[0:01] >> We are going to go ahead and
[0:02] call this meeting to order.
[0:04] And so if we could start
[0:05] with a roll call
[0:07] of folks present.
[0:09] [ CALLING ROLL ]
[0:32] >> And with that we are going
[0:33] to start
[0:35] with our closed session agenda.
[0:37] And I would note that although
[0:39] the 9:35 flood item has been
[0:43] noticed at time certain it will
[0:44] not be heard
[0:46] until probably 10:05. Just so
[0:48] that everyone knows,
[0:49] because we're going
[0:50] to be adjourning into closed
[0:51] session and we'll reconvene
[0:52] from closed session at 10am so
[0:54] with that I would like
[0:55] to ask if any members
[0:57] of the public wish to speak on
[0:58] the closed session calendar. I
[1:00] would like to Note that Item 7
[1:02] was withdrawn by addendum.
[1:04] Item 8 was withdrawn
[1:05] by addendum and Item 9A was
[1:08] added by addendum. So we will
[1:09] be receiving comments on 1
[1:11] through 6. 9 and 9A. Welcome,
[1:12] Duane.
[1:14] >> Good morning and good New
[1:15] Year to you. My name is Duane
[1:16] DeWitt. I'm from Roseland. On
[1:17] item number one and number two,
[1:18] each says there's a proposed
[1:21] acquisition. It doesn't state
[1:23] whether that's just for rental
[1:25] or purchase. I think you should
[1:26] let us know. And what I'm
[1:29] really concerned about is how
[1:31] Airportville is growing. It's
[1:33] essentially a unincorporated
[1:36] area that's growing as big as a
[1:39] town. There's lots of building
[1:41] that's gone up there. There's
[1:43] lots of traffic on the roads
[1:45] now. I would propose that you
[1:47] folks look into the idea of
[1:48] getting some housing up there.
[1:51] Specifically, there are veteran
[1:53] vouchers. They're called HUD
[1:55] Housing Urban Development,
[1:57] Veterans Affairs Supportive
[2:00] Housing for the homeless.
[2:02] There's over 90
[2:03] of them available right now
[2:04] in the county of Sonoma. And
[2:06] it's basically overseen
[2:07] by the city of Santa Rosa.
[2:09] This morning I'll go from here
[2:11] to Vet Connect over at the
[2:13] Vets Memorial Building and
[2:14] double check
[2:16] on the number that's available.
[2:17] The dilemma is getting people
[2:18] to actually work together from
[2:20] the various governmental
[2:21] agencies, the federal
[2:22] government, which issues the
[2:24] vouchers, the city of Santa
[2:26] Rosa, which oversees them,
[2:28] and the county of Sonoma, which
[2:30] can actually show where some
[2:31] new housing could be built
[2:33] perhaps. If you will remember,
[2:35] Windsor used a number
[2:37] of veterans vouchers
[2:38] to build a new housing complex
[2:40] for veterans there. So I hope
[2:42] the city. Excuse me,
[2:47] I'm already calling Airport
[2:48] Villa a city. How silly
[2:51] of me. It's an unincorporated
[2:52] area. You folks could be the
[2:53] ones to take the lead on
[2:55] to get some housing up there.
[2:56] Even if it's just 10 or 12
[2:57] housing units,
[2:59] it really helps. Right now,
[3:00] even though Caritas has been
[3:02] built and Catholic Charities is
[3:04] helping to have homeless here
[3:06] in Santa Rosa, there's still
[3:08] dozens of people out here
[3:10] on the streets
[3:11] on these cold nights, sleeping
[3:12] under the underpasses and just
[3:14] in general not having a
[3:16] comfortable life. I would not
[3:17] like to see any veteran be in
[3:19] that situation. I wish you a
[3:20] good new year. I'll be back
[3:22] for the next meeting and
[3:25] for public comment later
[3:26] in the day.
[3:27] >> Thank you so much, Duane.
[3:29] >> My pleasure. You're not
[3:31] getting up, are you?
[3:32] >> I think we're the same
[3:33] height. Yeah.
[3:34] >> Good morning.
[3:35] >> Good morning, members
[3:36] of the board. Happy New Year.
[3:37] Ryan Williams with SEIU 10-1.
[3:38] I'm here to speak about items
[3:40] 1 and 2. SEIU 10-1 is opposed
[3:41] to the purchase
[3:43] of the airport buildings
[3:44] at this moment in time. We
[3:46] raised concerns back in August
[3:47] after this was raised and this
[3:48] was moving forward. We do not
[3:50] believe that this is right now
[3:51] the best use
[3:53] of taxpayer dollars. We do not.
[3:55] We have not seen anything in
[3:56] public that there was any kind
[4:01] of request
[4:03] for proposal or a outreach done
[4:05] to different commercial real
[4:07] estate properties
[4:08] in the greater Santa Rosa area
[4:09] to consider the valuation
[4:11] of 400 aviation compared to
[4:13] other assets that could be
[4:15] potentially available within
[4:16] city limits or just outside
[4:18] city limits. 400 aviation right
[4:19] now is. Was
[4:20] in the lease agreement,
[4:22] has an exclusive three year
[4:24] within county. The county can
[4:26] delay this does not need
[4:28] to move forward. They can
[4:29] continue to do outreach to
[4:31] compare what other real estate
[4:32] is potentially available. We
[4:34] are not asking for a delay
[4:35] in the process here
[4:37] on construction, rebuilding the
[4:41] county complex or anything
[4:42] to change
[4:44] from the meeting in, in
[4:47] August. But we do not believe
[4:49] right now that 400 aviation is
[4:50] the best use
[4:52] of taxpayer dollars. In
[4:53] particular when the county
[4:56] values it at approximately $40
[4:58] million and other fair market
[4:59] valuations also has it
[5:00] at approximately $40 million.
[5:02] Yet the county is scheduled
[5:03] to purchase it at $56 million.
[5:05] That is real money that can go
[5:08] priorities that we. You just
[5:10] heard from this last Friday and
[5:12] what happens with the Trump
[5:13] administration. And so that is
[5:15] with 400 aviation in regards
[5:17] to Brickway, this board of
[5:19] supervisors should have eyes
[5:21] open on who the true owners of
[5:23] that building is and whether
[5:27] that is the best use or the
[5:28] proper use of taxpayer dollars
[5:30] to go to those individuals
[5:32] within that investment shell
[5:34] Corporation. Thank you.
[5:38] >> Thank you very much. Going
[5:43] once, going twice. Jack, do you
[5:44] want to chime in or? Okay.
[5:45] On consent calendar. Okay,
[5:47] great. All right. With that,
[5:48] we are going
[5:49] to go ahead and adjourn
[5:50] into closed session. We will
[5:51] return at 10am See you all
[5:52] soon.
[5:56] [CLOSED SESSION]
[1:07:38] >> Chair Hopkins, we
[1:07:39] are ready to begin.
[1:07:42] >> Thank you so much. So we are
[1:07:44] back from our closed session,
[1:07:45] and we are going to start
[1:07:46] with a Spanish translation
[1:07:49] announcement from CEO Rivera.
[1:07:53] [ SPANISH ]
[1:08:24] >> Thank you so
[1:08:25] much. And with that, I would
[1:08:28] ask, how about Jack Buckhorn
[1:08:29] lead us in the pledge
[1:08:30] of allegiance this morning?
[1:08:36] >> Ready, begin.
[1:08:37] >> I pledge allegiance
[1:08:38] to the flag of the United
[1:08:39] States of America and
[1:08:40] to the republic
[1:08:42] for which it stands,
[1:08:43] one nation under God,
[1:08:44] indivisible,
[1:08:46] with liberty and justice
[1:08:47] for all.
[1:08:52] >> And that will bring us
[1:08:53] to the approval
[1:08:54] of the agenda. Item number
[1:08:55] seven and item number eight
[1:08:56] were both withdrawn
[1:08:57] by addendum. And item number
[1:08:59] nine A was added by addendum.
[1:09:00] So do we have a motion
[1:09:01] on the approval
[1:09:02] of agenda this morning?
[1:09:07] >> Motion
[1:09:09] to approve the agenda.
[1:09:10] >> Great. All
[1:09:12] in favor say aye.
[1:09:13] >> Aye.
[1:09:15] >> Any opposed or abstain?
[1:09:16] Seeing none,
[1:09:17] that does carry unanimously.
[1:09:18] And with that, we will move on
[1:09:20] to the consent calendar. And
[1:09:21] first, I would ask my
[1:09:22] colleagues if there are any
[1:09:23] questions or items that are
[1:09:24] requested be pulled
[1:09:26] from the consent calendar.
[1:09:29] Supervisor Gore.
[1:09:31] >> Yeah. Thank you very much,
[1:09:32] Chair Hopkins. Happy New
[1:09:34] Year. Happy New Year, everybody
[1:09:35] who's been here. Item number
[1:09:37] 14, adjustment to the living
[1:09:38] wage hourly rate. I just wanted
[1:09:39] to make sure that I stated once
[1:09:40] again, and we all are in
[1:09:42] agreement and acknowledgement,
[1:09:46] that when we decided
[1:09:48] to take this action
[1:09:49] to amend our contracts,
[1:09:52] and every time we do it going
[1:09:53] forward, county contracts that
[1:09:55] go predominantly
[1:09:57] to private businesses or
[1:09:59] to nonprofits for delivering,
[1:10:02] by and large, county programs
[1:10:04] and services is that we have
[1:10:06] to own the cost of that. We've
[1:10:08] received quite a few notes
[1:10:09] recently over the last week.
[1:10:11] We did have. When staff
[1:10:13] presented this living wage
[1:10:16] proposal and we decided to go
[1:10:20] for the highest rate that we
[1:10:22] could at that time and decided
[1:10:25] to move into that area,
[1:10:27] we knew and we had
[1:10:28] to assume that we were going
[1:10:31] to have to amend our contracts
[1:10:32] to justify that increased cost.
[1:10:34] There are some nonprofits and
[1:10:36] others that are concerned that
[1:10:39] this would trigger them
[1:10:42] with their other contracts
[1:10:44] to pay higher. I think there's
[1:10:45] a process that can always be
[1:10:48] followed to see
[1:10:50] about how that resolves itself.
[1:10:51] But I do want to state, once
[1:10:54] again, that when I voted
[1:10:57] for this and when the rest
[1:10:58] of the individuals, I think,
[1:11:00] on this board voted for this,
[1:11:01] we knew there was going
[1:11:02] to be a cost. So my question is
[1:11:04] really to the county
[1:11:05] administrator is that as we
[1:11:07] look at this taking effect
[1:11:09] with contract renewals or lead
[1:11:11] in or how long it takes for it
[1:11:13] to happen is I'm assuming this
[1:11:16] is going to be reflected
[1:11:18] in our annual budget
[1:11:20] for contracting, and we have
[1:11:21] to account for it when we come
[1:11:23] into June of this year and
[1:11:25] maybe project some things out.
[1:11:26] But I just want to say that
[1:11:29] with open eyes,
[1:11:30] acknowledgement, and also, I
[1:11:32] think, request that there's
[1:11:34] continued conversations between
[1:11:35] the county administrator's
[1:11:37] office and our especially
[1:11:39] nonprofit partners that are
[1:11:40] writing us so that. So that we
[1:11:42] acknowledge their input. And we
[1:11:44] acknowledge that if it's hard
[1:11:46] to figure
[1:11:48] out this transition,
[1:11:49] that's one thing,
[1:11:51] that we work towards it.
[1:11:52] But if on the other side. If
[1:11:53] they're worried
[1:11:56] about us implementing it,
[1:11:57] we're still voting to implement
[1:11:58] it is what I'm doing this year
[1:12:00] today with this being
[1:12:01] on the consent calendar. Thank
[1:12:02] you.
[1:12:04] >> CEO Rivera, any comments
[1:12:05] in terms of the impact
[1:12:06] to the budget?
[1:12:07] >> Thank you for that, Chair
[1:12:08] Hopkins. Definitely. I estimate
[1:12:09] our community partners and even
[1:12:11] our private partners will take
[1:12:13] that into account when they're
[1:12:15] negotiating with us. And
[1:12:16] at the end of the day, it may
[1:12:17] be possible or a potential
[1:12:19] scenario. Is that not only
[1:12:22] that. Yes, we will negotiate
[1:12:23] with that understanding
[1:12:25] in mind. And the capacity
[1:12:27] of funding is not elastic.
[1:12:35] Right? So it may be that our
[1:12:37] contracts may be
[1:12:38] of greater amount because
[1:12:39] of the cost
[1:12:40] of the living wage, but it may
[1:12:42] have to fit a lesser scope
[1:12:44] of service in order
[1:12:46] to stay within, especially
[1:12:47] within our state and federal
[1:12:49] funding, that it does not, you
[1:12:50] know, flex when we make those
[1:12:51] changes.
[1:12:55] >> I think we've said it time
[1:12:56] and again, but, you know,
[1:12:57] from my perspective is, you
[1:12:59] know, focusing
[1:13:00] on raising the wage floor in
[1:13:02] this county and owning our
[1:13:04] procurement is an important
[1:13:07] part of everything. Thank you.
[1:13:11] >> Thank you, Supervisor
[1:13:12] Rabbitt.
[1:13:14] >> Thank you for that. And
[1:13:15] thank you for pointing out, I
[1:13:16] mean,
[1:13:17] obviously there's consequences
[1:13:18] to increasing the cost
[1:13:19] of doing business. You're
[1:13:20] either going to provide the
[1:13:21] less service or you're going
[1:13:22] to have higher costs. So not
[1:13:26] unanticipated, if I may,
[1:13:29] and I know through the chair,
[1:13:31] I'm going to vote no today
[1:13:35] on consent item number 12. And
[1:13:37] I clearly want to communicate
[1:13:38] why I'm taking the vote. I am
[1:13:39] this has to do
[1:13:41] with tourism impact funds.
[1:13:42] They were originally,
[1:13:44] in my opinion, established to
[1:13:45] meet the unique and urgent
[1:13:46] needs, as the staff report
[1:13:47] says, of unincorporated
[1:13:49] Sonoma County and may be used
[1:13:50] for activities such as safety
[1:13:51] improvement,
[1:13:52] environmental impact
[1:13:53] mitigation, public safety, and
[1:13:54] other tourism mitigation
[1:13:55] activities. It's the second
[1:13:57] part of the allowances that I
[1:13:59] really do have issues with.
[1:14:02] Funds may also be used for
[1:14:04] projects that benefit the
[1:14:06] community or support
[1:14:07] organization that coordinate
[1:14:09] community improvements, such as
[1:14:10] municipal advisory councils and
[1:14:11] whatnot. What happens is an
[1:14:13] inequitable distribution
[1:14:14] of discretionary funds
[1:14:16] allocated to each supervisorial
[1:14:17] district or more importantly,
[1:14:18] to a large percentage
[1:14:20] of the county. And until we fix
[1:14:22] that and truly have tourism
[1:14:23] impact funds address tourism
[1:14:25] impacts as opposed to other,
[1:14:28] you know, programs that I don't
[1:14:30] have a problem with. If the
[1:14:33] funding source was different,
[1:14:35] such as HIV nutrition program,
[1:14:37] well, deserving. But is it a
[1:14:40] tourism impact or group therapy
[1:14:43] workshops for health workers,
[1:14:44] Great program. Hard to argue
[1:14:47] that it's a tourism impact. So
[1:14:51] until we kind
[1:14:53] of straighten that out and
[1:14:56] really have an equitable
[1:14:58] distribution of funds,
[1:14:59] I'm going to be voting no on
[1:15:00] those items as they come
[1:15:02] forward. Thank you.
