availability an NOA to the
local government agencies and
HCD housing sponsors and wait
60 days for any interest
to purchase the property. If
interest is shown, negotiate
with potential buyers for
at least 90 days
to reach an agreement
to buy the property. If a
purchase agreement is reached
between the buyer and Sonoma
Water, we will return
to the board
for your approval. The
Surplus Land act would require
the purchase agreement to
contain a 25% affordable
housing requirement. If no
government agency or housing
sponsor responds,
or if negotiations are
unsuccessful, we will return
to the board again
to request approval to hold a
public sealed bid auction
to sell the property. Prior
board actions In 2001, Sonoma
Water purchased the Hewitt
street property as part
of a settlement. In 2015,
Sonoma Water completed a lot
line adjustment
to isolate the Santa Cruz
Santa Rosa Creek portion
of the property. In 2017,
Sonoma Water declared the
property surplus land and the
property was offered for sale
to local and state agencies.
In 2019, Sonoma Water agreed
to sell the property to the
Community Development
Commission and entered
into a purchase agreement. In
2022, the Community
Development Commission and
Sonoma Water canceled the sale
of the property.
>>Thank you.
>>And with that I will bring it
back and hand it over
to the district supervisor,
Supervisor Corsi.
>>Thank you. Can you. Well,
in 2019 was community
development Commission. That
was that. This was not out
on the open market. This was
just an offer
between the water agency and
the in the cdc. Is that. Is
that what I'm hearing here
through.
>>The chair, Supervisor
Corsi? That was through the
surplus lands process.
>>Okay. So other people had
other entities had an
opportunity to to bid
at that.
>>Time to provide us
notification that they were
interested.
>>And to my recollection, CDC
was the only entity that was
interested.
>>Okay, that's what I was
getting to do. We expect
different results this time.
>>I'm not sure.
>>Is this zone for multi family
housing?
>>It is.
>>We do frequently both my
office and Sonoma Water receive
inquiries
about the availability
of this property two,
three times a year at least.
Not from agencies or other
governments, but just from
interested persons.
>>Okay, thank you.
>>Any other questions
from my colleagues? Seeing
none. I would ask if any
members of the public wish
to speak on this item.
Welcome, Dwayne Roselyn.
>>I go past this property all
the time. I ask you
to use the option 2. I do
believe that there are
opportunities
to help veterans. Petaluma just
worked with PEP Housing and did
a project that utilized project
based housing vouchers to help
finance that multi person
housing situation. Because this
is not really well known that
this property is available. I
believe you should take option
to open it up, let the
community know what's possible
and that affordable housing
could go in there and we could
utilize housing vouchers. I've
mentioned
in the past that the Santa
Rosa Housing Authority, which
has the control for the HUD
Vash vouchers
for the whole county, had
over 90 available and the
River City Project in Petaluma
used 20 to get their project
jump started with funding. So
this is a way in which we could
get multi housing built right
there near the creek. And if
you made it for veterans, they
would be somebody that could
help with local. One might say
oversight. You know,
veterans go
out and they clean up areas.
We do all kinds
of good stuff. And this is the
opportunity for that corner.
If you put the picture back up
there,
you could see it better. That
corner is really an optimal
site right next to the creek
and you have some homeless
folks live
across the street coming off
of Dutton Avenue. This is an
excellent way to get people
into housing
near the city center. Transit
oriented, all those kinds
of things that you folks talk
about with resiliency,
sustainability, etc. Please go
to option two, open it up. You
can always come back and relook
at it again if it doesn't work.
But I'm the optimist. I'll come
back and keep saying we can get
veterans housing there if you
will work with us. Thank you.
>>Thank you very much, Duane.
Anyone else wish to speak
on this item? Welcome,
Gregory.
>>Thank you, Chair Hopkins. I'm
optimistic that this property
can be developed. If we had
had, if we'd been working only
with the Community Development
department when Home Key came
about, we'd never have had any
of the applications that were
successful in Sonoma county
to turn hotels
into low income housing. It was
the energy that came out of
Dave Kiff and the health
department that did it, not
community development. I think
community development can be
educated and can be inspired
to take on this property.
Because I think there are
applicants in the community,
nonprofits, the same people
who've been building housing
who use the formula that I used
long ago, which is if you get
free land and you get some
support from the state, you can
build low income housing. This
is exactly that design, just
like the property up on
Brickway. When the state has
property, when you have
property and you're able
to be able
to encourage development by
those nonprofits who will take
small projects. The problem now
is every Time I offer something
to Burbank or Midpen or anybody
else, they go. Not enough
profit, not big enough. The
small projects deserve your
support. This is a small
project that can be done. And I
urge you, like Dwayne did, to
take option two and give a
chance for this property to be
used.
>>Thank you very much. Are
there any other members
of the public who wish
to speak? Welcome.
>>How you doing? My name is
Jason. I'm
with a local nonprofit. We
actually have an affordable
housing solution that we're
working on and we want
to invite people to come look
at our models that the first
three that just came
to our headquarters were
at the corner of Fulton and
River Road. They're aircraft
aluminum. They're extremely
durable. We are working
with local nonprofits, the
Line foundation, on doing
vocational training and
actually assembling these here,
hopefully in Sonoma County.
>>And our CEO is
in talks right.
>>Now with people from LA
to get these units possibly
down there.
>>And we want to.
>>He was affected by the fire
from 2017 and because of that
came up.
>>With a solution and we can
all.
>>Come together as a community.
>>That's what I love doing.
>>I love networking.
>>I'm a volunteer for this
organization and.
>>Organizations like the Lyme
foundation that does vocational
training, empowering youth and
veterans.
>>We want to work
with veterans.
>>We can, we have a solution.
We can launch this from Sonoma
county and it could be disaster
relief, housing,
permanent housing. They're
multi purpose housing.
>>So we just want
to invite everybody
to come check them out
firsthand.
>>We can give you a Tour.
We're at 3362 Fulton Road as
our headquarters and we have
three of these units.
>>400 square feet, one
of them and.
>>The other one's 200 square
feet.
>>Studio housing.
>>Permanent solution, disaster
relief solution.
>>It's a win, win. We can,
we can totally launch from this
county something that can
impact the whole world,
the whole country. Thank you.
>>Thank you so much
for coming. I drive
by those all the time. And
there was a lengthy debate
on social media about whether
the dog was real or not. And it
is a cardboard dog. It never
moves. No one is trapping a dog
in this thing on the side of
Fulton Road. Do any other
members of the public wish
to speak on this item? And I
really want to check it out.
By the way, those look really,
really amazing. Seeing none. I
will bring it back
to the board and I will look
at my colleague from the third
district.
>>Just one more quick question.
Does staff have an opinion
on which of these two
resolutions is more likely
to result in A successful,
successful transaction.
>>Well, we recommend solution
one, and we do because
after speaking with the city
planning department, they kind
of emphasize because it's
in a historical district,
preservation district,
and the challenges with getting
something developed there under
those terms and conditions.
And the size of the parcel
would not necessarily lend
itself attractive
to affordable housing
developers out of the area. So
we would prefer
to expedite the sale of it. We
would notify everybody, all the
affordable housing sponsors
on HCD's list to the auction
that we would hold at Sonoma
Water and allow them,
of course, to come make a bid
for the property. As Adam has
mentioned, we have had a couple
local neighbors interested
in the property,
not necessarily
for multi unit, but
to develop the property
for their own home.
>>Okay. All right, I'll move.
Staff's Recommendation of
Resolution 1.
>>And do we have a second
on that?
>>Yeah, I'm second that.
>>All right, second from
Supervisor Gore. And we will do
a roll call vote
on this item, please.
>>[ ROLL CALL ]
>>And a quick question for
County Council. When
Supervisor Hermosio comes back,
can she sort of add her vote
to this item or will we need to
retake that?
>>I would recommend we either
wait till she comes back
to take the formal vote or. Or
counter as an absent.
>>Okay, she might. Okay, we'll
count her as an absent and go
ahead and move forward. Thank
you very much. Thank you
for the public comment. Really
want to check out those cool,
tiny homes in Fulton. So thank
you for bringing that up. And
with that, we're just going
to take a moment to transition
between staff teams and we'll
be moving on to item 33, which
is our options to establish a
two year county imposed
development impact fee
reduction program. And thank
you so much to the Sonoma
Water team, hoping that we get
to see that property turned
into housing. It's exciting.
Good morning, Chair Hopkins,
members of the board,
I'm happy to be here for our
team's first word presentation.
>>Crystal Carry Harrow, deputy
County Administrator for.
>>The Strategic Initiatives
division.
>>And I am here with Ethan
Pawson.
>>From county Council's office
and Jennifer larocque.
>>One of the CAO analysts here
to discuss the impact
of these reductions
for affordable housing. And I'm
going to turn it over to
Jennifer, who's been the lead
on this effort.
>>Thank you, Christel.
Before I get going, I'll offer
the chair an option. I can go
through our brief slide
presentation which contains
information
in the staff report, or you can
provide a brief verbal overview
and then we can jump into
discussion.
>>Why don't we do a brief
verbal overview and then we can
refer to slides if there are
any questions
from my colleagues. Thank you
so much.
>>Sounds great. First and
foremost, I would like to thank
my department and partners in
the audience here who provided
data and feedback on program
options that really made this
item possible today. My verbal
comments will include three
parts, Brief Background, the
Program and Next Steps as
background, the Board directed
staff
to pursue a nexus study based
on square footage and
compliance with AB602 and
present interim options
to reduce fees
for affordable housing. So the
options you have here today
represent reduced parks and
traffic fees, the traffic fees
for both countywide and
Sonoma Valley for a two year
period while the county
establishes that nexus fee or
nexus study with regards to the
program and program
development. The units that
would likely come through
to receive a building permit,
which is when we would issue a
fee reduction,
are units that are already
in our entitlement process.
You'll hear us refer
to those as the pipeline.
That's the land use approval
process. Of note,
there are currently 30 times
more very low, low and moderate
income pipeline units than the
recent average. And
over the past 20 years we've
seen that 25%
of pipeline units do not make
it to building permits. So
that's what this program would
be trying to solve. We're
trying to reduce that dropout
rate knowing that the majority
of that 25% is likely
affordable housing units.
In terms of where to apply this
program and where we need
to see increased housing in
Sonoma county, we evaluated our
regional housing needs
allocation, arena allocation.
We need
to see increased production
in very low low units
in our arena allocation. We
also recognize that the
majority of moderate units are
usually accessory dwelling
units that we can count towards
arena but aren't necessarily
deed restricted. So the program
options we've developed we use
criteria identified
in the staff report. Part
of that relies on rena. The
three options that are
presented to the board today
for consideration are to reduce
the parks and traffic fee
by 100% for very low,
low and moderate units,
to reduce parks and traffic
with square footage based tiers
for very low,
low and moderate or to reduce
parks and traffic square
footage based tiers
for very low and low
with a separate tier
for moderate income. Each of
those options the board has the
ability
to consider capping the program
at either half arena
obligation, our full arena
obligation, or no cap, which
essentially would have the
potential of including all
affordable pipeline units.
Staff identified that Option 3
Captive the full Rena
obligation best meets the
program criteria outlined
in the staff report. Of note,
in fiscal year 2324, Roads and
Parks received a combined 1.5
million
in impact fee revenue. So staff
recommend allocating 1.5
million per year
during the program. The two
year program to backfill actual
waived fees capped at that 1.5
so that departments can
continue the current level of
project planning and
implementation in terms
of next steps. If the board
finds one
of these options suitable,
staff will return
with a resolution
to implement reduced fees in
February and a request for
$1.5 million in contingencies
for the first year of the
program and staff would
recommend allocating 1.5
million to the program
in fiscal year 2526 budget and
the program would continue
through the end
of calendar year 2026 or until
the county adopts an updated
NEXUS study and fee schedule
for traffic and parks,
whichever comes first. That
concludes my comments.
>>Thank you so much
for the overview and for the
excellent staff report. I am
going to go to members of the
public. I know there are some
folks who have been waiting
quite some time
for this item. So everyone will
have two minutes and I would
welcome the first commenter.
It looks like it's going
to be Duane
to the podium.
>>My name is Duane Duitt. I'm a
member of the Sonoma County
Housing Advocacy Group which
was formed fully 30 years ago
because of the dearth of rental
residential affordable housing.
I have just listened to the
short staff presentation number
three, the option that seems
to be the best in the way. We
want to recommend that you only
apply these things to very low
and low income units. Moderate
gets built. They're not having
any problem getting that done.
The biggest problem is getting
the housing
for extremely low income, very
low income and low income
people. This is where it's
always been a problem. That's
why housing authorities were
formed in sonoma county over
60 years ago and we've always
been running behind
on the affordable housing
for rental residential, not
for moderate. That's getting
taken care of. So please,
because you have
to carefully tailor this to
make sure you don't lose the
money that might be helpful.
Staff has presented something
that seems reasonable. Give it
a try, come back and revisit it
if need be. But make sure that
this is targeted specifically.
Extremely low income,
very low income and low income.
Moderate always takes care
of itself. Thank you kindly for
your time.
>>Thank you very much. Good
morning and so good to see you
in chambers.
>>Yeah hello there. Sorry, I
just had foot surgery. That's
why I'm a Little slower than
usual.
>>Good morning, members
of the board.
>>Special shout out to
Supervisor Ed Morcillo.
Congratulations.
>>I'm Al Erma. I'm representing
the Sonoma County Hospitality
association this morning. We
like to say we represent
about 20,000 employees across
the various hospitality sector
and businesses in Sonoma
County. We're really here
housing, affordable housing is
ike a top priority. As
mentioned, I think Sue Rice
Hopkins mentioned,
as I was driving in, really
supporting our workforce and
housing is like job one. So
we're here to support that. We
think these impact fees,
whether right izing them,
lowering them or waiving them
entirely, is very important if
it provides. A modest incentive
to housing developers. And the
hospitality association
supports that. So we support
the board adopting today. One
of the recommendations or one
of the recommendations from the
department regarding that. And
thank you for your
consideration.
>>I did want to just throw in
another comment regarding the
discussion
about insurance that was
on the previous item. It's a
huge issue. And as you know,
I work
with economic development more
before So it's like a huge
issue requires I think,
a separate whole discussion
about it So I would encourage
you to do that. And regarding
the FEMA mapping. Supervisor
Rabbit mentioned,
I think that's an issue too,
something that needs to be
taken up. I think the mapping
just comes top down
to our local units
of government. The lady in
Petaluma mentioned that she
lives two blocks or three
blocks from the river and they
arbitrarily increased her
insurance, I think, which I
think that river hasn't flooded
in, I don't know, 100 years
maybe. So it is worth some more
attention. Thank you for your
time.
>>Thank you so much for your
comments. Welcome.
>>Hi, good morning, board.
Pat McDonnell. I'm the housing
team supervisor at Legal Aid
of Sonoma County. I am
in support
of the proposal brought
before you today to waive or
diminish impact fees. As a
housing attorney who works full
time on trying to keep people
in housing, I can tell you that
the work that we do at Legal
Aid is very important,
but it is not the full solution
by any stretch
of the imagination. What so
many of my clients need is
housing options. You know,
more attorneys are great, but
more attorneys can't save
everyone. We need to make sure
that we have sufficient housing
to put people in. We talk all
the time
about a housing crisis, and I'm
sure pretty much everyone up at
the dais has had the experience
of talking
to a first responder, a fire
chief, a police chief, and,
you know,
saying anything that you need,
let me know, it's yours.
Right. That is,
the response that we often have
in a crisis is we pull any
resource, any policy tool, any
policy lever that might be
needed to resolve the crisis.
But when it comes to housing,
because of the nature
of the crisis that it builds
over the course of generations
and it takes so long
to resolve,
we often don't put everything
on the table that we ought
to when we talk about trying
to resolve the crisis. And so I
encourage you to think of this
crisis the way you would think
of any other crisis. Any policy
lever that is at your disposal
is something that should be
on the table. I encourage you
to pull all of the levers. We
are in such a crisis,
and it requires the leadership
of this board
to make sure that we get out
of it. Thank you.
>>Thank you so much, Pat.
Welcome.
>>Good morning, chair and board
members Nicholas Birtzel,
representing Providence and our
three acute care hospitals in
Sonoma County. Providence is
very supportive
of housing development,
specifically low and moderate
income housing. We invest a
significant amount specifically
via our community benefit
program, again here in support
of the proposal to eliminate or
reduce impact fees. It will
spur economic development. We
thank your wonderful staff here
who has pointed out that
significant resources are
needed to address this issue
and waiving these fees will
spur development. We are
supportive specifically
of option one, which is the
largest investment obviously
in housing development.
However, again,
very supportive of all three.
>>Options or the two additional
options as.
>>Well, should the board find
that more preferable. Again,
all
of these are budget conscious.
They're achievable, and within
a short term.
>>Will spur additional
development,
which is important.