[1:15:04] >> Any other comments
[1:15:05] from my colleagues? I would
[1:15:07] like to note that one
[1:15:08] of the biggest challenges
[1:15:09] with the tourism industry in
[1:15:10] west county is the tremendous
[1:15:12] income disparity that we
[1:15:14] experience where we have folks
[1:15:15] driving in cars that cost more
[1:15:17] than our employees make
[1:15:20] in five years. And that we try
[1:15:21] to invest tourism impact funds
[1:15:25] into our employees who work
[1:15:26] in the tourism industry,
[1:15:29] our workforce who really,
[1:15:30] really struggle to pay rent and
[1:15:33] far too often live literally
[1:15:35] in trailers
[1:15:36] in floodplains and don't have
[1:15:38] $200 to call a tow truck
[1:15:40] to actually flee
[1:15:41] from the rising waters. And
[1:15:43] that also makes me excited that
[1:15:44] we are passing this living wage
[1:15:45] ordinance because even though
[1:15:47] it's just a step towards a true
[1:15:48] living wage, which is probably
[1:15:50] $35 or $40 an hour in Sonoma
[1:15:52] County to be able
[1:15:53] to afford the cost
[1:15:55] of living here. That that will
[1:15:56] put us on a trajectory of
[1:15:57] greater equity and less severe
[1:15:58] income inequality
[1:16:00] in our community. And
[1:16:03] with that, I would ask if there
[1:16:04] are any members
[1:16:05] of the public who wish
[1:16:06] to comment on calendar,
[1:16:07] which is items 10 through 30
[1:16:09] today. You will have two
[1:16:10] minutes. Welcome, Duane.
[1:16:13] >> Hello, My name is Duane
[1:16:14] Dewitt. I'm from Roseland. I
[1:16:15] wanted to thank you
[1:16:16] for number 10. I'm a member
[1:16:17] of that veterans group, and
[1:16:18] it's very important that we get
[1:16:19] these opportunities
[1:16:20] to do a veterans event there
[1:16:22] on the 22nd of February. Do any
[1:16:23] of you folks remember what that
[1:16:25] used to be Washington's
[1:16:27] birthday. Nothing
[1:16:29] but a good time back
[1:16:31] in the old days anyway. Along
[1:16:33] with that, I support Mr.
[1:16:34] Rabbitt's comments about the
[1:16:35] tourism funds not being
[1:16:37] appropriately,
[1:16:38] perhaps dispersed. Then as we
[1:16:40] go further on number 13, I'd
[1:16:42] like to volunteer to be
[1:16:43] on that oversight committee
[1:16:46] for measure H. And I know you
[1:16:49] folks would welcome my presence
[1:16:51] there. That's why I'm here
[1:16:52] to ask. And you could also put
[1:16:53] me on the measure M oversight
[1:16:55] committee too,
[1:16:57] when you get that next opening.
[1:16:58] No one ever reaches out
[1:16:59] to me though. I come here
[1:17:00] to volunteer my time and effort
[1:17:02] to help our community. Last,
[1:17:04] not least, that was wonderful
[1:17:05] what the chair woman just said
[1:17:07] about the living wages
[1:17:10] in our community back
[1:17:12] in the day, growing up here,
[1:17:13] you could live on $1.75. My
[1:17:15] first jobs were getting paid
[1:17:18] that and I was able to live
[1:17:20] on that. Now it's gotten so
[1:17:22] out of hand that people need
[1:17:23] to make a lot of money just
[1:17:25] to be able to be here. Young
[1:17:26] people are moving away.
[1:17:28] They're not getting the
[1:17:30] opportunity to stay. And that's
[1:17:32] because the affordable housing
[1:17:33] that we talk about building
[1:17:35] isn't necessarily just
[1:17:36] for the extremely low income,
[1:17:38] the low income, very low
[1:17:40] income, you've been throwing in
[1:17:43] the moderate term and allowing
[1:17:45] that money
[1:17:46] to go towards that. You should
[1:17:48] actually make any affordable
[1:17:49] monies
[1:17:50] for affordable housing, be
[1:17:52] for the lowest level for when
[1:17:54] those teenagers are getting
[1:17:55] out of high school and trying
[1:17:56] to have a studio apartment here
[1:17:58] in Santa Rosa. It's running
[1:17:59] about $3,000 a month. It's out
[1:18:01] of hand. So let's help get true
[1:18:03] affordable housing
[1:18:06] on the ground
[1:18:09] at the lowest levels for those
[1:18:10] who have the least amount
[1:18:11] of money. Thank you kindly
[1:18:13] for your time. Good New Year.
[1:18:16] >> Thank you very much.
[1:18:17] Welcome.
[1:18:20] >> Yes, good morning,
[1:18:21] Honorable chair Hopkins,
[1:18:22] Supervisors, county staff. My
[1:18:24] name is Jack Buckhorn,
[1:18:25] Executive director of the
[1:18:26] North Bay Labor Council. And I
[1:18:28] hope to make these comments the
[1:18:29] shortest that you might hear
[1:18:31] from me all year. I'm here just
[1:18:32] to thank you
[1:18:33] for all the work that we've
[1:18:35] done on the living wage
[1:18:36] ordinance together. I
[1:18:38] especially want to point
[1:18:39] out your staff, Christelle and
[1:18:40] Yvonne, who have been exemplary
[1:18:42] and fantastic communicators
[1:18:43] with us,
[1:18:45] really couldn't have asked
[1:18:47] for a better process. And we
[1:18:48] know it's taken a long time.
[1:18:50] Ten years ago we started this
[1:18:52] and the latest round has been
[1:18:54] four years delayed by Covid.
[1:18:56] But we've made it
[1:18:59] to the finish line. And I do
[1:19:02] sincerely want
[1:19:03] to thank each and every one
[1:19:04] of you for the help
[1:19:06] in raising the floor for the
[1:19:07] lowest paid workers that the
[1:19:09] county contracts with. So,
[1:19:10] thank you.
[1:19:13] >> Thank you very much.
[1:19:15] Welcome.
[1:19:18] >> Good morning, Board of
[1:19:19] Supervisors. My name is
[1:19:20] Elizabeth Hernandez and I'm the
[1:19:21] director of Operations and
[1:19:22] clinical services for
[1:19:23] Progress Foundation. I
[1:19:24] referenced the living wage
[1:19:26] ordinance last Friday in
[1:19:27] Sebastopol and I'm here today
[1:19:29] that if it's increased and it
[1:19:30] sounds like it will be,
[1:19:31] we want to ensure that the
[1:19:32] board is ensuring community
[1:19:34] based organizations will
[1:19:35] receive a contract increase
[1:19:36] that is commensurate
[1:19:37] with the cost to employers
[1:19:39] for implementation. I want to
[1:19:40] emphasize that we recognize the
[1:19:41] ever increasing cost of living
[1:19:43] in the Bay Area and we are
[1:19:44] fully in support
[1:19:45] of our staff and those working
[1:19:47] at this hourly wage receive an
[1:19:48] increase in pay. We are
[1:19:49] in support. Progress foundation
[1:19:51] is a nonprofit agency that has
[1:19:53] provided behavioral health
[1:19:54] services in Sonoma County
[1:19:56] for the past 15 years. We're
[1:19:57] contracted by the Department
[1:19:59] of Health services to provide
[1:20:00] 32 beds of crisis and
[1:20:02] residential treatment and those
[1:20:03] services are provided 24 7,
[1:20:04] 365 days a year. Due
[1:20:06] to regulatory requirements
[1:20:08] by licensing and certification,
[1:20:10] staff to client ratios must be
[1:20:12] maintained and services cannot
[1:20:13] be scaled down. Increase
[1:20:14] in living wage to 2315 will
[1:20:16] result in an 18 and a half
[1:20:18] increase in the starting wage
[1:20:20] for our per DM relief
[1:20:22] counselors who represent a
[1:20:24] significant part of our
[1:20:25] staffing imprint and provide
[1:20:26] coverage
[1:20:27] for our full time counselors.
[1:20:29] Furthermore, an increase
[1:20:30] in the living wage will result
[1:20:31] in an 8% increase
[1:20:32] in the starting wage
[1:20:33] for our full time counselors.
[1:20:35] Both employee classifications
[1:20:36] are union represented and
[1:20:37] follow a step system
[1:20:38] for wages. Once the living
[1:20:40] wages increase, salaries across
[1:20:41] the steps will be impacted and
[1:20:43] salary scales must be adjusted
[1:20:44] to protect
[1:20:45] against wage compression. This
[1:20:47] increase will have a
[1:20:48] significant impact on the cost
[1:20:49] to provide services in Sonoma
[1:20:51] County. We're already facing
[1:20:52] increasing operational cost
[1:20:53] pressures
[1:20:55] in our food and insurance,
[1:20:56] particularly in health benefits
[1:20:57] and property insurance and
[1:20:58] anticipate ongoing pressures
[1:21:00] in the area
[1:21:01] in these upcoming years. We
[1:21:03] reiterate, we understand and
[1:21:04] fully support ensuring our
[1:21:07] frontline workers are living
[1:21:08] earning a livable wage and also
[1:21:09] acknowledge we must consider
[1:21:11] the impact such a sudden and
[1:21:12] significant increase could have
[1:21:14] on nonprofit providers who are
[1:21:15] already focused on providing
[1:21:16] cost effective services. Thank
[1:21:17] you.
[1:21:19] >> Thank you. Are there any
[1:21:21] other members
[1:21:22] of public who wish
[1:21:23] to comment? Good morning.
[1:21:31] >> Good morning. Marty
[1:21:32] Bennett. Unite here Local 2 and
[1:21:34] North Bay Labor Council. I want
[1:21:37] to thank the board again
[1:21:38] for moving Forward to approve
[1:21:43] $23.15 an hour
[1:21:45] of increased living wage rate
[1:21:47] on a consent calendar. I want
[1:21:48] to remind you that the increase
[1:21:50] of the living wage base rate is
[1:21:54] effectively phased in. It only
[1:21:56] applies when new or renewed
[1:21:58] contracts are awarded. Based
[1:22:00] on some of the comments
[1:22:01] from department heads, I
[1:22:06] believe that the cost increase
[1:22:07] exceed what for what the actual
[1:22:10] costs are going to be. Why?
[1:22:14] Because 100% of the living wage
[1:22:16] increase is not passed on
[1:22:18] to the consumer or
[1:22:20] in this case, the county. The
[1:22:22] accepted methodology amongst
[1:22:24] economists who specialize
[1:22:26] in the field of living wage and
[1:22:27] minimum wage increases is to
[1:22:29] calculate all the ways
[1:22:31] employers adjust, including
[1:22:33] lower hiring and training costs
[1:22:34] due to the higher worker
[1:22:36] retention rates,
[1:22:38] a slight reduction of profits
[1:22:40] and marginal price increases.
[1:22:43] Higher retention rates also
[1:22:45] increase worker training and
[1:22:47] skills, yielding higher
[1:22:50] productivity,
[1:22:51] enabling employers
[1:22:53] to absorb part
[1:22:55] of the living wage increase.
[1:22:56] Using this methodology,
[1:23:01] you see economists in a recent
[1:23:02] report estimated that the
[1:23:04] impacts
[1:23:05] of increasing the minimum wage
[1:23:07] to $20 an hour for 550,000
[1:23:08] California Fast Workers
[1:23:10] employed by large trains,
[1:23:11] which was a $4 an hour raise
[1:23:14] for the typical worker, the
[1:23:18] highest minimum wage increase
[1:23:21] in recent American history.
[1:23:22] They found that employment
[1:23:24] levels remained stable
[1:23:26] in industry. Menu prices rose
[1:23:28] by about 3% or 15 cents
[1:23:30] for the typical $4 hamburger.
[1:23:32] Thank you so much.
[1:23:40] >> Thank you. Welcome.
[1:23:43] >> Thank you. Janice Carmen,
[1:23:44] Santa Rosa thank you
[1:23:45] for the good meeting on
[1:23:46] Friday. It was nice
[1:23:47] to see everyone and my kudos
[1:23:48] to the food staff. It was
[1:23:51] beautiful, was well presented
[1:23:53] and it was delicious. Anyway,
[1:23:54] moving on. I'm glad I arrived
[1:23:56] when I did. I support the rise
[1:23:58] in the minimum wage to 23.15. I
[1:24:01] think it's a great idea. And I
[1:24:03] talk with a lot of people,
[1:24:05] a lot of merchants, a lot
[1:24:07] of business owners. There's a
[1:24:09] lot of people that are leaving
[1:24:11] again and it's going
[1:24:13] to be sad. The people that stay
[1:24:15] are in it. They know it costs
[1:24:16] more to live here. It's harder
[1:24:18] to live here. But while we were
[1:24:19] having a meeting on a lot
[1:24:20] of the issues,
[1:24:22] which are very huge in Sonoma
[1:24:23] County, LA was burning.
[1:24:25] We don't want to burn again.
[1:24:29] And we really have to pay
[1:24:31] with investment of time,
[1:24:32] energy, money and knowledge
[1:24:34] of the facts
[1:24:37] of what's going on. I
[1:24:38] know most of you, or some
[1:24:42] of you, at least previously,
[1:24:43] I know a good part of the
[1:24:45] Sonoma County workforce come
[1:24:47] from Sonoma State. It's good
[1:24:48] to get out of the boat,
[1:24:50] see what other people are
[1:24:52] doing, how they're preventing
[1:24:53] fires, how they're preventing
[1:24:54] flooding, et cetera. And we
[1:24:56] can't continue to build on
[1:24:57] every green space that we see.
[1:24:59] Anyway, that's all I'm going
[1:25:00] to say. But I don't want the
[1:25:03] people leaving. I want the
[1:25:05] people to stay,
[1:25:06] and I want them to feel like
[1:25:07] they can be here and be well
[1:25:08] paid.
[1:25:11] >> The consent calendar thank
[1:25:12] you.
[1:25:16] >> Welcome Chair and Board of
[1:25:17] Supervisors, Ryan Williams
[1:25:19] with SDIU 10-1. Today I stand
[1:25:21] with my colleagues from the
[1:25:22] North Bay Labor Council
[1:25:23] in support and thanking you
[1:25:25] of item 14
[1:25:26] on the living wage ordinance.
[1:25:27] Ever since I've been
[1:25:28] with SEIU 10-1,
[1:25:30] for the past three years,
[1:25:31] I've been working
[1:25:33] on this issue with the Labor
[1:25:35] Council and
[1:25:36] with several members
[1:25:37] of the board. And we just want
[1:25:38] to say thank you. This has been
[1:25:39] a long time coming. This is
[1:25:40] at the forefront
[1:25:42] of showing a good use
[1:25:45] of taxpayer dollars to support
[1:25:46] the low wage workers that do
[1:25:47] tremendous work. As mentioned
[1:25:48] by our nonprofit ally here,
[1:25:51] this is a tremendous step
[1:25:54] forward. So thank you all for
[1:25:57] your support and we continue
[1:25:58] looking forward on working
[1:26:01] to implement this
[1:26:03] with you.
[1:26:05] >> Thank you very much. Are
[1:26:07] there any other members
[1:26:08] of the public who wish
[1:26:09] to comment on this item?
[1:26:11] Seeing none,
[1:26:12] I will bring it back
[1:26:13] to my colleagues for any final
[1:26:14] remarks or a motion to approve
[1:26:16] the consent calendar.
[1:26:21] >> I just wanted
[1:26:23] to reflect at one point
[1:26:24] on my first year
[1:26:26] on the board when I was
[1:26:27] on the living wage ad hoc. I
[1:26:28] just remember having late night
[1:26:29] screaming matches on the phone
[1:26:31] with Marty Bennett. And
[1:26:32] it's pretty amazing
[1:26:33] to be here. And I say that
[1:26:35] with passion. You know,
[1:26:37] that's. That's what it is. So
[1:26:39] just acknowledging how far
[1:26:41] we've come, but also
[1:26:42] for the lowest wage workers
[1:26:44] in our county. And I appreciate
[1:26:45] that. So thank you all very
[1:26:47] much. Happy
[1:26:49] to move the consent calendar.