>>Not only to our patients,
but to our caregivers. So,
again, thank you for
considering this very important
issue. Thank you so much.
>>Thank you so much.
Nicholas. Welcome.
>>Good morning. I'm Harry
Davidian. I'm CEO of Digital
Sensing and Control, a company
based here in Sonoma County. I
want to start out
by commending the staff
for this work they have done
into developing these three
proposals that you're
considering today. And I think
they provide a sound basis
for you to make a decision.
For me, the starting point of
this discussion is this
terrific report that was
prepared by Generation
Housing. Key points that I take
away from that report are
Sonoma County's population is
aging and is aging faster than
the state as a whole. An older
population tends
to need smaller housing units,
but our housing stock is skewed
toward larger units and there's
a significant deficit with one
to two bedroom units. 3. The
cost
of housing have risen rapidly.
This has priced many people
out of the market,
especially younger People just
starting out. What do these
facts mean? There is a mismatch
between the type of housing
needed and the housing that's
available in the county.
There's a mishmash
between the quantity of housing
needed versus what's available
in the county. And there's a
mismatch between the cost of
housing and what people can
afford. This lack of affordable
housing has negative regional
economic consequences. It
drives out younger workers and
only those
with high paying jobs can
afford to live here. And the
composition of our labor force
gets skewed because of this.
And businesses can't find
people
with the skills that they need.
And a final point. The
economics of building
affordable housing units are
lousy. It's difficult
for developers
to make the numbers work.
Where does this leave us? We
need more housing. We need more
affordable housing. We need to
rebalance our population
distribution. Our economy needs
more young people who are just
starting out. And this requires
that we rebalance the type of
housing that stock that we
have. Reducing the impact fees
will help improve the economics
of building the kind
of housing we need. Please
support option 1, which
provides the most benefits and
the most incentive
for producing the kind
of housing that we need. Thank
you for the opportunity
to speak today.
>>Good to see you.
>>Thank you so much. Harry,
good to see you. Good morning.
>>Good morning, supervisors.
My name is Jocelyn Lynn and I'm
the chief real estate
development officer for
Burbank Housing. As you know,
Burbank Housing is a leading
nonprofit affordable housing
provider in Sonoma County. And
I've been with Burbank
for eight years. And I can tell
you with firsthand experience
that building hard. Building
housing is hard. And the reason
it's hard is because
construction costs continue
to rise, lending costs are
high, and federal,
state and local resources for
affordable housing funding have
dwindled. And while we've had a
construction boom a little bit,
with the disaster relief
dollars that came into
to our region, those disaster
recovery funds have been
exhausted. And so we're back
to the drawing board
of competing with other
affordable housing providers
throughout the state for very
scarce and limited resources.
My development team at
Burbank Housing has the task
of trying
to make projects pencil. And so
we put together development
budgets, sources and uses. We
run pro formas and financial
projections. But no matter
which way we thin slice it,
the problem's always the same.
Costs are high and there's not
enough funding. One
of the things we do is we go
through our development budgets
line by line. And one of those
line items are development
impact fees. And it's one of
those where we can't squeeze,
we can't cut,
unless something changes
at the higher level here. And
so I'm in support
of option one, which is
to reduce 100% impact fees
for affordable housing.
Oftentimes these impact fees
are typically
over a million dollars,
sometimes over $2 million,
depending on the size
of our project. To be able
to eliminate it and to zero it
out makes a huge difference
in our development budget.
Oftentimes, it's the tipping
point for whether a project can
move forward or not. So I ask
that you consider option one,
which is something we sorely
need. Thank you.
>>Thank you so much. Jocelyn.
Good morning.
>>Good morning. I'm Abby
Arnold. I'm a homeowner
in the Montgomery Village
neighborhood. I often engage
with people
about their living situations,
people who I come into contact
with in my daily life. And I
hear more and more people
talking
about their long commutes
from Lake County, Alameda
County, Contra Costa County.
There are people who work here
in Sonoma county and they live
with friends and family members
in these faraway places. And
they end up commuting,
polluting our air,
burning fossil fuels, causing
traffic,
and adding three unpaid hours
to their workday every day
because they can't afford
to live here. Our school
districts are looking at
closing schools because there
aren't enough kids
to fill them. This should be a
huge wake up notice to all
of us that we need to make new
housing accessible and
affordable
for young families. You can do
something about the high cost
of new housing by adopting the
proposed fee waivers. We
understand that the cost
of materials can't be
controlled by the Board of
Supervisors. And of course, we
want the people who are doing
the building
to be paid fairly.
But the fees,
as the previous speaker
described,
are a significant part
of the problem, along
with the length
of time it takes
to get local approval. Reform
of the development fee can make
a big difference
in how long it takes to get
housing built. I encourage you
to waive the impact fees today
and help make Sonoma County a
place where our workforce can
find a place to live. Thank
you.
>>Thank you so much, Abby.
Good morning.
>>Good morning. I'm Renee Bick
with Paradise Ridge Winery
on the Sonoma County
Hospitality association board
and the Santa Rosa Metro
Advocacy Council. And housing
is affordable housing is one
of the top subjects we talk
about all the time. Actually,
an investment
in our housing is an investment
in our community. I actually
just got a two week notice
of one of our employees who's
pregnant and she is getting
evicted because she can't
afford to stay here in Santa
Rosa. She's moving to
Sacramento. And we need more
affordable housing for the
hospitality community and the
community in general. It helps
families,
businesses and workforce more
jobs, less crime, and increased
tax revenue and decreased
spending on social safety
services. I encourage you
to choose option one,
eliminating the fees.
>>Thank you so much. Good
morning.
>>Hello. Good to see you. I'm
Bea Fernandez, and I'm actually
wearing two hats
to be up here today. The first
one is just. For most
of my life,
I haven't been able
to afford a home, and so I've
been the dreaded renter. And I
know that as when we would move
into a neighborhood,
we would hear. There was one
particular woman that seemed to
encapsulate what you guys hear
all the time about building
more housing and having renters
come in. She came over and
introduced herself and she
said, just want to make sure
that you guys know not to park
in front
of my house. I don't want
to look at your car in front
of your window. You know,
it's totally public street.
She wanted to make sure that
she didn't want her property
values
to get lowered because, you
know, we would make a mess
in our yard. I mean,
it was just like all the things
that you hear from really
entitled homeowners. And so,
you know, we killed her
with kindness. We were living
there a long time,
and we ended up. My husband's a
saxophone player, and she would
hear the music coming out
of our apartment, and
eventually she went and saw the
band, and then he played
for her daughter's wedding.
You know, it was kind of
like all of a sudden we were
real people. And for me,
as a graphic designer,
I ended up. She hired me
to do donor event materials.
And so it was just. It was just
in my own personal life, you
could see how people can change
their mind. And that. That
in my other hat
of generation housing,
that's what I'm being tasked
with is coming up with the
public awareness campaigns that
are going to give you guys a
little bit more protection
in a way, because I know a lot
of homeowners are not very nice
about these big apartment
buildings getting put up and
like, who lives there. So
that's part
of what generation housing, the
public awareness is that real
people live there. People that
work here need to be able
to afford to live here. And so
I say impact fees are just one
tiny little thing that we can
do.
But every little thing adds up.
And I ask that you.
>>Thank you.
>>Be number one.
>>Thank you. Thank you very
much. Good to see you. Welcome
and good morning.
>>Good morning. My name is
Jamie and Studley and I own a
home between Sebastopol and
Freestone. This is my first
time before the Board of
Supervisors. I'm also a member
of Generation Housing, here to
support a strong and bold
impact fee reduction policy. I
know you understand the urgency
of adding housing. You don't
have to be convinced of that.
We all know that our economy,
family well being, health and
safety, safety and environment
are dependent on the choices
that you make and that we all
make to increase housing. As a
former president of Public
Advocates, a statewide policy
advocacy group, I know how
important local rules and
public understanding are to
achieving our housing goals and
arena allocation
for our county. As a member
of the board of the Sebastopol
center for the Arts, I see how
vital housing is to preserving
the lively artistic and
cultural community that is so
central to our understanding
of the glories of Sonoma
County County. And as a former
deputy under secretary of the
U.S. department of Education, I
understand the challenge that
you face
of matching goals and policy to
decisions and values. I'm here
to support the Generation
Housing public proposed policy
position. And number one,
today I simply ask you
to choose the best,
boldest option
for impact fee reform and
to act now so that our values,
commitments and words can turn
into projects,
shovels and homes
for our neighbors. Thank you.