[1:26:50] So, so moved.
[1:26:52] >> Great. Thank you. And we
[1:26:53] have a motion. Do we have a
[1:26:55] second, Supervisor Coursey?
[1:26:58] >> I'll second. And I just want
[1:26:59] to say that I'll support number
[1:27:01] 12 today. I look forward to
[1:27:03] the board is having a workshop
[1:27:04] on tourism impact grant funding
[1:27:05] in February. February 22nd,
[1:27:07] I believe it is. And I look
[1:27:09] forward to that. Second the
[1:27:13] motion.
[1:27:15] >> Thank you. And we will take
[1:27:16] a roll call vote because
[1:27:17] Supervisor Rabbitt will have a
[1:27:18] dissenting vote.
[1:27:20] >> So this is
[1:27:25] for 10, 11, 13 through 30,
[1:27:27] excluding 12.
[1:27:29] >> I think we can
[1:27:30] include 12. And then he'll just
[1:27:31] note that he's voting no
[1:27:33] on that.
[1:27:35] [ CALLING ROLL ]
[1:27:53] >> All right.
[1:27:54] And with that,
[1:27:56] we will go ahead and move on
[1:27:57] to our first item of the day,
[1:27:58] which we presented by Permit
[1:28:00] Sonoma. Thank you all so much
[1:28:01] for coming
[1:28:02] for the consent calendar. So
[1:28:08] item 31. I apologize
[1:28:09] to those members
[1:28:10] of the public who are
[1:28:12] in the audience waiting
[1:28:13] for this item. It was 9:35. We
[1:28:14] re noticed it
[1:28:15] at 10:10 and we're a little bit
[1:28:16] behind the times, but thanks
[1:28:18] for your patience. Scott, will
[1:28:36] you be introducing the item?
[1:28:37] Great.
[1:28:38] >> Yes. Good morning, Chair
[1:28:40] Hopkins, members
[1:28:41] of the board. So what we have
[1:28:42] for you today is the return
[1:28:44] of an item from November
[1:28:45] looking at the flood mapping
[1:28:48] along lower Russian River and
[1:28:51] Mark West Creek. So what we're
[1:28:53] going to do today is the
[1:28:55] presentation is going to go
[1:28:57] through just kind
[1:28:59] of an overview of what the item
[1:29:00] is as the first part, and then
[1:29:01] at the end we're going to talk
[1:29:03] about the next steps that we're
[1:29:05] recommending as part
[1:29:06] of this overall process. So the
[1:29:08] decision in front
[1:29:10] of you today is a decision
[1:29:12] on the maps, but also whether
[1:29:14] to give direction to staff to
[1:29:15] bring back further discussion.
[1:29:17] So with that, I'll turn it
[1:29:19] over to Azine
[1:29:21] for the presentation.
[1:29:25] >> Good morning, Supervisors.
[1:29:26] My name is Azine Spalding, and
[1:29:27] today I'm bringing Forward file
[1:29:28] number ORD2411, which is the
[1:29:31] flood hazard realignment item,
[1:29:32] to amend the official zoning
[1:29:33] database
[1:29:35] to update the boundaries of the
[1:29:36] floodway and floodplain
[1:29:37] combining districts to
[1:29:38] to correspond to new flood
[1:29:39] hazard area maps adopted
[1:29:41] by FEMA in July of 2024. So
[1:29:42] today we'll be discussing the
[1:29:43] FEMA mapping timeline and
[1:29:48] process and how county
[1:29:49] regulations relate
[1:29:50] to FEMA maps. We're going
[1:29:52] to talk about the National
[1:29:53] Flood Insurance Program, along
[1:29:55] with its benefits and its
[1:29:56] requirements
[1:29:57] for participation,
[1:29:58] county regulations for flood
[1:30:00] hazard areas and what this
[1:30:01] update means for property
[1:30:03] owners and residents and the
[1:30:04] process to Change or modify
[1:30:05] FEMA's maps. So I'll go over
[1:30:07] some key terms that will
[1:30:10] frequently be referenced
[1:30:11] throughout this presentation.
[1:30:13] So FEMA is the Federal
[1:30:14] Emergency Management Agency,
[1:30:15] which creates flood and other
[1:30:16] disaster information and maps
[1:30:17] and provides flood insurance
[1:30:19] and disaster relief. The NFIP
[1:30:20] is the National Flood
[1:30:22] Insurance Program, which is a
[1:30:24] federal program that provides
[1:30:25] flood insurance
[1:30:26] to property owners
[1:30:27] in participating communities.
[1:30:28] The regulatory floodway is a
[1:30:30] channel of a river or other
[1:30:32] watercourse and the adjacent
[1:30:33] land areas that must be
[1:30:35] reserved
[1:30:36] to discharge the base flood
[1:30:38] without cumulatively increasing
[1:30:39] the water surface elevation
[1:30:40] more than a designated height.
[1:30:42] Sonoma County's floodway
[1:30:43] combining district corresponds
[1:30:44] to FEMA's mapped regulatory
[1:30:46] floodway. Lastly, the
[1:30:48] floodplain is any land area
[1:30:49] susceptible to being inundated
[1:30:50] by flood waters
[1:30:52] from any source. Sonoma
[1:30:54] County's floodplain combining
[1:30:55] district corresponds
[1:30:56] to FEMA's mapped floodplain.
[1:30:57] So in October 2022, FEMA
[1:31:02] released preliminary flood
[1:31:03] insurance rate maps called
[1:31:05] firms for public review. On
[1:31:06] June 22nd and 29th, 2023,
[1:31:08] notices of the appeal period
[1:31:10] for preliminary firms were
[1:31:12] published in the Press
[1:31:15] Democrat. A 90 day appeal
[1:31:17] period commenced between June
[1:31:18] 29 and September 27, 2023,
[1:31:19] during which residents,
[1:31:21] residents, businesses and the
[1:31:23] county could appeal flood risk
[1:31:24] information
[1:31:26] on the preliminary firms. On
[1:31:27] July 31, 2024, FEMA published
[1:31:29] the final firms,
[1:31:31] which are no longer appealable.
[1:31:33] The flood maps were updated
[1:31:36] because the Russian river
[1:31:37] watershed has not been
[1:31:38] restudied by FEMA in over 30
[1:31:40] years and technological
[1:31:41] advances
[1:31:42] over time have allowed
[1:31:43] for higher accuracy of flood
[1:31:45] risk. FEMA generates these maps
[1:31:47] by incorporating data
[1:31:48] from climate science, waterway
[1:31:49] information, hydrological data,
[1:31:51] local engineers and surveyors,
[1:31:52] and land use and development
[1:31:54] information. The county
[1:31:56] implements FEMA maps
[1:31:59] through parcel zoning by either
[1:32:01] adding or removing the
[1:32:03] Floodway F1 or Floodplain F2,
[1:32:04] combining districts
[1:32:07] to impacted parcels. This
[1:32:10] rezoning is necessary to align
[1:32:11] with FEMA's flood hazard maps
[1:32:12] and remain in compliance
[1:32:15] with the National Flood
[1:32:17] Insurance program. If the F1 or
[1:32:18] F2 is added to a parcel,
[1:32:20] the parcel is subject to FEMA
[1:32:21] regulations and building codes
[1:32:23] that apply when building a new
[1:32:25] structure, remodeling,
[1:32:27] or making other improvements.
[1:32:28] On July 31, 2024, final firms
[1:32:33] for the Russian river watershed
[1:32:34] were published by FEMA. On
[1:32:36] October 17, 2024, the
[1:32:38] Planning Commission heard
[1:32:40] technical zoning Corrections,
[1:32:41] which included proposed parcel
[1:32:43] zoning updates to align local
[1:32:44] floodway and floodplain mapping
[1:32:46] with updated FEMA maps. On
[1:32:48] November 12, 2024, the Board
[1:32:49] of Supervisors heard the same
[1:32:50] technical zoning corrections
[1:32:53] item and directed staff
[1:32:54] to conduct outreach with
[1:32:55] affected communities and return
[1:32:56] to the board in January 2025
[1:32:58] for final consideration.
[1:32:59] Zoning updates
[1:33:02] for F1 and F2 changes
[1:33:04] for all hearings, public
[1:33:07] notices were sent via USPS to
[1:33:08] affected property owners and
[1:33:09] property owners within 300ft of
[1:33:11] affected parcels and published
[1:33:13] in the Press Democrat
[1:33:14] with support from the Russian
[1:33:15] River Chamber of Commerce
[1:33:18] Permit Sonoma presented
[1:33:19] to the Lower Russian River
[1:33:21] Municipal Advisory Council and
[1:33:22] the Mark West Area Municipal
[1:33:23] Advisory Council. Permit
[1:33:24] Sonoma staff also prepared an
[1:33:26] interactive GIS map showing
[1:33:29] current and proposed flood
[1:33:30] hazard zoning
[1:33:32] in affected areas. This is one
[1:33:33] of four examples where there
[1:33:36] have been more significant
[1:33:37] changes to the flood hazard
[1:33:39] area mapping. This example
[1:33:40] demonstrates the change in the
[1:33:42] floodway and floodplain
[1:33:43] boundaries in Rio Nido with
[1:33:45] current floodway and floodplain
[1:33:46] boundaries shown in orange and
[1:33:47] lighter orange and proposed
[1:33:49] boundaries
[1:33:50] in blue and lighter blue. This
[1:33:52] example demonstrates the change
[1:33:57] in the floodway and floodplain
[1:33:58] boundaries in Guerneville.
[1:34:00] Here we can see the changes
[1:34:01] in Monterio and Northwood and
[1:34:07] lastly changes near
[1:34:08] Londonberry Drive and Wikiup
[1:34:13] Drive. As I mentioned earlier,
[1:34:15] the F1 combining district
[1:34:19] applies to properties within
[1:34:21] the regulatory floodway as
[1:34:22] shown on FEMA maps. F1
[1:34:24] regulations apply only
[1:34:25] to portions of the parcel
[1:34:27] within the F1, not necessarily
[1:34:28] the entire parcel. On
[1:34:30] undeveloped or vacant parcels,
[1:34:32] no new permanent structures are
[1:34:33] allowed within the mapped
[1:34:35] floodway areas. On parcels
[1:34:37] with existing structures, no
[1:34:38] new permanent structures or
[1:34:40] additions are allowed.
[1:34:41] However, some exceptions
[1:34:43] include structural elevation
[1:34:44] above flood level, repairs that
[1:34:45] do not increase floor area, and
[1:34:47] septic and well improvements.
[1:34:48] The F2 Combining District
[1:34:50] applies to properties
[1:34:54] within the 100 year flood
[1:34:56] hazard area as shown on FEMA
[1:34:57] maps. F2 regulations only apply
[1:34:59] to portions of the parcel
[1:35:01] within the F2, not necessarily
[1:35:02] the entire parcel within the F2
[1:35:03] structural development must
[1:35:05] comply
[1:35:07] with local building code. In
[1:35:08] Sonoma County Code Chapter 7B,
[1:35:10] which relates
[1:35:12] to flood proofing
[1:35:14] within the F2, new residential
[1:35:15] structures must be elevated one
[1:35:16] foot above the base flood
[1:35:17] elevation and new commercial
[1:35:18] structures have the option
[1:35:20] to elevate or flood proof
[1:35:21] to one foot above the BFE. If
[1:35:23] the county does not rezone,
[1:35:27] communities participating in
[1:35:28] The NFIP have six months to
[1:35:29] implement FEMA's implement
[1:35:31] FEMA's updated floodplain
[1:35:33] regulations once the final
[1:35:35] firms have been published. The
[1:35:36] maps were published on July
[1:35:37] 31, 2024, so the county has
[1:35:39] until January 31, 2025 to
[1:35:41] implement the regulations or
[1:35:44] risk suspension
[1:35:45] from the NFIP. If a community
[1:35:46] is suspended from the NFIP,
[1:35:48] property owners will not be
[1:35:50] able to purchase NFIP policies
[1:35:52] or renew them. Federal grants
[1:35:53] or loans for development will
[1:35:54] not be available
[1:35:56] in affected areas. Federal
[1:35:57] disaster assistance may not be
[1:35:58] provided
[1:36:00] for any natural disaster,
[1:36:02] including flood damage repair
[1:36:03] or reconstruction. The Sonoma
[1:36:05] County Community Development
[1:36:06] Commission Flood Elevation
[1:36:08] Mitigation Program would be
[1:36:09] unavailable to the county and
[1:36:11] flood hazard area residents,
[1:36:13] which is since 1997, over 300
[1:36:14] homes have been elevated and
[1:36:17] $27 million have been spent
[1:36:19] on elevation
[1:36:21] through this program. Federal
[1:36:22] mortgage insurance or loan
[1:36:24] guarantees will not be provided
[1:36:25] in affected areas and lenders
[1:36:26] must disclose that property
[1:36:28] within flood hazard areas is
[1:36:29] not eligible for federal
[1:36:31] disaster assistance and the
[1:36:33] hazard mitigation grant program
[1:36:34] would be unavailable to the
[1:36:36] county and flood hazard area
[1:36:37] residents. The county is taking
[1:36:39] steps to mitigate impacts
[1:36:43] to property owners by
[1:36:44] implementing the FEMA maps
[1:36:45] three through rezoning
[1:36:47] to ensure compliance
[1:36:48] with the NFIP and
[1:36:49] by assessing options
[1:36:50] to work directly with FEMA
[1:36:51] on a restudy of the area
[1:36:53] to ensure accuracy
[1:36:54] of the maps. On October 17,
[1:36:56] 2024, the Planning Commission
[1:36:57] considered the Technical
[1:36:59] Corrections item, which
[1:37:01] included updated floodway and
[1:37:04] floodplain combining district
[1:37:05] boundaries, and passed a
[1:37:06] resolution recommending that
[1:37:07] the Board of Supervisors
[1:37:08] approve amendments to the
[1:37:10] County General Plan and Land
[1:37:11] Use map and the official zoning
[1:37:12] database. Amendments to the F1
[1:37:16] and F2 combining districts are
[1:37:17] consistent with the Sonoma
[1:37:19] County General Plan Public
[1:37:20] safety element policy PS2V
[1:37:21] directs the county
[1:37:23] to continue enforcing
[1:37:25] Floodplain Management Code
[1:37:26] requirements
[1:37:28] in flood hazards areas
[1:37:29] to implement the NFIP.
[1:37:30] Amendments
[1:37:32] to the official zoning database
[1:37:33] to update the F1 and F2 are
[1:37:34] directed by county code and are
[1:37:36] thus ministerial and statutory
[1:37:37] statutorily exempt from the
[1:37:39] California Environmental
[1:37:41] Quality act
[1:37:42] under CEA guidelines section
[1:37:44] 15268. With that,
[1:37:45] I'll pass it back to Scott.
[1:37:52] >> Thank you, Azine so as I
[1:37:53] mentioned earlier,
[1:37:54] we have two asks for today.
[1:37:57] First is to adopt the ordinance
[1:37:59] amending the official zoning
[1:38:01] database to update the F1 and
[1:38:02] F2 zoning areas and also
[1:38:04] providing direction to permit
[1:38:06] Sonoma to proceed
[1:38:09] with a technical review
[1:38:10] of these flood hazard maps
[1:38:12] for the Russian river watershed
[1:38:15] and also the Mark West Creek
[1:38:19] area by the airport so west
[1:38:22] of 101. And so taking this
[1:38:25] action today,
[1:38:27] make sure that we stay
[1:38:28] in compliance with the FEMA
[1:38:30] programs that will keep people
[1:38:31] ensured, especially through the
[1:38:33] rainy season that we're
[1:38:35] currently in. But we also want
[1:38:37] to talk
[1:38:40] about the next steps as part of
[1:38:42] our recommendation and that
[1:38:43] we're hoping
[1:38:45] for board feedback on. First is
[1:38:47] we would like
[1:38:49] to resetty the lower Russian
[1:38:51] river and Mark West Creek area.
[1:38:52] If we get direction
[1:38:54] to do this, we'd have
[1:38:56] to come back
[1:38:57] with a standalone budget item
[1:38:59] to make that happen. Based
[1:39:01] on our experience with the
[1:39:03] Todd Creek study, which was
[1:39:04] about 75,000, we're estimating
[1:39:06] that this would be about
[1:39:08] 250,000 because it's a
[1:39:09] significantly larger area.
[1:39:11] But we do feel that if we were
[1:39:12] to undertake this study,
[1:39:16] we'd be able to more accurately
[1:39:18] assess this reach of the
[1:39:20] Russian river as well as the
[1:39:23] tributaries that lead into it
[1:39:25] that we feel were not analyzed
[1:39:27] to the same level. Additional
[1:39:29] things that we're looking
[1:39:32] at that we don't need any kind
[1:39:33] of board action to put
[1:39:35] into place. First off is
[1:39:37] strengthening our noticing
[1:39:40] protocols for instances
[1:39:42] like this. Yes, FEMA did
[1:39:45] noticing a couple years ago,
[1:39:47] but I think that one thing
[1:39:49] we've learned, especially
[1:39:52] through talking to the public
[1:39:53] at the Mac meetings and then
[1:39:54] also individuals is,
[1:39:56] is that that's not enough. So
[1:39:58] even though we don't have a
[1:39:59] legal obligation
[1:40:01] to notice that like we do
[1:40:03] for the meeting today, we've
[1:40:05] really heard that the FEMA
[1:40:06] noticing just isn't enough
[1:40:08] for our community. So we are
[1:40:10] going
[1:40:11] to proactively be doing a lot
[1:40:13] of the steps that we would
[1:40:14] for our own item,
[1:40:16] for the FEMA items as well
[1:40:18] in the future to get this
[1:40:20] discussion started sooner, you
[1:40:22] know, when we're still in the
[1:40:23] preliminary comment period,
[1:40:25] when we're still
[1:40:26] in the appeal period. We'd also
[1:40:28] like to reassess our local
[1:40:30] regulations. It's not often
[1:40:32] that we're talking about
[1:40:34] regulations that were enacted
[1:40:35] in the 1940s
[1:40:37] like our F1 and F2 were. We
[1:40:39] didn't even have a building
[1:40:41] code back then. So it's time
[1:40:43] for us to go and reassess. Are
[1:40:45] those still meeting the needs
[1:40:48] for us today? In some areas our
[1:40:50] local regulations are stricter
[1:40:52] than FEMA's, but particularly
[1:40:54] in the F1. And so we do want to
[1:40:56] go back and reassess how the
[1:41:00] zoning code, building code and
[1:41:02] our general plan all align
[1:41:04] along with kind of the state
[1:41:06] of development and residency
[1:41:09] along the river today. Another
[1:41:12] thing that we've been
[1:41:15] discussing is the idea
[1:41:17] of a critical service overlay
[1:41:19] for the commercial corridor
[1:41:20] along the river. So that
[1:41:22] wouldn't necessarily need
[1:41:24] to be something that exists
[1:41:26] in zoning, but it makes it very
[1:41:28] clear that the continued
[1:41:29] operation of things like the
[1:41:32] Gurnwell Safeway is critical
[1:41:34] to the success of folks living
[1:41:36] on the river. You know,
[1:41:37] we've also been taking a look
[1:41:40] at our legal non conforming
[1:41:42] language,
[1:41:43] which is another section of the
[1:41:45] zoning code that governs kind
[1:41:46] of the process around
[1:41:48] reconstruction and rebuilding
[1:41:50] in areas like this. And so it's
[1:41:51] another section that we really
[1:41:53] need
[1:41:55] to reassess whether the kind
[1:41:57] of thresholds in that are still
[1:41:58] meeting the need for today.
[1:42:00] Through the fires,
[1:42:02] we made a number of changes
[1:42:04] to make it easier for people
[1:42:06] to rebuild. And
[1:42:07] from a flood standpoint,
[1:42:09] we want
[1:42:11] to make it clear that we,
[1:42:12] we do want to support people
[1:42:14] rebuilding what they had in the
[1:42:15] event that there's a disaster.
[1:42:17] One final thing that I will say
[1:42:20] is there is something that
[1:42:21] there's a FEMA program called
[1:42:24] CRS which stands for, sorry
[1:42:26] one minute. Community Rating
[1:42:28] System. So basically through
[1:42:34] this county led process, we
[1:42:35] can,
[1:42:38] through areas where we are
[1:42:41] going above and
[1:42:43] beyond what FEMA requires, we
[1:42:44] can potentially lower the
[1:42:45] insurance rates
[1:42:46] of folks that live
[1:42:47] in the county. So this is part
[1:42:49] of the balancing act because we
[1:42:50] would get extra points towards
[1:42:51] lowering rates
[1:42:53] by having something
[1:42:58] like a stricter F1 or F2.
[1:42:59] But again it's balancing. And
[1:43:00] so that wasn't in the report.
[1:43:02] But we did get a public comment
[1:43:05] about that. So I wanted
[1:43:07] to mention that as well as for
[1:43:09] for future consideration. So
[1:43:11] with that we're looking forward
[1:43:14] to any questions and hearing
[1:43:15] from the public.
[1:43:17] >> Thank you very much. And I
[1:43:18] actually would like
[1:43:19] to go straight to public
[1:43:20] comment recognizing that we are
[1:43:21] running late and so that we can
[1:43:22] hear from folks who may took
[1:43:23] time out of their day
[1:43:24] to be here. And then I will
[1:43:25] bring it back
[1:43:26] to the board afterwards
[1:43:27] for questions and comments. So
[1:43:29] is there anyone
[1:43:30] in the public who wishes
[1:43:31] to speak on this item? We will
[1:43:32] have two minutes per public
[1:43:33] comment. I knew I saw some
[1:43:41] familiar faces in the audience
[1:43:42] so I figured.
[1:43:43] >> Good morning supervisors.
[1:43:45] Good morning Permits
[1:43:46] Sonoma. My name is Peter
[1:43:48] Hackett. I have Stumptown
[1:43:50] Brewery and Stumptown Car
[1:43:52] Wash. I think like a lot of the
[1:43:54] people that have been affected
[1:43:56] by this and maybe a little
[1:43:57] offended at the notification
[1:43:59] that we received that there
[1:44:03] were zoning alterations that
[1:44:04] were going to be made which
[1:44:05] seems a lot more minor than the
[1:44:07] material effect that this could
[1:44:08] potentially have
[1:44:12] to our properties and not just
[1:44:13] in use, but in value. And
[1:44:15] certainly when I read that,
[1:44:16] you know,
[1:44:18] a parcel that has moved
[1:44:19] from F2 to F1 becomes legal non
[1:44:20] conforming and the verbiage of
[1:44:22] legal nonconforming is pretty
[1:44:24] arbitrary and certainly would
[1:44:26] affect the resale value
[1:44:28] of property, not just the use
[1:44:29] of that property. Obviously a
[1:44:31] lot
[1:44:33] of people who are now moved
[1:44:34] into the F2 floodplain and find
[1:44:36] themselves
[1:44:37] with the additional holding
[1:44:38] cost of flood insurance and so
[1:44:39] on are also affected. And it
[1:44:41] was a challenge to know that
[1:44:42] FEMA had actually made this
[1:44:46] aware, made us aware of this,
[1:44:48] these potential changes back
[1:44:50] in 2022. And we just became
[1:44:53] aware of them in November. And
[1:44:55] frankly by accident that even
[1:44:57] the meeting that was
[1:45:00] intentionally to ratify. Thank
[1:45:02] you very much Supervisor
[1:45:04] Hopkins for pulling this off.
[1:45:05] So we did have an opportunity
[1:45:07] to actually talk about this.
[1:45:08] Perhaps gives us a chance
[1:45:10] to make some changes to
[1:45:12] mitigate the damage which
[1:45:13] clearly has to be done. I think
[1:45:14] we all understand that we have
[1:45:16] to ratify these changes
[1:45:18] in order to stay
[1:45:19] within the boundaries
[1:45:21] of FEMA. But the damage
[1:45:22] to those of us whose zoning has
[1:45:24] been changed and ultimately
[1:45:25] bearing the cost
[1:45:27] of that compliance. And there
[1:45:30] are hundreds of parcels. I'm
[1:45:32] actually surprised there aren't
[1:45:34] more people here today figuring
[1:45:35] out a way to do that. Whether
[1:45:36] perhaps that might be a carve
[1:45:38] out like the Kincaid fires had
[1:45:39] so that there's more clarity
[1:45:41] and less arbitrary decision by
[1:45:43] the chief building inspector as
[1:45:45] to whether or not we can
[1:45:47] rebuild. I know I wouldn't want
[1:45:50] to buy a parcel if I couldn't
[1:45:54] rebuild, if something happened
[1:45:56] to it, whether or not that
[1:45:58] damage was incurred during a
[1:46:00] natural disaster or otherwise.
[1:46:04] >> And thank you so much, that
[1:46:05] is time. I apologize.
[1:46:06] >> I had two minutes.
[1:46:08] >> It goes too fast. I know.
[1:46:10] >> Thank you.
[1:46:11] >> And also I just want
[1:46:12] to state for the record that we
[1:46:14] have officially opened the
[1:46:15] public hearing. This is sort
[1:46:16] of a public hearing. And want
[1:46:17] to make sure that Peter's
[1:46:18] comments are recognized as part
[1:46:19] of that. Welcome. Come
[1:46:20] on up.
[1:46:23] >> Good morning. My name's Ed
[1:46:24] Kleitz. I live at 133 Fleming
[1:46:26] Way, Santa Rosa, California, a
[1:46:27] little
[1:46:29] over a half a mile south
[1:46:30] of the Todd Road flood channel.
[1:46:31] I haven't heard it yet here
[1:46:33] today, but it is on the back
[1:46:34] page or somewhere buried
[1:46:35] into this report. And I just
[1:46:37] want you to know that I became
[1:46:38] aware as a 33 year owner of my
[1:46:41] home three years ago that FEMA
[1:46:44] had declared my neighborhood to
[1:46:46] be a flood zone. I wasn't
[1:46:47] notified
[1:46:49] by FEMA. I was not notified
[1:46:51] by the county. I was notified
[1:46:52] by my mortgage company who
[1:46:54] said, you have 30 days
[1:46:55] to get insurance or we're going
[1:46:57] to get it for you. We're here
[1:46:59] almost three years later and I
[1:47:00] have to shout out to
[1:47:01] Supervisor Coursey's office
[1:47:02] after making about 10 or 12
[1:47:04] calls to my realtor, my
[1:47:05] friends, my mom,
[1:47:06] my neighbors who will speak
[1:47:07] in a minute,
[1:47:08] Supervisor Coursey's office,
[1:47:12] specifically Sean Hamlin is the
[1:47:13] one who told me what was going
[1:47:14] on, why it was going
[1:47:17] on and sorry, I was playing the
[1:47:20] parking game. I got insurance.
[1:47:21] I'm in my third year of that
[1:47:25] flood insurance and I'm nearing
[1:47:27] $6,000
[1:47:31] in flood insurance. Again, I
[1:47:34] live over half a mile
[1:47:35] from the Todd Road channel.
[1:47:38] Back in November, before
[1:47:39] Thanksgiving when we got almost
[1:47:40] half of our annual rainfall
[1:47:41] in that one week,
[1:47:43] my pool didn't even flood,
[1:47:44] much less my backyard. Oh, and
[1:47:45] by the way, my house is on
[1:47:46] three foot post and piers. I
[1:47:48] could have disputed the claims
[1:47:51] of FEMA back in 2022 and
[1:47:53] commissioned an engineering
[1:47:55] study and found the plans
[1:47:57] for my house that was built
[1:47:58] in 1952,
[1:47:59] but that was cost prohibitive.
[1:48:00] So I have two asks of you today
[1:48:02] as the red light is looming,
[1:48:03] who and when do I notify my
[1:48:06] mortgage company to stop taking
[1:48:08] those monthly payments out of
[1:48:09] my newly created impound
[1:48:11] account? And who do we contact
[1:48:14] to get reimbursed from this
[1:48:16] erroneous study so that we can
[1:48:18] be made whole again.
[1:48:21] By the way, I'm a 10 year
[1:48:22] county retiree having worked
[1:48:24] 27 years
[1:48:25] in the county jail. I'm
[1:48:26] on a fixed income. These
[1:48:28] numbers are rising just like
[1:48:30] every other expense there is
[1:48:32] out there. Thank you very much.
[1:48:33] >> Thank you. Good morning.
[1:48:41] >> Good morning. My name is
[1:48:42] Kathy Pezantine. Everything
[1:48:43] that Ed said is what I was
[1:48:45] going to say also. I'm his
[1:48:47] neighbor and I've been
[1:48:48] in our house for 47 years,
[1:48:50] never flooded. And the zone,
[1:48:52] we have flood zone outside,
[1:48:55] not that far away. And three
[1:48:56] years ago we received a notice
[1:48:59] from our bank and then we went
[1:49:01] through a big process
[1:49:06] with them. And I just want
[1:49:08] to hold this up real quick.
[1:49:09] This is what we got from FEMA
[1:49:10] and it has a little arrow
[1:49:11] pointing
[1:49:12] to where our little flood,our
[1:49:15] small building in back of our
[1:49:16] property had a little corner
[1:49:18] that was in that flood zone.
[1:49:19] And We've paid over $3,000
[1:49:23] for our insurance and we,
[1:49:25] we didn't know what to do,
[1:49:27] where to go, who to talk to
[1:49:29] about this map and our flood
[1:49:31] zone. So we're hoping
[1:49:34] to get some answers today.
[1:49:37] Thank you.
[1:49:38] >> Thank you very much. Is
[1:49:44] there anyone else who wishes
[1:49:45] to comment on this item?
[1:49:50] Welcome.
[1:49:51] >> Hi. Thank you. Good morning.
[1:49:52] I didn't come to speak
[1:49:54] on this topic today,
[1:49:55] but hearing it, I wanted
[1:49:56] to mention that with insurance
[1:49:58] rates there are multiple
[1:50:00] factors
[1:50:02] to consider. I do not live
[1:50:03] in a floodway. I live adjacent
[1:50:05] to a floodplain
[1:50:07] within the city limits of
[1:50:09] Petaluma, California. While I
[1:50:11] don't share the same
[1:50:13] characteristics, my,
[1:50:15] my home doesn't. The land that
[1:50:17] it's on. As some
[1:50:18] of the speakers today, I would
[1:50:19] like you to know that
[1:50:20] in the past couple years,
[1:50:23] merely because our home is
[1:50:25] adjacent to a floodplain
[1:50:28] near the Petaluma River, our
[1:50:29] flood insurance went from just
[1:50:33] under $1,000 a year to $5,000 a
[1:50:38] year. I'm retired. I'm
[1:50:41] on a fixed income. We're all
[1:50:43] getting squeezed
[1:50:45] from fire insurance, flood
[1:50:47] insurance, car insurance. The
[1:50:49] squeeze is too much
[1:50:52] to bear and the stress of
[1:50:56] having your expenses go sky
[1:50:59] high in an uncertain future
[1:51:01] of what the heck would happen
[1:51:03] to you in your safe place,
[1:51:06] that you plan to retire and
[1:51:07] work hard your whole life when
[1:51:09] that is unnecessarily
[1:51:11] compromised
[1:51:14] with planning that is,
[1:51:16] is not acceptable
[1:51:18] to the people
[1:51:19] of the electorate.