>>Thank you so much. Good
morning.
>>Good morning. My name is
Brenda Smith. I'm a proud
resident in Rohnert park and
currently living in an
affordable senior housing
community called Copland
Creek Apartments. As a recently
retired elementary school
teacher from San Rosa City
school, as of October 1,
2024, moving into Copland
Creek Apartments allowed me
affordable rent. 1300amonth.
It's 170 units with cottages
and apartments that includes
free water, sewer, garbage. It
has solar power, so I have
solar panels. I have
electricity covered,
free parking with an income
of 3700 now I can afford health
care through covered
California rent, my cell phone,
groceries, gas,
etc and I can substitute
for additional income yet.
Where are the Copland Creek
apartments in Sonoma County?
Prior to retiring I lived at
Oak View of Sonoma Hills and
Rohner Park. A 55 plus
community paying a market value
rent of 2300amonth with $40
parking fee. Water, sewer and
garbage was not included. That
was an additional hundred or
$100 a month when my income was
$90,000 and healthcare was
included in my salary. Seniors
are 30% of the population of
Sonoma County. How are you
preparing and caring for the
golden years? I support
generation housing. I'm also a
member to address the
affordable housing issues. And
I ask
for bold leadership now. Be
bold. Be brave. Be a leader. I
look forward to seeing more
affordable senior housing
projects
to support our teachers,
nurses, firefighters,
police officers who want
to retire live in affordable
housing projects that honor
their pensions and their
quality of life. Thank you.
>>Thank you so much. Welcome.
>>Thank you. Beth Craven,
resident of Rohnert Park. I'm
here to speak from two
perspectives this morning. One
is a parent of young adults,
a student who's
at the JC and as a volunteer
with the homeless community.
You may remember I spoke
to you all
about six months ago
about a young man, a friend
of my son, who I asked to move
in with us for the summer
because he could not afford
to live. His parents were first
responders
in the county and had chose to
leave the state because they
could not afford to stay. And
we're also suffering the
effects of trauma given our
recent years. And we. He was
trying to do it on his own,
living in the dorms at the jc
didn't have enough money. So he
said, come stay with us
for the summer. Well, it hasn't
worked out. He's left the
state. And this was a young man
who was studying to go into
counseling and therapy again,
wanted to be a public servant
like his parents. And so we are
losing our homegrown
individuals who are the support
for our community
to the working folks. We're
losing them. And as a volunteer
at the Unitarian Universalist
congregation Saturday breakfast
that has been serving breakfast
to our homeless community for
25 years, we're in there,
we're doing it every weekend.
We're serving these people.
We've been doing it 25 years,
and it's getting worse. It's
not getting better. And we're
burning out. These
organizations that are
providing services that our
federal government should be
providing for are struggling,
and we're burning out. And
we're looking for you
to give us some support
to go a little further. So
please support Gen H
on this proposal. Thank you.
>>Thank you so much. Good
afternoon.
>>Good afternoon, Madam
Chair, Honorable Supervisors
of Franca Rio Gallaher
Community Housing. I'll start
with a thank you to the board
for continuing
to keep this issue and this
item at the forefront. We know
that it's been years and months
of pressing forward good policy
and intentionality
around breaking barriers,
of creating housing, workforce,
housing, affordable housing and
housing that's necessary. You
know, it's unfortunate that
in this state of California we
need fires to remind us
of the housing crisis. And that
becomes almost a Present
reminder for those individuals
that are impacted
by the fires. We certainly felt
it here in 2017. There was
movement
around streamlining permits,
impact fees. And unfortunately,
there are those that are
unhoused or precariously housed
that have never had the
opportunity
to have their homes be lost
through wildfire,
that face the same crises
of housing affordability,
being able to live
in the community they work. So
with that,
I would just continue
to encourage the board to be as
aggressive and as flexible as
you can to continue
to move forward. The dichotomy
that we do
in fact have a housing crisis
in this county,
we need thousands
of units built,
we need thousands
of units moved through,
not just the entitlement
process, being able
to have a shovel
in the ground. And I do
appreciate staff's perspective
that includes that as an
identifying principle,
that it's not just
about getting projects through
the entitlement pipeline, but
actually getting them
constructed and occupied
by the residents and leave
to live in them. So I still
believe that right sizing is
the right approach. Smaller
units should pay smaller impact
fees. I do believe that this is
a step
in the right direction. And I
would encourage you
to continue to break away those
barriers that prevent us from
housing the people that need
to live in this community.
Thank you.
>>Thank you so much, friend.
Welcome.
>>Good morning, Chair
Hopkins, supervisors,
county executives and staff.
It was more than a year ago
when GENH made a public plea
for common sense impact fee
reform to ease the persistent
pipeline paralysis resulting
from the confluence
of inflation, interest rate
hikes, and the general
unfavorable developer math
unique to Sonoma County. We
want to thank the staff,
in particular Jennifer
Larocque, for diving
in and working creatively,
internally and collaboratively
with our team to bring back the
options that have been
presented to you today. We hope
that this is the beginning of a
productive working relationship
going forward. Staff has
presented you with three
program options and recommended
the mid level reduction
in impact fees. Impact fee
reform is a powerful and
necessary asset in our effort
to spur the housing production
we need. And so we are asking
that you choose the highest
reduction which would be
on par with the program voted
in by the city of Santa Rosa
in November. Today, we are
looking forward to you moving
forward a policy that is a bold
first step in policy response
to our housing crisis. Our
vision of a future where
everyone has a place
to call home and the ability
to engage in and contribute
to an equitable, healthy,
prosperous and resilient
Sonoma county depends on it.
Thank you.
>>Thank you. So great. Yeah,
you can distribute them. Our
clerk can grab them and then
share them with us and copy
them if we need copies made.
Thank you. Good afternoon.
>>Good afternoon, Chair
Hopkins, Supervisors, Staff.
So what I want to present
in front of you today is just
some charts that show really
just the breadth
of the housing crisis. You all
know this information,
but I just want
to hammer the point home. This
first chart I have in front of
me here shows our housing
production over the past 40
years. And it demonstrates that
after the Great Recession, you
had a 10 year slowdown. And
while right now we see a boom
in housing production,
when you look at Santa Rosa's
housing production,
to really drill down
into that data,
we know that a lot
of that recent boom has been
due to fire rebuilds. It's been
due to recent temporary
disaster relief money. I just
want to end that. This uptick
of production that we see here
still isn't really getting us
to the historical average
over the past four years
of housing production. We're
still really operating at a
below average level. That's
what got us into this crisis.
Next chart after that,
it's some information from one
of your staff reports just
showing the comparison
between permits in 2023 and
2024. You can see a really
steep decline
in just that recent period.
And this is the consequence
of inflation. This is the
consequence of high interest
rates. A really unfavorable
economic climate for building
housing just further
underscores the need
to take action now
to do something about that.
Our fourth chart is just
another chart that shows the
lack of production
in recent years. We're actually
on pace to produce fewer units
this decade than we were in the
decade following the recession.
And then our last chart is just
a comparison of Santa Rosa and
the county
to other jurisdictions. When
you keep fire rebuilds
in our data, it looks like
we're doing pretty well
compared
to similar jurisdictions
across the state. But when you
take those fire rebuilds out,
it really shows that we're
lagging behind. And so all this
data is just
to show the significance of
this program that you guys are
considering today. Thank you.
>>Thank you. Great information.
Appreciate it. Good afternoon,
Jen.
>>Good afternoon. Chair
Hopkins, Vice Chair Macio.
Welcome, Supervisors, County
Executive Rivera and staff.
Jen, Close Generation Housing
Ed here to urge you to choose
the greatest reduction
presented here because it's
necessary to move stalled
projects forward, necessary
to ensure projects move forward
with as many use as possible
to incentivize new units to
make affordable housing
production here economically
feasible and competitive
with other jurisdictions.
Because it pays for itself
through increased property tax
revenue created by
reassessments when vacancy
rates rise,
supporting movement
in the housing system through
increased sales tax revenue,
through decreased investments
in managing and mitigating
homelessness, through greater
local economic activity created
by new residents and residents
with more money
in their pockets. Because you
will not find a healthcare
community needs assessment,
a climate action plan, a
community resilience and
disaster preparedness plan, a
social justice plans or an
economic development plan
without a significant
affordable housing component.
We cannot get a handle
on our if we don't get a handle
on our housing crisis, we
simply cannot make meaningful
progress on any of the other
community wide goals that we
share. Finally, in addition
to going forward with, we hope,
the greatest reduction, we ask
that you provide direction
to staff
on two additional points. The
first is please request a NEXUS
study progress report
with enough time
to extend this program in the
event that that study is
progressing slowly, as you
know, sometimes happens. And
second, please continue diving
into the issue of fees,
particularly about right sizing
wastewater fees, which are
significant, and how we can
create a parallel track for
large projects that ensures
that they get the same level
of incentives as provided
with this program
without limiting access
to this program to smaller
projects that add gentle
density throughout the county.
One last thing. According
to a California Housing
Partnership model,
meeting arena goals up to 120
will provide approximately
50,000 people
over the deed housing,
affordable housing over the
deed restricted period. So
let's get these folks keys
asap. Thank you for your
leadership.
>>Thank you very much, Jen.
Are there any other members
of the public who wish
to comment on this item?
Seeing none,
it will bring it back
to my colleagues for questions
and discussion.
>>Supervisor Gore thank you
Chair Hopkins, and I think
everybody sitting here. I'm
really interested
in where my colleagues want
to go. There's as much as
there's discussion. I mean
we've reviewed this ad nauseam
last year, but it's a pleasure
to have a new colleague here.
You know, number one is I think
acknowledging that this is
called a fee, but it's really a
tax. I think another thing
that's come up, I'll just state
my opinion is that strongly in
last year's revisions and what
we looked at is that we have
withdrew sales taxes and county
investments, especially with
the departments most directly
impacted partners and
transportation, public works,
that is public infrastructure,
we have drastically increased
the revenues into those areas.
I do not think that these
projects
in the amount that we're
talking about that comes back
to the county in these areas
should be banked upon
in the future for the risk
of another tax on housing. So
I'm really Interested
in where my colleagues are
on that. I think, you know,
all probably be for the most.
For the most, in my mind,
proactive opportunity here. I
don't really distinguish
between low income and moderate
because moderate is not really
livable here in Sonoma county
as it is. This idea, you know,
of all the projects that we
come
across that people actually
have to stay
in their current jobs
to not be moved
into other areas for subsidized
rates. I know this is
like a one time fee
for what it goes into, but I
just think that this is one of
many reasons why we're not
producing the housing that we
need in this area. And I want
to thank individuals here and I
want to thank staff for
bringing this forward. I think
the options are great. I would
approve
of staff recommendation,
but I'd like to go further.
And so I'm looking
for questions and comments
from my colleagues as well.
Thank you.
>>Thank you very much,
Supervisor Rabbit,
>>Thank you very much and I
appreciate all the comments
today. And obviously this issue
is near and dear
to me as an architect, being
on both sides of the counter,
paying and writing some pretty
significant checks for clients
over the year, as I know some
of my colleagues
in the audience know and trying
to understand. When I was first
elected in the city of
Petaluma, I was running about
parks and the lack thereof and
the fact that we had. And
actually Petaluma has three
separate park impact fees. Not
just one, but three. Park
acquisition, park development,
then open space, which actually
was brought forward
to finance Lucchese up
on the hill, which is amazing
to me. Lafferty, I'm sorry.
Yeah, I said Lucchese, I'm
sorry. So not only do I support
reducing the development impact
fees, actually I can support
eliminating development impact
fees entirely until we adopt a
new nexus study which ties the
infrastructure impact
improvements needed as a result
of the new development being
proposed. I think, as
Supervisor Gore just said,
unfortunately, development
impact fees have just become a
revenue line item tax
on a budget. In.
In my understanding, and again,
correct me if I'm wrong,
anyone, it's supposed to be.
And I always picture, you know,
we as a community own all the
assets. These parks, these
roads, we're paying for this.
We've paid our taxes. We pay
our taxes. You're going
to come
in and join our community.
You're going to have to buy
into that. And we're going to.
And we want the same standard.
And that's why for me,
we've talked
about park standards. It's
important
to have a park standard. So you
know what you're charging the
new people that are coming in.
My hometown, Petaluma has a
park standard. I think it's 3
acres for community parks, 2
acres per thousand residents,
3 acres
for per thousand residents
for a community park, 2 acres
per thousand residents
for a neighborhood park. If
you're adding a thousand
people, it's pretty easy. You
can do the math. Here's what
you need to add. You can build
it yourself or, and,
or you can pay the
in lieu fees
on that. I think we need
to make sure that we get
to that. That's why I look
forward to the NEXUS study.
Truly tying, truly tying the
impacts that those new
developments and there are real
impacts that, you know,
put a couple thousand units
at the end of Airport
Boulevard, there's going
to be impacts and they need
to be mitigated accordingly.
But it shouldn't just go
into a general fund and be used
for haphazard projects here and
there. And I believe that we've
gone down into that place.
So, you know,
my only caveat would be
to look to the county
administrator's office and
understand
of the fees that we've
collected to date and through
this year what have been
allocated. Because yes, we can
backfill, but I think
above and
beyond that we're backfilling.
It's just an internal shell
game of paying for projects
in a different manner. But if
we're charging the development
impact fee, it should really
mitigate the development as
it's intended. And I do think,
and there's been a lot
of legislation on the trying
to fix and I've been as part of
these housing groups that I've
been on in the region. Every
time I see Scott Wiener, I will
tell the senator you need
to look
at development impact fees.
They vary widely. And I think
I've mentioned this before,
a single family home and city
of Sacramento has one
of the lower impact fees,
according to the Turner center
for housing innovation,
$20,000 and change in Fremont
of all places. Fremont was
about 150,000. Why, why would
one be that and one be the
other? And actually, you know,
I would even say in terms
of fair housing, what's
Fremont's and not
to disparage Fremont, you can
pick any other city,
Hillsborough, Atherton, you
name it. The cities that want
to steer housing
in a certain direction and. Or
stop it at all. So I think that
this discussion is timely.
It's been timely. It should
have happened 20 years ago,
should have happened in 1978
when or seven when Prop 13 came
in,
because they've only started
since Prop 13 and it's just a
way to offset the revenue loss
from Prop 13 initially. So I
think it's timely. I think that
we need to make sure that again
there's been the legislation
that I talked about, even,
even the latest legislation,
square footage based upon that.
I do think that there's nuances
to that too though, because
while I think the market rate
homes are typically built
larger with more bedrooms.
Bedrooms are the cheaper
building, you know, rooms
to build on the rental side of
the market. I don't think that
we should necessarily forego a
three bedroom unit because
there are a lot
of multi generational families,
perhaps first generation,
that would benefit from that.
And the only way that their
housing is affordable is
to have more people
in the unit,
not necessarily have more units
in the building. So there is,
it's not as cut and dry and I
think we need
to make sure we go
after the type
of housing that we want. And
again, I will say this for
folks here and I had this
discussion
with the good executive
director of GenH. I do wish
that, you know, our fees,
Sonoma county really only has
two fees under the auspices
of the Mitigation Fee Act,
Parks and transportation. And
again, depending
on what you're building,
they total about between 12,
$15,000 thereabouts. It's not a
lot
in the big picture as compared
to other jurisdictions. It's
probably the lowest
of any jurisdiction
in the county to be honest.
And so I wish, and I can say
this, I have a family member
now,
I'm not financially associated
with it, that has a multi unit
building project in the county
that doesn't pencil out and
it's not necessarily the impact
fees that are keeping that
from being built. I wish, you
know, and I one could argue
that every penny counts and it
does, but this is,
there are so many other issues.
But again, I think I just want
to lay the groundwork that this
is not going to be the panacea
that will start construction
tomorrow. It's not. And again,
cities where the development
should occur generally have
many more categories. There's
one city in this county that
has the following categories
of impact fees. Fire
suppression impact fee,
law enforcement impact fee,
aquatic center impact fee,
public facilities impact fee,
traffic impact fee, parkland
acquisition, parkland
development, maybe I gave away
which city. I'm talking about
open space acquisition fees,
library facility fees,
community center fees and
among others. And that's just
one. You know,
over the years, the reason that
we have a housing crisis is
that many jurisdictions just
looked upon the increased
market that we all either
benefit or are cursed by and
kept adding different taxes
to it. You can't do this in
Kansas, that Kansas is not
going to take care of their
facilities this way because
you'll never get it because the
property values are not what
they are here. So It's a catch
22. So as for myself,
I'm certainly supportive
of going full bore
on reduction
for the pilot program until the
NEXUS study comes in. I do
would even go further looking
at what obligated dollars are
out there because I don't want
to cut us short.
But I would encourage both on
the transportation side and I
know that some of this is
general plan. CEQA also place
projects that need to be built
for the build out within the
general plan. I know that
that's part of it. So I don't
want
to go and put put ourselves
in any liability in that way.