[1:51:21] Electorate. So please elevate
[1:51:24] their comments and help them to
[1:51:26] have a secure and safe future.
[1:51:28] Thank you.
[1:51:30] >> Thank you. Very much.
[1:51:37] Good morning.
[1:51:39] >> Good morning. My name is
[1:51:40] Mark. I live in Scenic Avenue
[1:51:41] in Santa Rosa or county.
[1:51:42] Excuse me if I'm going to be
[1:51:44] ignorant on this topic,
[1:51:46] but I've lived at my place
[1:51:48] for 18 years.
[1:51:49] From what I understand,
[1:51:51] Sonoma County Water Agency is
[1:51:53] supposed to be responsible
[1:51:54] for the drainage ditches. In
[1:51:56] 18 years they have not,
[1:51:57] I'll use a farmer's term,
[1:51:58] mucked out the ditches once.
[1:52:00] It's been over two weeks since
[1:52:02] we had rain and we still have
[1:52:03] standing water
[1:52:05] in the culverts. We got
[1:52:07] to start with the basic level
[1:52:09] before we go to the flood stuff
[1:52:10] because if it's not going
[1:52:12] anywhere,
[1:52:14] it's standing there waiting
[1:52:15] for the next rain to happen.
[1:52:16] Now, there are fields
[1:52:17] with water in them, but my main
[1:52:20] concern is the roadways. They
[1:52:21] need to get fixed and that's
[1:52:23] mucking them out. That's
[1:52:25] weeding them during summertime.
[1:52:27] I've got notices from the
[1:52:28] permits resources say I need
[1:52:30] to cut the weeds
[1:52:31] in my culvert. Well, if I can't
[1:52:33] build on it, it's not mine.
[1:52:35] That's the water agency's
[1:52:38] responsibility. Thank you.
[1:52:41] >> Thank you very much. Are
[1:52:43] there any other members
[1:52:44] of the public who wish
[1:52:45] to speak on this item? Going
[1:52:47] once, going twice,
[1:52:49] and I will bring it back
[1:52:50] to the board. I first wanted
[1:52:52] to give staff an opportunity
[1:52:53] to answer any of the questions
[1:52:55] from members of the public,
[1:52:56] public that came up. And
[1:52:58] with respect to culverts,
[1:53:00] that is not your department,
[1:53:01] fortunately not your problem.
[1:53:03] And I just want
[1:53:04] to note that it, it could be
[1:53:06] the private property owner's
[1:53:07] responsibility or it could be
[1:53:08] public infrastructure or it
[1:53:10] could be the water agency,
[1:53:11] sort of depending upon the
[1:53:13] jurisdiction. And I'm going
[1:53:14] to look at Johannes and make
[1:53:15] sure I got that right. Is that
[1:53:16] accurate? Okay. So we would
[1:53:18] need to kind of work
[1:53:19] with you and find
[1:53:20] out a little bit more about
[1:53:21] your particular situation,
[1:53:22] which we can do afterwards. So
[1:53:29] reach out to your district
[1:53:30] supervisor and we can try
[1:53:32] to figure out what, you know,
[1:53:33] what the jurisdiction is so
[1:53:35] that we can work
[1:53:36] on that challenge. Any other
[1:53:38] responses to any
[1:53:39] of the public comment?
[1:53:43] >> So in regards to the Todd
[1:53:47] Creek, so we are
[1:53:49] at the tail end of a restudy
[1:53:50] of that creek. We're hoping
[1:53:52] for it to be completed by
[1:53:54] March 2025. So
[1:53:56] in the next couple of months.
[1:53:57] In our most recent update
[1:54:00] on that, it's basically down
[1:54:02] to some what we consider kind
[1:54:06] of more minor or administrative
[1:54:07] back and forth
[1:54:09] between the two sides. So we're
[1:54:11] hoping that's going
[1:54:12] to be resolved soon. And
[1:54:14] after that study is finished,
[1:54:16] then we would work
[1:54:17] with making those maps realized
[1:54:19] through this similar process
[1:54:22] of updating zones
[1:54:23] to hopefully have that
[1:54:25] reflected
[1:54:27] on the insurance side
[1:54:29] of things. Also I would add
[1:54:32] in regards to clarity
[1:54:33] on rebuilding, we totally
[1:54:35] agree. I acknowledge that when
[1:54:37] I look at it,
[1:54:40] I can see paths forward
[1:54:43] for someone to rebuild,
[1:54:45] but that's not enough clarity
[1:54:46] for someone who doesn't do this
[1:54:47] 40 hours a week. So as part
[1:54:49] of our next steps, we do want
[1:54:50] to make it crystal clear that
[1:54:52] folks have the ability
[1:54:54] to rebuild.
[1:54:56] >> Thank you very much
[1:54:58] for that. And I would add that
[1:55:00] for someone who doesn't do this
[1:55:01] 40 hours a week,
[1:55:02] then they have to pay someone
[1:55:03] that often is very expensive
[1:55:04] to try to find those creative
[1:55:05] solutions, which presents a
[1:55:06] challenge. I want to first go
[1:55:07] to Vice Chair Hermosillo, who
[1:55:09] has some personal experience
[1:55:11] working
[1:55:12] in the federal government
[1:55:13] on FEMA. So take it away.
[1:55:16] >> Todd Creek was great. I
[1:55:19] think that if you can elaborate
[1:55:21] on a workaround with FEMA, it's
[1:55:23] my understanding they're not
[1:55:25] accepting map revisions
[1:55:26] through 2028 because
[1:55:29] of a lawsuit. And so what does
[1:55:31] that mean for west county and
[1:55:33] adopting the FEMA map and then
[1:55:37] making sure that the people
[1:55:39] that do own their property,
[1:55:42] that bought with the intention
[1:55:44] to expand or protect, you know,
[1:55:46] build on their property,
[1:55:47] can't. What local zoning or
[1:55:49] modifications can be made to
[1:55:53] make sure that they have made a
[1:55:56] wise investment.
[1:56:01] >> So just for awareness,
[1:56:05] so today we also have Nathan
[1:56:06] Quarles, who are is our deputy
[1:56:08] director of construction and
[1:56:09] engineering. So
[1:56:11] in case I misspeak on any
[1:56:12] of the technical issues,
[1:56:13] he will swoop in
[1:56:16] to the microphone. So as far as
[1:56:20] the reset, we're not seeing
[1:56:22] anything that would prevent us
[1:56:24] from beginning that process on
[1:56:25] our own and getting a
[1:56:27] consultant the way that we
[1:56:28] would do
[1:56:29] for the way that we did for
[1:56:31] Todd Creek. So we feel that we
[1:56:33] can get started on that right
[1:56:35] of way and we're confident that
[1:56:38] we'll be able
[1:56:39] to move that forward. So
[1:56:41] in terms of the 2028 number,
[1:56:43] that's something I would have
[1:56:45] to look more into.
[1:56:46] But thank you
[1:56:47] for bringing that up.
[1:56:49] >> Any other questions or
[1:56:50] comments on this one?
[1:56:52] >> No. Thank you.
[1:56:53] >> Supervisor Gore.
[1:56:54] Thank you, Supervisor Gore.
[1:56:55] >>Thank you, Chair Hopkins. I
[1:56:56] want to acknowledge the work
[1:56:57] that's taken place
[1:56:59] since this came last year
[1:57:02] under duress from time. And I
[1:57:05] want to acknowledge everybody
[1:57:07] who spent two years and others
[1:57:09] out here who are trying
[1:57:12] to figure out what this really
[1:57:14] means. I first of all
[1:57:15] appreciate the mapping
[1:57:17] recommendations. It's going
[1:57:19] to cost us some money, but I
[1:57:22] think that's our job as local
[1:57:23] government. Right. This is one
[1:57:24] of our only tools in our
[1:57:25] toolbox that actually can
[1:57:27] impact these maps sent
[1:57:30] from the federal government.
[1:57:34] From female. So the addition
[1:57:35] of Mark west and Lower Russian
[1:57:38] river and other areas,
[1:57:40] or whether we say lower
[1:57:42] Russian river or areas that
[1:57:44] intersect with mid reach
[1:57:45] of the Russian river,
[1:57:47] what have you, Geyserville,
[1:57:48] places like that,
[1:57:50] whatever you need to look at,
[1:57:51] I am going to support that.
[1:57:53] And that allocation of funding
[1:57:56] to come back
[1:57:57] to us because you got to pay
[1:58:01] to play you
[1:58:02] like we can't just go back to
[1:58:03] FEMA that sets a broad based
[1:58:04] policy that covers regions,
[1:58:06] which is very normal
[1:58:07] for an insurer, whether it's a
[1:58:08] public insurer or a private
[1:58:10] insurer that says we are going
[1:58:12] to designate this area as high
[1:58:15] risk and you have to prove us
[1:58:18] otherwise or there's no ability
[1:58:21] to even prove otherwise. You
[1:58:23] just have
[1:58:26] to pay the extra money. That
[1:58:27] may be a difficult place
[1:58:28] to sit within, but in
[1:58:29] individuals who have
[1:58:30] frustrations
[1:58:31] around site specific locations,
[1:58:32] I think that's one approach.
[1:58:33] But for these areas, regions,
[1:58:34] I'm going to be supportive
[1:58:36] of the action going forward.
[1:58:38] So within the difficulty
[1:58:39] of what we're being presented,
[1:58:41] I want to thank you for doing
[1:58:43] the work and the increased
[1:58:44] outreach. I do support also
[1:58:46] the, the changes in policy to
[1:58:48] make sure that we are owning
[1:58:49] our responsibility as local
[1:58:51] government, even if the federal
[1:58:53] government is not owning its
[1:58:54] responsibilities
[1:58:56] to effectively communicate with
[1:58:57] our residents and constituents.
[1:58:59] So thank you for the items,
[1:59:00] thank you for the
[1:59:02] recommendations and thank you
[1:59:04] to my colleagues.
[1:59:05] >>Thank you very much.
[1:59:07] Supervisor Corsi.
[1:59:09] >>Yeah, I want to thank
[1:59:13] Permit Sonoma staff and Nathan
[1:59:14] for the work that's been done
[1:59:16] on Todd Creek. This came to our
[1:59:20] attention more than three years
[1:59:22] ago, I think, and it was a
[1:59:23] study that was actually
[1:59:25] undertaken pre pandemic and
[1:59:27] wasn't finished and then was
[1:59:29] restarted and the communication
[1:59:33] was not good from the federal
[1:59:36] government letting us know what
[1:59:38] was going on there. Even when
[1:59:40] we did engage with fema, with
[1:59:43] Congressman Thompson's office,
[1:59:44] we're still three years down
[1:59:48] the road and we don't have any
[1:59:50] answer. So, you know,
[1:59:53] I'm supportive of doing the
[1:59:55] restudies that you're talking
[1:59:58] about, the 250 grand there,
[2:00:00] but I just want to manage
[2:00:01] expectations a little bit that
[2:00:04] this is a bigger undertaking
[2:00:06] than Todd Creek by far. And
[2:00:08] Todd Creek is three years and
[2:00:10] counting. Scott, I don't know
[2:00:14] if you have an answer
[2:00:17] to this, but one
[2:00:18] of the questions
[2:00:21] from folks is how, if and when
[2:00:26] restudies are completed and
[2:00:27] maps are revised, how does a
[2:00:30] property owner unwind the
[2:00:32] property insurance burden that
[2:00:35] they've been saddled
[2:00:39] with because of these studies?
[2:00:41] >>So how it should work is that
[2:00:48] the insurance rates are based
[2:00:50] on the insurance maps. So when
[2:00:52] the insurance maps are updated,
[2:00:53] that should cascade outward.
[2:00:56] That being said, it's not
[2:00:59] something that I would have a
[2:01:02] lot of confidence happening
[2:01:03] every single time if it was my
[2:01:04] own property. I would want
[2:01:06] to make sure. So I think that's
[2:01:09] going to be an important step
[2:01:10] for us as we get towards the
[2:01:12] end
[2:01:14] of the process is making sure.
[2:01:17] That we're working
[2:01:19] with our federal partners
[2:01:21] on kind of that information
[2:01:24] proliferating to all the places
[2:01:26] that it needs to. That's the
[2:01:28] best I could do
[2:01:30] at the moment.
[2:01:31] >>Yeah. And I understand that
[2:01:32] we get into,
[2:01:34] as somebody was talking about
[2:01:37] pointing fingers and there are
[2:01:38] a lot of different agencies and
[2:01:40] entities involved in this.
[2:01:42] Your mortgage company,
[2:01:43] your insurance company, the
[2:01:46] county, the federal government,
[2:01:49] federal agencies. So I would
[2:01:51] just hope that when we, we do
[2:01:56] get these revisions that we can
[2:02:00] help help property owners not
[2:02:02] have
[2:02:05] to do this individually piece
[2:02:06] by piece going
[2:02:08] through it and that, that we as
[2:02:10] a county or even a district
[2:02:12] office, I'll make, make that
[2:02:14] pledge right now that we will
[2:02:17] work with property owners to
[2:02:19] help get that insurance thing
[2:02:21] unwound. I think that's all I
[2:02:26] have for now.
[2:02:28] >>Thanks. Thank you very much,
[2:02:29] Supervisor Rabbit.
[2:02:30] >>Yeah, thank you very much.
[2:02:31] Do you know if FEMA does the
[2:02:33] map work in house or do they
[2:02:34] contract that out? And if they
[2:02:36] do contract it out,
[2:02:37] do they have a pool and perhaps
[2:02:40] Todd Creek was done differently
[2:02:42] than the Russian River? Just
[2:02:43] curious.
[2:02:44] >>I think they do often
[2:02:46] contract it out. Everyone is
[2:02:47] balancing resources. Was there
[2:02:51] a follow up question based on.
[2:02:56] >>Well, there is based upon.
[2:02:58] And to be honest, I'll skip to
[2:03:00] my last comment which is I
[2:03:02] really like to see the Todd
[2:03:04] Creek Lomar or the letter
[2:03:06] of map revision decision prior
[2:03:08] to committing funds
[2:03:09] to a significant larger area.
[2:03:11] Especially
[2:03:15] since what we were talking
[2:03:17] about at present really is a
[2:03:18] peer review and not
[2:03:19] necessarily. Have we identified
[2:03:20] any inaccuracies? Correct.
[2:03:21] >>No specific inaccuracies,
[2:03:26] but there are,
[2:03:28] we do have observations about
[2:03:29] particularly the tributaries
[2:03:32] to the Russian river and we
[2:03:34] have seen some anomalies like
[2:03:36] in the airport area, there's a
[2:03:38] very straight line that doesn't
[2:03:41] seem to make sense just from,
[2:03:47] you know, kind of the,
[2:03:51] the initial review.
[2:03:53] >>Okay, I appreciate that. And
[2:03:54] my questions stem from
[2:03:56] Petaluma many years ago and
[2:03:58] prior to even my being on the
[2:04:00] council there did a huge flood
[2:04:02] control project. And what
[2:04:05] happened there was a remapping
[2:04:10] and put other people that
[2:04:12] didn't think they were
[2:04:14] in the floodplain.