So I look to staff
to help us, guide us
on how best
to make sure that we don't fall
off that cliff. But I do look
for the NEXUS study and I just
talked
to the county administrator
about the how we scope that
out that we, you know, too many
nexus studies are numerator
over denominator and that's
what it is. And that's why the
fees range in the range that I
mentioned before. We need
to do a much,
much better job. We need
to tie it directly to the true
impacts that the development
brings and then build that out
accordingly so that we can all
enjoy having places
for our kids
to live and places
for the next generation
to live within the county and
also contributing to the
overall infrastructure which
definitely needs to happen.
Thank you and I apologize
for the getting
on the soapbox.
>>Thank you. Supervisor
Corsi.
>>I want to thank the staff for
a well researched and thought
recommendation here. A couple
of quick questions. You Ms.
LaRock, you mentioned a couple
times in your presentation
about a cap. The cap is the
$1.5 million, is that correct?
>>It's a great question because
there are a couple caps. So
good
to provide clarification. Our
backfill cap would be $1.5
million. What departments
collected in fiscal year 2324
to continue that current level
of programming and project
development. The other caps
that I mentioned are up for
board discussion today and
that's how many units we
include in the program. So you
know we've got the three
options with different levels
of fee reductions
within each option. The board
has a choice
of capping the program
at either half
of our RENA obligation. Our
full RENA obligation or
essentially not having a cap
allowing projects that are
in the current pipeline
to come through even if we
exceed our RENA obligation.
>>So my back of the envelope,
the number one option, which is
the one that's being
recommended by Gen h, it's
about $10,000 a unit. If we cap
it at $1.5 million, the
backfill, that's 150 units. If
we go to number three,
which is not a single figure
but a range, I get about 175
units for $1.5 million there.
If we went all the way to our
RENA obligation or beyond,
what would the cost? What would
the loss be?
>>I appreciate the question
because it indicates that I
need to do a little bit more
explanation here. So I'll start
by saying that we wouldn't
necessarily. We would not stop
providing reductions when we
hit our backfill cap. We just
wouldn't provide any more
backfill two departments. So we
would be able to extend up to.
In our. Let me see.
>>That's why I'm asking here.
I'm wondering what we're
committing to.
>>Yeah. So in option one,
if we were to go up to half
of arena cap, we'd be looking
at about 562 units. And the
potential total fees
in that universe would be
about 5.6 million.
For full reno, we'd be looking
at about 953 units for 9.6
million total universe of
potential fees that could have
been collected
during that time. And then if
we were to look
at all the units
in the affordable pipeline,
that's about 1900 units and
would have a total potential
fee universe of about 19
million.
>>And just for clarity,
that those figures that Ms.
Larocque provided are
on slide 4 of your packet.
>>Correct.
>>So you could see the three
options. And then she designed
it so you could go horizontally
and look
at the different variations of
it.
>>Thank you.
>>And I want to echo,
and you're welcome to project
it just so that the public gets
an opportunity to view what
we're talking about. And again,
it. I really appreciate the
exchange here because there's a
backfill cap, which is the cost
that we would want the board
to recognize
in their decision making. But
that backfill cap doesn't have
to translate into the units
that would be capped. Right.
Because what we're trying
to respect from our colleagues
at Rote and Regional Parks is
that for a time now,
they've been operating in
about a million and a half
of mitigation planning.
Anything that would have
Collected more than that. They
would probably would have
to start considering what kind
of planning would that be. So
we're not considering that
for backfill. And the slide is
up.
>>Yeah, somehow I missed this
and it's not in the,
the presentation that I printed
out for myself.
>>So. So.
>>Okay, this is not. We have a
number here, but we don't know
exactly what the full impact is
that hasn't been analyzed. We
haven't heard
from regional parks,
for example, or
from public infrastructure
on what this would mean. And
I'm a little uncomfortable
with the size of those figures
in the full.
>>Impact is going to be
something that will forever
continue to escape us because
these numbers here assumes all
these projects are going
to go through, right? And these
projects, as you will see
in the attachment
of your report, they are
at various stages. Right. And
even if they were
to all be completed,
they'd probably be completed
within the next three
to five years type
of situation. Right. So I guess
what I'm trying to have you
visualize is that the fees
being reduced are not all going
to come
in year one or all going
to come completely
between year one and two and
by the time we get
to the next study is probable.
And again, that's the impact
analysis that escapes us
because it's all
about probability now, right.
By the time we get to the NEXUS
study and we might establish
per square footage fees because
of AB602 or do something
different as suggested by
Cher Rabbit, we will be in a
different world.
>>Right.
>>And it's possible that many
of those units will be in that
time continuum and not the
immediate term.
>>Okay.
>>In the end, you know,
I'm not willing to go
down the road
of no impact fees
at all because
in the end there's an impact to
the general plan or the general
general fund. We're starting
with this $3 million
over two years,
but we already have an impact
to the general fund on the
roadside where we put extra
money in every year
for good reasons.
But the general fund, the loss
of income to the general fund
impacts everyone. And a lot
of the people who depend on the
general fund are the same
people who are trying to help
with housing, the folks
with greater needs,
lower incomes. I'm going
to just go with my feeling that
we take option number three
here because the lower cost
gives us more bang
for the buck, more units
for the effort here. And it
also includes the size
of the units which, you know,
we've been talking about,
right. Sizing fees. And this is
the one that does it best
in my View. Thank you.
>>Thank you, Vice Chair
Hermosillo.
>>Thank you. I think the only
feedback I have is first,
thank you for your work
on this. And it is important
to right size fees. We know
that there is a significant
need of housing
in the very low, low income.
But also last year I was
at a pinning ceremony for fire
department firefighters and the
majority of them are coming
from out of town. One
firefighter comes from
Arnold, California to work
in the Valley. And so we need
to right size fees
in all types of housing. So
thank you,
>>Supervisor Gore.
>>Yeah, I appreciate the
conversation. I think it's a
really back
to that slide that you put up.
You don't have
to pull it back up again,
by the way, but back to the
slide that you pulled up.
Let's remind ourselves that
that is all unrealized revenue
from a tax on future housing
for which we are not building
that housing now. So the true
impact of these impact fees, in
essence could be less housing
or is less housing
like that's what I said before
in kind
of a way was if the real impact
of these impact fees is less
housing, then we failed, you
know, the budget to potentially
manage our existing parks, our
infrastructure and our other
things for more people being
in our unincorporated areas or
in our cities that use our
unincorporated areas. I would
challenge that that analysis
of what it's not commensurate
with every single individual
coming in of how much needs
to be paid. A lot
of parks get paid
to a certain level
in a standard
of service and they get built
out and then people coming
to those. The investment was
made by a lot of people
individually beforehand. So.
So my thing here is kind
of back to this point is
whether no matter where the
colleagues vote for the levels
of reduction, I want
to echo that. The program for
my druthers should not be
capped at the amount
of money that we put into it. I
would say if we put the $3
million over two years,
which seems to be supported
for backfill,
that's enough backfill. If the
program continues
at that point,
if we fill up that backfill,
maybe a way to do it is we
could request that you all come
forward and we do an update
right
before we just start eating
into not accepting fees. But I
would rather not put a
arbitrary stop the program
based upon that.
>>Right.
>>Just based upon how much
money we are willing
to backfill. The irony is that
as supervisors said on this
side is that once the nexus fee
comes back, then we're going
to have an opportunity
to see where this is. But I,
but That's, I think that's a
different provision. So
in one degree, I'd like us,
I'd like to us
to consider voting
on the options herein. And then
on the second side is maybe see
if the colleagues are
interested in supporting
capping the program or not
capping the program based upon
the dollars. I'd love
to see what the demand is
out there, personally. Thank
you.
>>And so just for
clarification, my understanding
was that we are essentially
backfilling our departments at
a level that has been actually,
that's a relatively high year
that we chose. So they will be
kept whole, but the program
could still continue, right,
to that sort of a set amount
that can be drawn
down and then we can continue
to waive the fees and just
simply not collect them and not
add to the departments. Is that
correct?
>>Bingo.
>>Correct.
>>It is correct. And I don't
want the audience and the board
to recognize that what we have
framed
for you is a two year program.
That, that it's in place for
two years or when the nexus
study comes, whichever comes
earlier.
>>Well put.
>>Because again, you,
you've asked staff
to do the work
of the nexus study. As
Supervisor Rabbit said to.
This is intended to be an exist
study that really analyzes
impacts from development and
you'll have then a more
detailed information for what
would happen once this ends.
>>Right.
>>And we're trying to
synchronize them to be. At the
same time.
>>I'm just going to keep my
remarks really brief and then
go over to my colleague who's
leaning in. I support parks. I
support, you know, traffic
mitigation and improvements
in our public infrastructure.
And I support, and I think that
what is beautiful is that no
matter what option we choose
today, staff has come forward
with solutions that keep our
departments whole while also
allowing us
to incentivize the development
of affordable housing. So I
just want to say thank you
to staff. I look forward to
seeing where we have a
majority. I want
to acknowledge my colleague,
Supervisor Abbott, you're
leaning in for a comment. And
then we can also, I mean, we
can either take a straw poll or
we can just. I heard a couple,
I think on option one,
if someone wants
to make a motion, we can see
where the votes fall.
>>I was just going to say
for myself,
and I think this has been true
over the course of many, many
years, if you believe there is
a housing crisis and that
crisis can be addressed or
mitigated by lowering these two
development impact fees. And
again, I was honest. And
whether or not this will make
the huge difference
in the world to be seen.
But also remember,
it never was intended
to be a hit to the general fund
because these aren't
necessarily while they're
in the general fund,
they're dedicated dollars
to mitigate the impact
of the development. All the
projects on that list have not
been built. There are no
impacts until they are built.
And again it goes to the
problem that we have that we
have a line item attacks that
we've been putting into
projects that aren't
necessarily always related
to the development. And I think
that to me that's why this is
different. And we could
prioritize infrastructure
projects. And I think all the
projects that parks have done
over the years are wonderful
and great. And I think the
projects that have been
identified through
transportation are wonderful
and great. We can certainly
always identify those and
prioritize those and go through
our general fund dollars and
act accordingly. But again,
I go back to the intent
of development impact fees were
to mitigate impact of
development identified. I also
am a big fan of development
agreements where you can mix
and match and really go
above and
beyond and maybe shift to all
parks if there's not a
transportation impact and those
kind of things. And I think
that we should be creative as
we do that. But again,
if there's a. If this helps
spur housing,
let's spur housing. And again
I. The caveat is that I don't
want to have a hole
in the existing budget with
monies that have been
appropriated,
but not necessarily coming out.
But I look forward to the nexus
study.
>>Thank you. Supervisor Gore.
>>It would be appropriate to
put a motion. I move that we
boldly select item number one
which is reduce parks and
traffic fees by 100%. That
average reduction is 10,144 per
unit. Furthermore, I request
that we bring back maybe six
months or during budget. It
could be a consent calendar
item or an update
on the nexus fee study.
However you all determine when
is an appropriate time in
between now and 12 to 18 months
from now so that we don't blink
this away. So I'm requesting
maybe a six month update. Have
we allocated, do we have the
how much allocation towards
that 3 million dollar backfill?
Are we at. So we're not just
disappearing
into that. I think
at that time we could talk
about if further policy
discussions because I'm still
very interested in existing and
future law which is
around sewers, water hookups
which are very expensive.
But I have been told
by county staff are not allowed
for us to move forward
under the current,
these current proposals. Is
that correct?
>>The county Council's
perspective is that we would be
required
to backfill any reduction to
the sanitation connection
district. That fee with county
general fund required.
>>We couldn't just. And once
again, I'm interested. So some
of that I'm getting lost
in my motion. So I had a motion
on the table which was to
approve item number one and
then have a program update six
months
from now or appropriately
during budget. And then I feel
like at that time we would
discuss these other items. I'll
leave that there
through the chair.
>>A point
of clarification.
>>So under item one,
if we could.
>>Go back to the slide, there
are three sub options.
>>Basically. Do we want to cap
the number.
>>Of units that this applies
to, to half of our arena,
the full arena,
or the entire pipeline of
affordable projects currently?
>>And so those three options
are laid.
>>Out on that slide.
>>I apologize. Thank you. The
entire 1C affordable pipeline.
>>Got it.
>>And do we have a second
for that motion? There is a
motion and a second from
Supervisor Rabbit. We will take
a roll call vote on this one.
And before we do,
I just want to.
To say thank you so much. I. I
neglected to do this earlier
to members of the public who
provided such thoughtful,
compelling testimony. And I
always appreciate testimony
that comes with data,
so thank you for that, too.
But thank you
for being here today and
for participating
in that process. Marcy, unless
there are any other comments.
Going once, going twice.
Great. Call it. Oh, wait. Damn
it. I was not fast enough.
Supervisor.
>>Buzzer beater.
>>I just think, as we. And I
appreciate Supervisor Gore's
comment, I just think as we go
forward, a food for thought.
You know, I think what happens
with especially the utility
connection fees is the last.
It's like this room is the last
person in the room. Did that
last. Last person make it
crowded or did the first. If
you're in traffic, is it the
first car that makes the
congestion or is it the last?
We have this habit
of charging that last person.
You know, I would say
at least 80% or 90% or more
of mitigation and not taking
into account the cumulative
effect. And I think that those
fees, in my opinion,
really fall that way and need
to be looked at.
>>All right. I think now anyone
else going one's going with.
Great. Marcy.
>>[ ROLL CALL ]
>>And that does carry
unanimously. So thank you all
so much for being here.
>>And for clarification,
this item will come back to the
board as a resolution to. So we
can mechanize this. Thank you.
>>Thank you very much. And also
thank you
to everyone who has been
waiting for comments
on matters not listed
on the agenda. We are just
going to take a brief 10 minute
bio break and then we will come
back for the public comment
on matters not on the agenda.
[ RECESS ]
>>And with that, thank you all
for your patience. We will be
taking public comment
on matters not listed on the
agenda and you will have two
minutes to make your public
comment welcome.
>>It surprised you today when I
said today or excuse me,
today I said that February 22nd
is George Washington's
birthday. A lot
of folks don't even think
about that anymore. Used to be
a holiday when I was a
youngster. So keep this
in mind about George
Washington. Born 1732, died
1799, 225 years ago. Important
things have happened
since obviously, but he was the
guy that was the first
commander in chief of the
Continental Army. They were
called the Patriots forces and
also the British called them
rebels and revolutionaries. So
what's really important is that
he implemented a strong, well
financed national government at
the time and he set the
precedents for not just
Republicanism in our nation,
but a peaceful transfer of
power and the two term
traditional. These are very
important things to have. And
in his farewell address he
pointed out that we had to have
national unity and avoid
regionalism. Well, this is
important right now because
of what's happening at the
federal level. I hope you had a
chance to see the news article
about Jack Smith's article
being his report partially
allowed out into the public.
You should really read what was
put in there. It's very
important. And I brought
something else too. This is a
book about becoming a US
citizen. I can bet you that
almost all Native American.
I'll rephrase that. Americans
born here in the United States
may not know how to become an
American citizen. This is a
very difficult book, full
of difficult questions
about being an American. So I'm
one of those guys that wants to
be a full service citizen. I
try to do my best
within the limitations of the
way our governmental system
works. I hope you'll understand
that I'm a firm believer in
having more citizens and I'm
going
to be the best one I can.
Thank you.
>>Some time Put yourself
to sleep.
>>Appreciate it. Thank you.
>>Good afternoon.
>>Good afternoon, Madam Chair
members. Welcome to the Vice
Chair. My name is Katherine
Dodd. I live in WikiUp and I
just had a disappointing chat
with Supervisor Gore briefly
about the casino and how
Important it is to negotiate
fire safety and road safety
in the WikiUp MarkWest area
where the highway patrol is
responsible
for traffic control. So I'm
hoping that there'll be robust
public hearings on that. But
I'm here today as an
environmental health
specialist. I'm a retired
public health nurse and I've
done environmental policy
for several years. The
information I'm presenting is
from UMass Loyal Toxics
Reduction Institute called
TURI. It's a report from 2018
and for more recently the
Santa Clara County Medical
Society. All of us want to be
in healthy environments
for work and play. And we
expect our public spaces, we
expect our elected officials
are ensuring that there are no
poisonous dangers.
Specifically, concerns exist
for children who are uniquely
vulnerable to the effects of
toxic chemicals because their
organ systems aren't developed.
They breathe more air and
faster and per body unit they
absorb more toxins.
For these reasons, it's
particularly disappointing that
you approved an expenditure
of almost a million dollars
on poisonous plastic grass in
December which I just learned
about. I don't follow the
agendas that carefully.
Plastic grass has over 16,000
chemicals that only 4,000
of which have ever been tested
for safety. Artificial turf. I
will come every week if I have
to do an education on
artificial turf and how
dangerous it is. PFAS
in particular. But the fills
that they're proposing are are
held together with plasticizers
that have phthalates in them
that are endocrine disruptors.