[2:04:15] In the floodplain because at
[2:04:17] some extent it's zero sum game,
[2:04:19] especially as you can imagine
[2:04:21] with the additional more
[2:04:22] volatile weather, extreme
[2:04:24] weather conditions that we're
[2:04:25] having. So the later the
[2:04:26] mapping goes,
[2:04:27] the more extreme it's going
[2:04:30] to get. More properties
[2:04:31] undoubtedly are going
[2:04:32] to be involved
[2:04:33] in that. I would just like to
[2:04:34] see and I know it's been three
[2:04:35] years, but I know there's no
[2:04:36] final decision and we're asking
[2:04:37] FEMA to remap something,
[2:04:39] relook at something they've
[2:04:41] already published. I want
[2:04:44] to know what the likelihood of
[2:04:45] going forward and being
[2:04:47] successful in that before we
[2:04:49] actually start putting cash
[2:04:50] on the line. And then my other
[2:04:52] piece is that. Correct me if
[2:04:53] I'm wrong,
[2:04:55] FEMA produces these maps all
[2:04:57] over the US the vast majority
[2:05:01] of local jurisdictions, cities
[2:05:03] and counties accept the maps
[2:05:05] in order to participate
[2:05:08] in the National Flood
[2:05:09] Insurance Program, which
[2:05:11] doesn't just benefit the county
[2:05:14] in terms of disasters,
[2:05:15] but obviously is essential
[2:05:16] for people to get bank loans,
[2:05:19] mortgages, VA loans,
[2:05:20] participate in flood insurance
[2:05:22] for better or worse. And I
[2:05:24] understand the expenses
[2:05:26] of that.
[2:05:27] But what do other counties do?
[2:05:28] The overlay, though? I think
[2:05:30] some county. I believe that
[2:05:31] we're being more transparent
[2:05:32] by putting an F1 or an F2
[2:05:34] on a zoning map
[2:05:35] to let you know that, oh, crap,
[2:05:38] my house is
[2:05:40] in the floodplain or floodway.
[2:05:42] Other jurisdictions adopt the
[2:05:44] maps,
[2:05:45] don't necessarily reflect it
[2:05:47] in zoning,
[2:05:49] and you will only know
[2:05:50] through the bank,
[2:05:51] you will only know
[2:05:52] through your insurance. So
[2:05:54] again, I understand the
[2:05:55] frustration, but I do think our
[2:05:56] county is being more
[2:05:57] transparent by posting it,
[2:05:58] putting it on the zoning. And I
[2:06:00] guess that's. Did I say
[2:06:03] anything wrong?
[2:06:04] >>You did not say anything
[2:06:06] wrong.
[2:06:07] >>Okay. But I do think,
[2:06:09] and I appreciate you
[2:06:10] recognizing, you know, I don't
[2:06:11] think there will ever be carve
[2:06:13] outs in that,
[2:06:14] but I do think that we can look
[2:06:16] at the rebuilding
[2:06:17] like you talked about. You
[2:06:19] know, I want to make sure that
[2:06:20] we're not any stricter and kind
[2:06:21] of for the same reasons that
[2:06:22] the fire rebuilds. And it's
[2:06:24] ironic now that we're, you
[2:06:26] know,
[2:06:27] I think that it's a huge
[2:06:30] dilemma for the state of
[2:06:31] California and beyond
[2:06:33] to talk about, you know,
[2:06:35] rebuilding and has known
[2:06:37] hazardous areas, whether it's
[2:06:38] wildfire or floods. And it's a
[2:06:39] difficult subject matter
[2:06:41] because, you know,
[2:06:42] there'll be another fire,
[2:06:44] there'll be another flood, and
[2:06:45] there's been the expenses that
[2:06:46] will be occurred because
[2:06:49] of that. So I look forward to
[2:06:52] those discussions as we go
[2:06:54] forward. I just want
[2:06:55] to make sure on. And I know
[2:06:56] today is not the commitment
[2:06:57] of any money,
[2:06:58] but I would damn well like
[2:07:00] to see the Todd Creek, excuse
[2:07:01] me, report before we go down
[2:07:02] this other path because I think
[2:07:04] that'll be an indication
[2:07:06] of how successful we may or
[2:07:09] may not be.
[2:07:11] >>Thank you very much. I have a
[2:07:12] very simple question. Why do we
[2:07:16] do this? My understanding is
[2:07:18] that we are one of the only
[2:07:21] jurisdictions who takes this
[2:07:22] additional step. And while it
[2:07:24] may lead itself
[2:07:25] to increased transparency,
[2:07:26] it does actually also Create
[2:07:28] additional restrictions
[2:07:29] on people's proper. And then we
[2:07:31] are actually the ones who are,
[2:07:32] quite frankly,
[2:07:33] taking the property right
[2:07:35] of a property owner
[2:07:36] to rebuild. And I think that,
[2:07:39] you know, one of my chief
[2:07:40] concerns is that we're not just
[2:07:41] talking
[2:07:42] about rebuilding after, you
[2:07:43] know, a major wildfire or a
[2:07:45] major flood when there's a lot
[2:07:46] of political pressure and a lot
[2:07:47] of attention on the community.
[2:07:49] To give the example of
[2:07:50] Stumptown that Peter raised
[2:07:52] during the Mac meeting, you
[2:07:53] know, what if a semi truck or a
[2:07:55] car takes a turn wrong and
[2:07:56] wrecks into his brewery and
[2:07:57] it's just a one one
[2:07:58] off where, you know,
[2:07:59] more than 50%
[2:08:01] of his structure is destroyed,
[2:08:02] then force
[2:08:04] to navigate consultants, try
[2:08:05] to advocate for himself
[2:08:07] without kind
[2:08:08] of having an entire community
[2:08:09] to back him. And, you know,
[2:08:11] to come to board of
[2:08:12] Supervisors meetings to ask
[2:08:13] for the kinds
[2:08:14] of things that we've done in,
[2:08:15] you know, these kinds
[2:08:17] of disasters with mass wildfire
[2:08:18] and mass structure loss. So why
[2:08:20] do we put ourselves
[2:08:21] in this situation of kind
[2:08:22] of making it more difficult on
[2:08:23] property owners?
[2:08:29] >>I'd say that, you know, for a
[2:08:31] time this was the best solution
[2:08:33] to a problem and a way
[2:08:35] to get information out there,
[2:08:37] as Supervisor Rabbit said,
[2:08:41] about being transparent about
[2:08:43] issues affecting properties.
[2:08:46] But you're right,
[2:08:48] it's been a really long time
[2:08:50] since these were enacted and
[2:08:51] they haven't been touched
[2:08:53] since. And they've carried
[2:08:54] forward in general plan, in
[2:08:56] hazard mitigation plans ever
[2:08:58] since. But as everything in the
[2:08:59] world has gotten more
[2:09:02] complicated,
[2:09:03] everything is more regulated,
[2:09:04] it does warrant another look
[2:09:06] at it again, because we should
[2:09:08] always be asking ourselves,
[2:09:09] why are we putting ourselves
[2:09:10] through this and trying
[2:09:11] to be better the next time? So
[2:09:12] as part of our update
[2:09:14] to the safety element,
[2:09:15] we do want
[2:09:16] to reexamine this and a number
[2:09:18] of other zones that we have
[2:09:20] that were created a long time
[2:09:22] ago and maybe accomplished
[2:09:23] in other ways. So it's not to
[2:09:25] say that they don't have value,
[2:09:26] but the language might need
[2:09:28] to change or things might need
[2:09:30] to get more clear. Again, back
[2:09:31] to that earlier comment
[2:09:33] of making it easy for people to
[2:09:34] understand.
[2:09:35] >>Thank you very much. And then
[2:09:37] I was wondering if you had any
[2:09:39] additional information. This is
[2:09:40] something that we just found
[2:09:41] out about, about the community
[2:09:42] rating system. My understanding
[2:09:44] is that if communities, you
[2:09:46] know, undertake kind
[2:09:47] of flood mitigation efforts,
[2:09:48] that they can receive up
[2:09:49] to a 45% discount
[2:09:51] on flood insurance premiums,
[2:09:52] which be, you know, real money
[2:09:54] in the hands of local folks who
[2:09:56] are facing ever increasing cost
[2:09:57] of living escalations. And I
[2:09:58] guess that the county used
[2:10:00] to participate in this
[2:10:02] but it lasts sometime in the
[2:10:04] 90s or early 2000s. I have no
[2:10:05] idea which department was even
[2:10:07] in charge of this. Do you have
[2:10:08] any information about this?
[2:10:09] >>So we do have our floodplain
[2:10:10] manager kind of working
[2:10:11] on an application
[2:10:13] at the moment. And we expect
[2:10:15] to have a, you know, kind
[2:10:17] of set
[2:10:19] of deadlines and an estimate
[2:10:20] on how much time it's going
[2:10:22] to take. It is a pretty
[2:10:23] significant application. One
[2:10:24] thing that we didn't mention
[2:10:26] today, but that did come up
[2:10:28] in the community meetings was
[2:10:29] in the 90s we actually got
[2:10:31] audited by FEMA and were
[2:10:32] essentially placed
[2:10:33] on probation. So they do look
[2:10:35] at things
[2:10:37] like whether we're adhering
[2:10:38] to the federal standards,
[2:10:39] things
[2:10:41] like having the prohibition in
[2:10:43] F1 increase our scorecard
[2:10:47] rating, but also take away
[2:10:49] development potential. So it
[2:10:51] could be something that gets
[2:10:54] everyone countywide a 10%
[2:10:56] discount. But it means that
[2:11:00] certain people, they're out
[2:11:02] of luck. So it's that balancing
[2:11:04] act of how do we get the most
[2:11:05] potential kind of good
[2:11:07] for everybody
[2:11:11] without leaving anybody left
[2:11:12] by the wayside. So we're doing
[2:11:13] that analysis. We are preparing
[2:11:16] a work plan because we do
[2:11:19] understand that it's a very
[2:11:22] time intensive process
[2:11:24] to do that application. Then
[2:11:26] it's another thing that we have
[2:11:27] to stick with and we'll have
[2:11:29] monitoring on. So it's not just
[2:11:30] a one time and we're good
[2:11:32] forever.
[2:11:33] >>Great.
[2:11:36] >>Thank you so much
[2:11:37] for that then. My last question
[2:11:40] is, I love some
[2:11:41] of the suggestions that you had
[2:11:42] of looking again at legal,
[2:11:43] nonconforming, looking at
[2:11:44] possible overlays. I just want
[2:11:46] to say for the record that I
[2:11:47] think that every business
[2:11:48] in an urban surface, surface
[2:11:50] area, small town is an
[2:11:52] essential business and they
[2:11:53] kind of mutually depend
[2:11:54] on one another to essentially
[2:11:55] have that critical mass
[2:11:57] to get folks in, you know,
[2:11:58] to come and, you know,
[2:11:59] purchase things at Stumptown
[2:12:01] Brewery and then, you know, go
[2:12:02] over to Farmhand. And I mean
[2:12:03] it's all, it's all sort
[2:12:05] of part of a common commercial
[2:12:06] ecosystem. And so when we're
[2:12:08] talking about possible policy
[2:12:09] medications,
[2:12:11] what's the timeline
[2:12:12] for bringing that back
[2:12:13] to the board? Is that something
[2:12:14] that we're going to look at
[2:12:15] in the general plan update?
[2:12:16] You know, what are ways that
[2:12:17] the community can provide
[2:12:18] input? Because I know that
[2:12:19] there's some strong feelings
[2:12:21] out in lower Russian river,
[2:12:22] understandably so,
[2:12:24] about this and want to make
[2:12:25] sure that this isn't just
[2:12:26] something that we'll say that
[2:12:27] we'll do sometime,
[2:12:28] but make sure that we actually,
[2:12:30] you know,
[2:12:31] are moving forward and
[2:12:32] committed
[2:12:33] to hearing that feedback,
[2:12:34] receiving that feedback and
[2:12:35] coming up with policy
[2:12:36] modifications.
[2:12:37] >>Well, one thing that I heard
[2:12:38] loud and clear at the lower
[2:12:39] Rush Nuver Mac meeting is any
[2:12:42] policy discussion that affects
[2:12:47] west county starts and ends
[2:12:48] at that body. So that means
[2:12:49] once we start something, that's
[2:12:50] the first place we're going
[2:12:51] to go in terms
[2:12:52] of things that are kind
[2:12:54] of already in process that
[2:12:55] there could be an avenue
[2:12:56] to accelerate the timelines.
[2:12:58] We will be bringing forth the
[2:13:00] public safety and environmental
[2:13:02] justice elements,
[2:13:05] two separate elements that are
[2:13:07] on the significant item
[2:13:08] calendar, I believe, for May or
[2:13:09] possibly the first meeting in
[2:13:13] June before budget. So as part
[2:13:14] of that process, we look
[2:13:15] at programs that are kind
[2:13:20] of going
[2:13:21] to govern the work plan
[2:13:22] for the next few years
[2:13:24] at the very least. So I think
[2:13:26] this perfectly aligns
[2:13:28] with that. And
[2:13:30] through that process we may be
[2:13:33] able to again identify things
[2:13:35] that we can do sooner that
[2:13:36] aren't related to zoning or
[2:13:38] building code or things like
[2:13:40] that that will require the
[2:13:42] multi stage public process and
[2:13:44] hearings and two minutes
[2:13:46] for everyone. So that's another
[2:13:48] thing that we're, we're going
[2:13:50] to be looking into.
[2:13:51] >>Great. So public safety and
[2:13:53] EJ elements coming to the board
[2:13:54] and that's an opportunity
[2:13:55] to provide direction to staff
[2:13:57] to incorporate these kinds
[2:13:58] of policies into the work plan
[2:13:59] going forward. And that's
[2:14:00] something that we can also
[2:14:02] bring to the lower Russian
[2:14:03] River. Mac have a meeting out
[2:14:04] in Greenville, hopefully
[2:14:06] at our retrofitted bank of
[2:14:07] America building. We're trying
[2:14:08] to get that up so that we can
[2:14:09] have community meetings there.
[2:14:10] And that's sort
[2:14:11] of the next steps
[2:14:12] for this.
[2:14:13] >>Yes, And I would add that
[2:14:15] even bigger than that, as part
[2:14:16] of the larger general Plan
[2:14:17] update in 2025, there's going
[2:14:19] to be multiple outreach
[2:14:20] meetings, you know, both
[2:14:22] in person and virtual. And
[2:14:23] we're exploring kind
[2:14:25] of a number of different ways
[2:14:27] to bring in different voices,
[2:14:28] different parts
[2:14:30] of the county. So that'll be
[2:14:31] another opportunity to express
[2:14:33] things that people want to see
[2:14:35] in the next general plan.
[2:14:38] >>Great. And we talked
[2:14:39] at our meeting last Friday
[2:14:40] about actually adding those
[2:14:41] dates to our calendar
[2:14:42] of significant items. So even
[2:14:43] though it's not a board
[2:14:44] meeting, we'll have it
[2:14:45] in every single Board of
[2:14:46] Supervisors agenda packet and
[2:14:47] folks have easily access to
[2:14:49] knowing when those meetings are
[2:14:50] coming up. So. Great. Last
[2:14:52] question is actually really
[2:14:53] more
[2:14:54] for the CEO and I just want
[2:14:56] to share that I feel like New
[2:14:57] Jersey is doing a much better
[2:14:58] job than California in terms
[2:14:59] of looking at flood prone
[2:15:01] communities. I actually heard a
[2:15:03] program
[2:15:04] on KQED quite some time ago
[2:15:06] about how they are proactively
[2:15:07] and totally voluntary basis,
[2:15:09] you know, offering funds
[2:15:11] to buy out properties that are
[2:15:12] in flood prone areas. And it
[2:15:13] feels like we're sort of taking
[2:15:15] the exact opposite approach,
[2:15:17] which is essentially coming in
[2:15:18] and telling people that their
[2:15:20] property in the future could be
[2:15:22] worth nothing
[2:15:24] after they've sort
[2:15:25] of poured their life savings
[2:15:26] into it. And so I just want
[2:15:27] to see if there is room
[2:15:28] in our legislative platform
[2:15:30] to consider advocating for,
[2:15:32] you know, if there are
[2:15:33] voluntary opportunities that
[2:15:34] could potentially feed into,
[2:15:36] say,
[2:15:37] that FEMA community rating
[2:15:38] system, which could help get,
[2:15:39] you know, discounts
[2:15:40] for other folks. That, that's
[2:15:41] something that I would support,
[2:15:43] which is, you know,
[2:15:44] someone who is in a super low
[2:15:45] lying area that floods all the
[2:15:46] time and they're getting tired
[2:15:47] of it, you know,
[2:15:49] wants an opportunity
[2:15:50] to be bought out, but that's an
[2:15:51] opportunity they would have
[2:15:53] available to them as opposed
[2:15:55] to kind of a, you know,
[2:15:56] force feeding approach. And so
[2:15:57] is that something that we could
[2:15:59] potentially look at in terms of
[2:16:00] legislative advocacy? I don't
[2:16:01] know how much traction we're
[2:16:02] going to get
[2:16:03] in the next four years
[2:16:04] at the federal level, but we
[2:16:05] can always ask the state,
[2:16:06] who I believe is also going to
[2:16:07] be taking a big budget hit as a
[2:16:09] result of what happened. Just
[2:16:10] happened in LA.