They're causing premature
development of young girls and
infertility amongst young boys.
>>But I do want you
to know that that will be
on our calendar
for later this year
to discuss. And so we haven't
yet published the calendar
of some even items. But there
was direction the artificial
turf issue as well as also
artificial or a policy going
forward. So thank you very
much.
>>Thanks. You'll hear more. Is
it two minutes?
>>It's two minutes. Yes. Hello
again.
>>Hi.
>>Good afternoon. Thank you
for appointing me to the
Local Integrated Waste
Management Task force. I'm here
today to talk
about contamination. Toxic
pollution that's being shredded
up and distributed all
across our county land. We live
in one big watershed. I want
to thank you for your support
for measure J
in our agricultural industry.
Critically important.
But we have another Oh gosh.
Critically important also is
the financial and environmental
risks of artificial turf
for our ag economy. And this is
preventable if we stop
distributing shredded toxic
forever chemicals across our
land which kills the soil and
eliminates carbon sequestration
capacity. Artificial turf may
seem convenient but it carries
long term consequences. The
Forever chemicals. They are
such an issue that they are
shutting
down farms and ranchers
across the country. Please
notice these articles when they
come up across your newspapers
in Maine, where milk was deemed
unsafe,
farms are being shut down. In
Texas, the PFAS runoff from
adjacent farms is getting onto
other farms and causing
livestock deaths and destroying
those businesses. Supervisor
Hopkins, you cited at the
Measure J kickoff that we have
the best butter here,
organic butter. What a disaster
it will be if we contaminate
the well water, which the
Farm Bureau is shutting
down wells in Southern
California due to forever
chemical contamination. We
gotta get ahead of this risk.
And protect our ag economy.
Thank you.
>>Thank you very much. Good
afternoon.
>>Good afternoon. Please don't
stop start the clock yet. I
just want
to mention how detrimental
to public comment it is
for the time to be delayed
by two hours. And I've been
here before. But consider that
it's not enough time
for you guys
to express any comments now.
And this is part
of public comment, so we have
to start the clock. Thank you.
>>Okay, I want to say. Sonoma
County Agricultural
Preservation and Open Space
District December 10, 2024.
U. K. Almost a million dollars
to put plastic grass in
Shopland Park. It wasn't well
publicized. It was
surreptitiously included in
your meeting that day. I can't
even find it in the agenda,
but I did watch the tape. I
went to watch the video
for a minute. I'd like
to quote David Robinson, the
park manager from Sonoma
County Regional Parks, who
said,
for the past five years, we've
been watching climate change
unfold in Sonoma county before
our very eyes. I began
thinking, why isn't addressing
climate change one
of the top priorities
at regional parks? How do we
get everybody, field staff,
visitors,
park managers involved
in making a difference?
That's David Robinson of
Regional Parks. I came here
today to tell you
about my capitulation, my
quitting, okay? You guys
decided to put this stuff in
Shoflin Park. You could have
stopped it. You didn't. I've
been losing sleep over this.
I'm not losing sleep anymore
because I'm giving up
on that particular issue. Not
on the issue of plastic grass
on public lands in Sonoma
County. But you beat me,
okay? So that's what I'm here
to publicly declare. I wish the
newspaper was still here.
They're not. I wish the
audience was still here.
They're not. You're stifling
public comment. That's all I
have to say. You're doing a lot
of good things, too. Sorry
about that. Thank you and
again, this will be agendized
at some point
for our discussion, which means
that we could actually respond
to you later in the year. And
we expect the calendar
of significant items
to be brought before the board
to vote and adopt sometime in
February. Is that correct?
Yes. All right,
thank you and apologies
for the lateness.
With that we are going
to adjourn
into closed session. We will be
back to report out
on closed session. Or do you
have other report outs you want
to do? I said the calendar has
it or the agenda has it listed
that will report out
on the 28th. I can do the
report out if we want
to come back out. Otherwise I
would suggest that the board do
its disclosures report outs now
and then we'll go
into closed session and.
Report
out next time.
>>Okay. All right, so you want
to stick with the 28th. Okay.
So we'll report out
on closed session
on the 28th, but we can report
on meetings. Is that the next
schedule? Okay. The report
out will be at the next
scheduled meeting which is
January 28th
for closed session. Okay. And
with that, anyone want
to report on their meeting?
Supervisor Rabbit?
>>Yeah. Last Thursday 9
January I did chair the state
seismic safety commission up
in Sacramento where a couple of
the actions taken I remained as
chair. There's a long
discussion on fire
after earthquake especially
in light of what was happening
in the south land. There's a UC
Berkeley Pierce research that's
going to be taking place
although we're working
on the scope
of that conflagrations
like wildfire. Less the winds
but multiple ignition sources.
So just as dangerous Update
on the shake table that
with the 10 story building that
we're going to shake apart.
Down in San Diego There was a
7.0 earthquake in late
December at what's called the
Mendocino triple junction
off the coast of Rio Del where
the Cascadian fault begins
going north. The San Andreas
fault ends from the south and
another fault that
perpendicular off of there. So
very active. And I do want
to make note of this because I
think it's really interesting
if you have the Myshake app. I
did not know this. I probably
should have. There's been $3.8
million 8 million downloads.
One in 20 phones have this app.
It's actually owned and
operated by Cal oes which is a
good thing because I'll tell
you that it has an
accelerometer within the app.
So if you leave that app
on your bedside table,
it'll report back the frequency
of the building. And there's a
research program that we just
invested in last week that will
use that app
in all the buildings around to
identify damage post earthquake
because the frequency changes
when the earthquake occurs and
it is supposed to rebound back
to what it was prior.
But it won't because it may be
an indication of damage and
by the percentage of frequency
change or rebound will indicate
whether or not the building has
significant damage. Which I
think is pretty interesting.
You could imagine after a huge
earthquake that that could be a
real quick indicator of initial
damage and then allow identify
places for engineers to go
in and to make sure that the
building is safe. So I just
thought that was really
interesting. There's one that
had a. It was 3.25 Hz pre
quake, 2.42 during the quake
which is again as you expected
because it's a softening of the
building and then it bounced
back to 3.17 lower than what it
was before. Now you'd have
to look
at that individual building to
see what the frequencies
they're starting off with the
high rises because they move
more but they could also do it
for lower,
lower buildings as well. So I
thought I'd mention that
because I found that pretty
interesting. The good thing
that it's owned by Cal OES is
that immediately afterwards you
won't get advertisements
from structural engineers,
engineers and or you know, your
insurance companies as what I
would imagine if it was
privately held.
>>Who else is ready
with meetings to report out
on Supervisor Gore?
>>Just a couple things. Number
one is yesterday I joined
Regional Parks
on a prescribed burn at
Foothill Regional Park. Just
great work. I wanted
to give just mention that to
the colleagues that it was
great to see them. We're going
to post some videos along
with them and other things. It
was even though it was a gusty
day because this was not a
ground prescribed fire,
a controlled burn. It was piles
that they've been doing
in a lot of our districts and
in other areas they were able
to light them one at a time and
manage them appropriately. It
was just very impressive, you
know,
from a culture perspective
of being able to do that. We,
that we're, we're all afraid.
Second thing is,
is that we're going to meet
on the 28th, but on the 29th
and the 30th we're hosting
for the North Coast Resource
Partnership which is one of the
appointments that I hold and
I'm the co chair of at the
Greaton Casino which has
sponsored us. It'll be seven
counties, 35 tribes and I know
Supervisor Hopkins is the
chair. We have you making some
comments there, but if any
of my other colleagues want
to attend any of it,
I just wanted
to make sure that you follow up
with me if there's anything.
Okay. Thank you. I would just
say a lot of it is that group
is a primary conduit of climate
bond or water bond money and
that's really going to be what
we focus on.
>>Great. Vice Chair
Hermosillo, anything to report?
>>No meetings yet.
>>Great. Supervisor Corsi.
Okay. I just wanted to mention
that we did have a joint
meeting of the Lower Russian
river and Coast Municipal
Advisory Councils on Thursday
night
for their BROWN act training.
Have lots of new members,
which is very exciting. And
then had a regional measure ad
hoc with SCT rcpa,
which I also had with
Supervisor Rabbit to discuss
the regional transportation
measures still in conversation
around the Bay Area. And with
that we have no adjournments
today,
but we will be adjourning into
closed session and we'll report
out at our next regularly
scheduled meeting on January 28.