[2:16:11] >>Correct.
[2:16:12] >>We will take it back and
[2:16:13] consider it. I feel like your
[2:16:14] current legislative platform
[2:16:16] principles in terms
[2:16:17] of the climate, you know,
[2:16:18] protection and resiliency is
[2:16:19] where we could fit that kind
[2:16:20] of conversation.
[2:16:21] But as you said,
[2:16:22] whether or not we'll get a lot
[2:16:23] of traction in the short term
[2:16:25] is probably optimistic.
[2:16:27] >>At least we can start the
[2:16:28] conversation. Maybe five years
[2:16:29] from now we can get the
[2:16:30] funding. All right with that,
[2:16:32] are there any other comments or
[2:16:33] questions from my colleagues?
[2:16:34] Seeing none. If anyone would
[2:16:37] like to make a motion
[2:16:39] on this item,
[2:16:40] would entertain a motion. Oh,
[2:16:43] and I'm gonna officially,
[2:16:45] sorry, officially close the
[2:16:46] public hearing and I heard
[2:16:47] of a motion. Okay. Do we have a
[2:16:48] second from Supervisor Corsi? I
[2:16:49] think he beat you
[2:16:51] by a second. And could we
[2:16:52] please do a voice vote on this
[2:16:53] one or a roll call vote?
[2:16:55] >>[ ROLL CALL ]
[2:17:12] >>Chair Hopkins and I will be a
[2:17:13] no on A and a yes on B. I do
[2:17:15] believe that this needs
[2:17:16] to pass. It has passed
[2:17:17] with the support
[2:17:18] of my colleagues.
[2:17:19] But I just do want
[2:17:20] to register the protest
[2:17:21] of whether it's, you know,
[2:17:22] appropriate for us to take
[2:17:23] actions that negatively impact
[2:17:24] property owners. So no on A,
[2:17:26] yes on B. With that,
[2:17:31] the motion does carry. And
[2:17:33] thank you all so much for your
[2:17:34] presentation and a special
[2:17:35] thank you for heading out to
[2:17:36] Guernville. I know,
[2:17:38] it was a very robust meeting,
[2:17:39] as we would say, out in West
[2:17:40] County. You all were amazing,
[2:17:41] handled the questions
[2:17:42] excellently and I think really
[2:17:44] internalized the feedback and
[2:17:45] brought it back. So I'm looking
[2:17:47] forward to next steps on the EJ
[2:17:48] and public safety elements.
[2:17:50] Thank you very much. And
[2:17:53] with that, we will be going
[2:17:54] ahead and moving on
[2:17:56] to our next agenda item,
[2:17:58] which is agenda item 32. And I
[2:18:01] believe that we have Adam
[2:18:02] Brand from County Council and
[2:18:04] Dan Mason coming up from
[2:18:05] Sonoma Water to present this
[2:18:06] one.
[2:18:12] >>Yeah.
[2:18:24] >>You will have comment
[2:18:25] on matters not listed
[2:18:26] on the agenda. It will be
[2:18:28] after the conclusion of our
[2:18:32] regularly scheduled items,
[2:18:33] so it will be a bit later. We
[2:18:35] have two more after this one.
[2:18:36] No, two more. Total this,
[2:18:37] including this one.
[2:18:40] >>Take it away whenever you're
[2:18:41] ready.
[2:19:17] >>Okay. Good morning,
[2:19:19] chair and board members. My
[2:19:21] name is Dan Mason
[2:19:23] from the real Estate section
[2:19:24] of Sonoma Water. I am here
[2:19:29] to request board approval
[2:19:30] of one of the two resolutions
[2:19:31] being presented declaring our
[2:19:33] Hewitt street property surplus
[2:19:35] land and our intent to sell.
[2:19:37] Sorry. Sonoma Water is required
[2:19:48] to follow the Surplus Land act
[2:19:49] and present to you
[2:19:50] for your approval one of these
[2:19:51] two resolution options.
[2:19:53] Resolution 1 would declare the
[2:19:57] surplus property exempt surplus
[2:19:59] land with our intent to sell.
[2:20:01] Resolution number two would
[2:20:05] declare the surplus property
[2:20:08] surplus land with our intent
[2:20:10] to sell. Either option is
[2:20:13] available to Sonoma Water
[2:20:15] because it is recognized as a
[2:20:17] district within the Surplus
[2:20:19] Land act. Approval approving
[2:20:24] Resolution 1 declaring the
[2:20:27] property exempt surplus land
[2:20:29] would allow us
[2:20:32] to sell the property
[2:20:34] by a public sealed bid auction
[2:20:36] to be held at the office of
[2:20:39] Sonoma Water. We recommend this
[2:20:41] option because it would help
[2:20:43] expedite the sale of the
[2:20:45] property and reduce our current
[2:20:47] holding costs. Our previous
[2:20:49] attempt to sell the property
[2:20:51] for affordable housing was
[2:20:52] unsuccessful and has required
[2:20:54] us to own the property much
[2:20:56] longer than anticipated. The
[2:20:59] process. The process
[2:21:01] to sell the property outlined
[2:21:03] in Resolution 1 would be first
[2:21:05] to notify the California
[2:21:07] Department of Housing and
[2:21:09] Community Development
[2:21:10] of the surplus of the exempt
[2:21:12] surplus land declaration
[2:21:14] for their approval. Next, we
[2:21:17] would hold the public sealed
[2:21:19] bid auction at sonoma Water
[2:21:20] on April 9 and announce the
[2:21:23] highest bidder
[2:21:25] at the auction. Once a purchase
[2:21:27] agreement is approved
[2:21:30] by the buyer and Sonoma
[2:21:32] Water, we will return
[2:21:34] to the board
[2:21:37] for your approval. The
[2:21:38] Surplus Land act would require
[2:21:40] the purchase agreement to
[2:21:42] contain a 15% affordable
[2:21:45] housing requirement if 10 or
[2:21:47] more housing units are built.
[2:21:51] Approving resolution number
[2:21:53] two, declaring the property
[2:21:54] surplus land would require us
[2:21:56] for a second time
[2:21:58] to offer the property for sale
[2:22:00] to local government agencies
[2:22:03] and housing sponsors identified
[2:22:06] by the California Department
[2:22:08] of Housing and Community
[2:22:10] Development. HCD. The process
[2:22:14] to sell the property by
[2:22:16] Resolution 2 would be first
[2:22:19] to send a notice
[2:22:21] of availability an NOA to the
[2:22:23] local government agencies and
[2:22:26] HCD housing sponsors and wait
[2:22:28] 60 days for any interest
[2:22:30] to purchase the property. If
[2:22:32] interest is shown, negotiate
[2:22:33] with potential buyers for
[2:22:35] at least 90 days
[2:22:37] to reach an agreement
[2:22:39] to buy the property. If a
[2:22:41] purchase agreement is reached
[2:22:42] between the buyer and Sonoma
[2:22:44] Water, we will return
[2:22:46] to the board
[2:22:48] for your approval. The
[2:22:49] Surplus Land act would require
[2:22:51] the purchase agreement to
[2:22:52] contain a 25% affordable
[2:22:54] housing requirement. If no
[2:22:57] government agency or housing
[2:22:58] sponsor responds,
[2:23:01] or if negotiations are
[2:23:03] unsuccessful, we will return
[2:23:05] to the board again
[2:23:07] to request approval to hold a
[2:23:08] public sealed bid auction
[2:23:10] to sell the property. Prior
[2:23:17] board actions In 2001, Sonoma
[2:23:19] Water purchased the Hewitt
[2:23:22] street property as part
[2:23:23] of a settlement. In 2015,
[2:23:26] Sonoma Water completed a lot
[2:23:28] line adjustment
[2:23:30] to isolate the Santa Cruz
[2:23:32] Santa Rosa Creek portion
[2:23:34] of the property. In 2017,
[2:23:36] Sonoma Water declared the
[2:23:39] property surplus land and the
[2:23:41] property was offered for sale
[2:23:43] to local and state agencies.
[2:23:46] In 2019, Sonoma Water agreed
[2:23:50] to sell the property to the
[2:23:52] Community Development
[2:23:53] Commission and entered
[2:23:55] into a purchase agreement. In
[2:23:58] 2022, the Community
[2:24:01] Development Commission and
[2:24:02] Sonoma Water canceled the sale
[2:24:04] of the property.
[2:24:06] >>Thank you.
[2:24:12] >>And with that I will bring it
[2:24:13] back and hand it over
[2:24:14] to the district supervisor,
[2:24:15] Supervisor Corsi.
[2:24:16] >>Thank you. Can you. Well,
[2:24:18] in 2019 was community
[2:24:24] development Commission. That
[2:24:26] was that. This was not out
[2:24:27] on the open market. This was
[2:24:29] just an offer
[2:24:30] between the water agency and
[2:24:32] the in the cdc. Is that. Is
[2:24:34] that what I'm hearing here
[2:24:36] through.
[2:24:38] >>The chair, Supervisor
[2:24:39] Corsi? That was through the
[2:24:40] surplus lands process.
[2:24:42] >>Okay. So other people had
[2:24:43] other entities had an
[2:24:44] opportunity to to bid
[2:24:45] at that.
[2:24:46] >>Time to provide us
[2:24:48] notification that they were
[2:24:49] interested.
[2:24:50] >>And to my recollection, CDC
[2:24:51] was the only entity that was
[2:24:53] interested.
[2:24:56] >>Okay, that's what I was
[2:24:57] getting to do. We expect
[2:25:00] different results this time.
[2:25:03] >>I'm not sure.
[2:25:08] >>Is this zone for multi family
[2:25:10] housing?
[2:25:11] >>It is.
[2:25:12] >>It is.
[2:25:14] >>We do frequently both my
[2:25:15] office and Sonoma Water receive
[2:25:16] inquiries
[2:25:17] about the availability
[2:25:18] of this property two,
[2:25:20] three times a year at least.
[2:25:21] Not from agencies or other
[2:25:23] governments, but just from
[2:25:25] interested persons.
[2:25:26] >>Okay, thank you.
[2:25:29] >>Any other questions
[2:25:31] from my colleagues? Seeing
[2:25:32] none. I would ask if any
[2:25:34] members of the public wish
[2:25:35] to speak on this item.
[2:25:36] Welcome, Dwayne Roselyn.
[2:25:37] >>I go past this property all
[2:25:40] the time. I ask you
[2:25:42] to use the option 2. I do
[2:25:44] believe that there are
[2:25:48] opportunities
[2:25:49] to help veterans. Petaluma just
[2:25:51] worked with PEP Housing and did
[2:25:54] a project that utilized project
[2:25:56] based housing vouchers to help
[2:25:59] finance that multi person
[2:26:02] housing situation. Because this
[2:26:06] is not really well known that
[2:26:08] this property is available. I
[2:26:10] believe you should take option
[2:26:11] to open it up, let the
[2:26:14] community know what's possible
[2:26:15] and that affordable housing
[2:26:17] could go in there and we could
[2:26:19] utilize housing vouchers. I've
[2:26:21] mentioned
[2:26:22] in the past that the Santa
[2:26:24] Rosa Housing Authority, which
[2:26:27] has the control for the HUD
[2:26:29] Vash vouchers
[2:26:31] for the whole county, had
[2:26:32] over 90 available and the
[2:26:34] River City Project in Petaluma
[2:26:37] used 20 to get their project
[2:26:39] jump started with funding. So
[2:26:41] this is a way in which we could
[2:26:43] get multi housing built right
[2:26:44] there near the creek. And if
[2:26:46] you made it for veterans, they
[2:26:48] would be somebody that could
[2:26:49] help with local. One might say
[2:26:51] oversight. You know,
[2:26:53] veterans go
[2:26:55] out and they clean up areas.
[2:26:56] We do all kinds
[2:26:57] of good stuff. And this is the
[2:26:59] opportunity for that corner.
[2:27:00] If you put the picture back up
[2:27:02] there,
[2:27:04] you could see it better. That
[2:27:07] corner is really an optimal
[2:27:08] site right next to the creek
[2:27:10] and you have some homeless
[2:27:11] folks live
[2:27:13] across the street coming off
[2:27:16] of Dutton Avenue. This is an
[2:27:17] excellent way to get people
[2:27:19] into housing
[2:27:21] near the city center. Transit
[2:27:22] oriented, all those kinds
[2:27:25] of things that you folks talk
[2:27:28] about with resiliency,
[2:27:29] sustainability, etc. Please go
[2:27:30] to option two, open it up. You
[2:27:31] can always come back and relook
[2:27:32] at it again if it doesn't work.
[2:27:34] But I'm the optimist. I'll come
[2:27:35] back and keep saying we can get
[2:27:37] veterans housing there if you
[2:27:38] will work with us. Thank you.
[2:27:39] >>Thank you very much, Duane.
[2:27:41] Anyone else wish to speak
[2:27:42] on this item? Welcome,
[2:27:43] Gregory.
[2:27:45] >>Thank you, Chair Hopkins. I'm
[2:27:48] optimistic that this property
[2:27:51] can be developed. If we had
[2:27:53] had, if we'd been working only
[2:27:56] with the Community Development
[2:27:59] department when Home Key came
[2:28:01] about, we'd never have had any
[2:28:03] of the applications that were
[2:28:05] successful in Sonoma county
[2:28:07] to turn hotels
[2:28:08] into low income housing. It was
[2:28:10] the energy that came out of
[2:28:11] Dave Kiff and the health
[2:28:13] department that did it, not
[2:28:15] community development. I think
[2:28:17] community development can be
[2:28:19] educated and can be inspired
[2:28:20] to take on this property.
[2:28:22] Because I think there are
[2:28:25] applicants in the community,
[2:28:26] nonprofits, the same people
[2:28:28] who've been building housing
[2:28:30] who use the formula that I used
[2:28:31] long ago, which is if you get
[2:28:33] free land and you get some
[2:28:35] support from the state, you can
[2:28:36] build low income housing. This
[2:28:43] is exactly that design, just
[2:28:44] like the property up on
[2:28:45] Brickway. When the state has
[2:28:47] property, when you have
[2:28:48] property and you're able
[2:28:49] to be able
[2:28:50] to encourage development by
[2:28:52] those nonprofits who will take
[2:28:53] small projects. The problem now
[2:28:55] is every Time I offer something
[2:28:57] to Burbank or Midpen or anybody
[2:28:58] else, they go. Not enough
[2:29:00] profit, not big enough. The
[2:29:02] small projects deserve your
[2:29:04] support. This is a small
[2:29:05] project that can be done. And I
[2:29:07] urge you, like Dwayne did, to
[2:29:08] take option two and give a
[2:29:11] chance for this property to be
[2:29:13] used.
[2:29:16] >>Thank you very much. Are
[2:29:18] there any other members
[2:29:19] of the public who wish
[2:29:21] to speak? Welcome.
[2:29:23] >>How you doing? My name is
[2:29:24] Jason. I'm
[2:29:25] with a local nonprofit. We
[2:29:26] actually have an affordable
[2:29:27] housing solution that we're
[2:29:28] working on and we want
[2:29:29] to invite people to come look
[2:29:31] at our models that the first
[2:29:35] three that just came
[2:29:38] to our headquarters were
[2:29:39] at the corner of Fulton and
[2:29:40] River Road. They're aircraft
[2:29:42] aluminum. They're extremely
[2:29:45] durable. We are working
[2:29:48] with local nonprofits, the
[2:29:50] Line foundation, on doing
[2:29:52] vocational training and
[2:29:54] actually assembling these here,
[2:29:56] hopefully in Sonoma County.
[2:29:57] >>And our CEO is
[2:29:59] in talks right.
[2:30:01] >>Now with people from LA
[2:30:03] to get these units possibly
[2:30:04] down there.
[2:30:06] >>And we want to.
[2:30:07] >>He was affected by the fire
[2:30:09] from 2017 and because of that
[2:30:11] came up.
[2:30:12] >>With a solution and we can
[2:30:14] all.
[2:30:16] >>Come together as a community.
[2:30:17] >>That's what I love doing.
[2:30:18] >>I love networking.
[2:30:20] >>I'm a volunteer for this
[2:30:23] organization and.
[2:30:24] >>Organizations like the Lyme
[2:30:26] foundation that does vocational
[2:30:27] training, empowering youth and
[2:30:30] veterans.
[2:30:31] >>We want to work
[2:30:32] with veterans.
[2:30:33] >>We can, we have a solution.
[2:30:34] We can launch this from Sonoma
[2:30:36] county and it could be disaster
[2:30:38] relief, housing,
[2:30:39] permanent housing. They're
[2:30:40] multi purpose housing.
[2:30:42] >>So we just want
[2:30:43] to invite everybody
[2:30:45] to come check them out
[2:30:46] firsthand.
[2:30:47] >>We can give you a Tour.
[2:30:48] We're at 3362 Fulton Road as
[2:30:49] our headquarters and we have
[2:30:51] three of these units.
[2:30:53] >>400 square feet, one
[2:30:56] of them and.
[2:30:58] >>The other one's 200 square
[2:30:59] feet.
[2:31:01] >>Studio housing.
[2:31:03] >>Permanent solution, disaster
[2:31:04] relief solution.
[2:31:07] >>It's a win, win. We can,
[2:31:08] we can totally launch from this
[2:31:10] county something that can
[2:31:11] impact the whole world,
[2:31:12] the whole country. Thank you.
[2:31:16] >>Thank you so much
[2:31:17] for coming. I drive
[2:31:18] by those all the time. And
[2:31:19] there was a lengthy debate
[2:31:20] on social media about whether
[2:31:21] the dog was real or not. And it
[2:31:22] is a cardboard dog. It never
[2:31:23] moves. No one is trapping a dog
[2:31:25] in this thing on the side of
[2:31:26] Fulton Road. Do any other
[2:31:27] members of the public wish
[2:31:30] to speak on this item? And I
[2:31:31] really want to check it out.
[2:31:33] By the way, those look really,
[2:31:35] really amazing. Seeing none. I
[2:31:37] will bring it back
[2:31:38] to the board and I will look
[2:31:39] at my colleague from the third
[2:31:40] district.
[2:31:42] >>Just one more quick question.
[2:31:43] Does staff have an opinion
[2:31:44] on which of these two
[2:31:46] resolutions is more likely
[2:31:47] to result in A successful,
[2:31:48] successful transaction.
[2:31:49] >>Well, we recommend solution
[2:31:51] one, and we do because
[2:31:54] after speaking with the city
[2:31:57] planning department, they kind
[2:31:58] of emphasize because it's
[2:32:00] in a historical district,
[2:32:02] preservation district,
[2:32:06] and the challenges with getting
[2:32:07] something developed there under
[2:32:10] those terms and conditions.
[2:32:13] And the size of the parcel
[2:32:17] would not necessarily lend
[2:32:19] itself attractive
[2:32:21] to affordable housing
[2:32:24] developers out of the area. So
[2:32:27] we would prefer
[2:32:32] to expedite the sale of it. We
[2:32:35] would notify everybody, all the
[2:32:37] affordable housing sponsors
[2:32:39] on HCD's list to the auction
[2:32:41] that we would hold at Sonoma
[2:32:43] Water and allow them,
[2:32:48] of course, to come make a bid
[2:32:52] for the property. As Adam has
[2:32:53] mentioned, we have had a couple
[2:32:57] local neighbors interested
[2:32:58] in the property,
[2:33:01] not necessarily
[2:33:03] for multi unit, but
[2:33:04] to develop the property
[2:33:06] for their own home.
[2:33:08] >>Okay. All right, I'll move.
[2:33:13] Staff's Recommendation of
[2:33:15] Resolution 1.
[2:33:17] >>And do we have a second
[2:33:18] on that?
[2:33:19] >>Yeah, I'm second that.
[2:33:20] >>All right, second from
[2:33:21] Supervisor Gore. And we will do
[2:33:22] a roll call vote
[2:33:23] on this item, please.
[2:33:24] >>[ ROLL CALL ]
[2:33:46] >>And a quick question for
[2:33:47] County Council. When
[2:33:48] Supervisor Hermosio comes back,
[2:33:49] can she sort of add her vote
[2:33:50] to this item or will we need to
[2:33:51] retake that?
[2:33:52] >>I would recommend we either
[2:33:53] wait till she comes back
[2:33:54] to take the formal vote or. Or
[2:33:55] counter as an absent.
[2:33:56] >>Okay, she might. Okay, we'll
[2:33:58] count her as an absent and go
[2:33:59] ahead and move forward. Thank
[2:34:01] you very much. Thank you
[2:34:02] for the public comment. Really
[2:34:04] want to check out those cool,
[2:34:05] tiny homes in Fulton. So thank
[2:34:07] you for bringing that up. And
[2:34:09] with that, we're just going
[2:34:11] to take a moment to transition
[2:34:13] between staff teams and we'll
[2:34:15] be moving on to item 33, which
[2:34:18] is our options to establish a
[2:34:20] two year county imposed
[2:34:21] development impact fee
[2:34:22] reduction program. And thank
[2:34:28] you so much to the Sonoma
[2:34:29] Water team, hoping that we get
[2:34:30] to see that property turned
[2:34:31] into housing. It's exciting.
[2:34:32] Good morning, Chair Hopkins,
[2:34:40] members of the board,
[2:34:41] I'm happy to be here for our
[2:34:42] team's first word presentation.
[2:34:44] >>Crystal Carry Harrow, deputy
[2:34:47] County Administrator for.
[2:34:49] >>The Strategic Initiatives
[2:34:50] division.
[2:34:52] >>And I am here with Ethan
[2:34:53] Pawson.
[2:34:54] >>From county Council's office
[2:34:55] and Jennifer larocque.
[2:34:56] >>One of the CAO analysts here
[2:34:58] to discuss the impact
[2:34:59] of these reductions
[2:35:00] for affordable housing. And I'm
[2:35:02] going to turn it over to
[2:35:05] Jennifer, who's been the lead
[2:35:07] on this effort.
[2:35:09] >>Thank you, Christel.
[2:35:12] Before I get going, I'll offer
[2:35:15] the chair an option. I can go
[2:35:16] through our brief slide
[2:35:18] presentation which contains
[2:35:21] information
[2:35:22] in the staff report, or you can
[2:35:24] provide a brief verbal overview
[2:35:25] and then we can jump into
[2:35:26] discussion.
[2:35:28] >>Why don't we do a brief
[2:35:31] verbal overview and then we can
[2:35:32] refer to slides if there are
[2:35:33] any questions
[2:35:34] from my colleagues. Thank you
[2:35:36] so much.
[2:35:37] >>Sounds great. First and
[2:35:39] foremost, I would like to thank
[2:35:40] my department and partners in
[2:35:41] the audience here who provided
[2:35:43] data and feedback on program
[2:35:46] options that really made this
[2:35:47] item possible today. My verbal
[2:35:49] comments will include three
[2:35:53] parts, Brief Background, the
[2:35:55] Program and Next Steps as
[2:35:56] background, the Board directed
[2:35:58] staff
[2:36:00] to pursue a nexus study based
[2:36:01] on square footage and
[2:36:03] compliance with AB602 and
[2:36:04] present interim options
[2:36:05] to reduce fees
[2:36:08] for affordable housing. So the
[2:36:09] options you have here today
[2:36:11] represent reduced parks and
[2:36:12] traffic fees, the traffic fees
[2:36:14] for both countywide and
[2:36:15] Sonoma Valley for a two year
[2:36:17] period while the county
[2:36:19] establishes that nexus fee or
[2:36:21] nexus study with regards to the
[2:36:25] program and program
[2:36:27] development. The units that
[2:36:28] would likely come through
[2:36:31] to receive a building permit,
[2:36:33] which is when we would issue a
[2:36:34] fee reduction,
[2:36:36] are units that are already
[2:36:38] in our entitlement process.
[2:36:40] You'll hear us refer
[2:36:41] to those as the pipeline.
[2:36:42] That's the land use approval
[2:36:44] process. Of note,
[2:36:45] there are currently 30 times
[2:36:46] more very low, low and moderate
[2:36:48] income pipeline units than the
[2:36:49] recent average. And
[2:36:51] over the past 20 years we've
[2:36:52] seen that 25%
[2:36:57] of pipeline units do not make
[2:36:58] it to building permits. So
[2:36:59] that's what this program would
[2:37:01] be trying to solve. We're
[2:37:02] trying to reduce that dropout
[2:37:03] rate knowing that the majority
[2:37:05] of that 25% is likely
[2:37:07] affordable housing units.
[2:37:08] In terms of where to apply this
[2:37:09] program and where we need
[2:37:13] to see increased housing in
[2:37:15] Sonoma county, we evaluated our
[2:37:17] regional housing needs
[2:37:18] allocation, arena allocation.
[2:37:20] We need
[2:37:21] to see increased production
[2:37:25] in very low low units
[2:37:26] in our arena allocation. We
[2:37:31] also recognize that the
[2:37:32] majority of moderate units are
[2:37:33] usually accessory dwelling
[2:37:35] units that we can count towards
[2:37:36] arena but aren't necessarily
[2:37:37] deed restricted. So the program
[2:37:39] options we've developed we use
[2:37:43] criteria identified
[2:37:45] in the staff report. Part
[2:37:46] of that relies on rena. The
[2:37:48] three options that are
[2:37:49] presented to the board today
[2:37:52] for consideration are to reduce
[2:37:55] the parks and traffic fee
[2:37:58] by 100% for very low,
[2:38:01] low and moderate units,
[2:38:04] to reduce parks and traffic
[2:38:06] with square footage based tiers
[2:38:07] for very low,
[2:38:10] low and moderate or to reduce
[2:38:12] parks and traffic square
[2:38:14] footage based tiers
[2:38:15] for very low and low
[2:38:17] with a separate tier
[2:38:19] for moderate income. Each of
[2:38:21] those options the board has the
[2:38:24] ability
[2:38:25] to consider capping the program
[2:38:27] at either half arena
[2:38:28] obligation, our full arena
[2:38:29] obligation, or no cap, which
[2:38:31] essentially would have the
[2:38:33] potential of including all
[2:38:34] affordable pipeline units.
[2:38:35] Staff identified that Option 3
[2:38:39] Captive the full Rena
[2:38:41] obligation best meets the
[2:38:43] program criteria outlined
[2:38:44] in the staff report. Of note,
[2:38:48] in fiscal year 2324, Roads and
[2:38:50] Parks received a combined 1.5
[2:38:51] million
[2:38:52] in impact fee revenue. So staff
[2:38:53] recommend allocating 1.5
[2:38:55] million per year
[2:38:57] during the program. The two
[2:38:58] year program to backfill actual
[2:39:00] waived fees capped at that 1.5
[2:39:01] so that departments can
[2:39:04] continue the current level of
[2:39:06] project planning and
[2:39:07] implementation in terms
[2:39:14] of next steps. If the board
[2:39:16] finds one
[2:39:17] of these options suitable,
[2:39:19] staff will return
[2:39:20] with a resolution
[2:39:21] to implement reduced fees in
[2:39:23] February and a request for
[2:39:25] $1.5 million in contingencies
[2:39:27] for the first year of the
[2:39:29] program and staff would
[2:39:30] recommend allocating 1.5
[2:39:32] million to the program
[2:39:35] in fiscal year 2526 budget and
[2:39:36] the program would continue
[2:39:37] through the end
[2:39:38] of calendar year 2026 or until
[2:39:40] the county adopts an updated
[2:39:41] NEXUS study and fee schedule
[2:39:42] for traffic and parks,
[2:39:44] whichever comes first. That
[2:39:45] concludes my comments.
[2:39:46] >>Thank you so much
[2:39:47] for the overview and for the
[2:39:48] excellent staff report. I am
[2:39:49] going to go to members of the
[2:39:50] public. I know there are some
[2:39:51] folks who have been waiting
[2:39:52] quite some time
[2:39:53] for this item. So everyone will
[2:39:54] have two minutes and I would
[2:39:56] welcome the first commenter.
[2:39:58] It looks like it's going
[2:39:59] to be Duane
[2:40:01] to the podium.
[2:40:02] >>My name is Duane Duitt. I'm a
[2:40:03] member of the Sonoma County
[2:40:04] Housing Advocacy Group which
[2:40:05] was formed fully 30 years ago
[2:40:08] because of the dearth of rental
[2:40:09] residential affordable housing.
[2:40:11] I have just listened to the
[2:40:15] short staff presentation number
[2:40:16] three, the option that seems
[2:40:19] to be the best in the way. We
[2:40:21] want to recommend that you only
[2:40:23] apply these things to very low
[2:40:24] and low income units. Moderate
[2:40:27] gets built. They're not having
[2:40:30] any problem getting that done.
[2:40:31] The biggest problem is getting
[2:40:33] the housing
[2:40:34] for extremely low income, very
[2:40:36] low income and low income
[2:40:39] people. This is where it's
[2:40:40] always been a problem. That's
[2:40:42] why housing authorities were
[2:40:43] formed in sonoma county over
[2:40:46] 60 years ago and we've always
[2:40:49] been running behind
[2:40:50] on the affordable housing
[2:40:52] for rental residential, not
[2:40:54] for moderate. That's getting
[2:40:56] taken care of. So please,
[2:40:58] because you have
[2:40:59] to carefully tailor this to
[2:41:01] make sure you don't lose the
[2:41:02] money that might be helpful.
[2:41:03] Staff has presented something
[2:41:05] that seems reasonable. Give it
[2:41:07] a try, come back and revisit it
[2:41:09] if need be. But make sure that
[2:41:11] this is targeted specifically.
[2:41:12] Extremely low income,
[2:41:14] very low income and low income.
[2:41:17] Moderate always takes care
[2:41:18] of itself. Thank you kindly for
[2:41:20] your time.
[2:41:22] >>Thank you very much. Good
[2:41:23] morning and so good to see you
[2:41:31] in chambers.
[2:41:32] >>Yeah hello there. Sorry, I
[2:41:33] just had foot surgery. That's
[2:41:34] why I'm a Little slower than
[2:41:35] usual.
[2:41:36] >>Good morning, members
[2:41:37] of the board.
[2:41:38] >>Special shout out to
[2:41:39] Supervisor Ed Morcillo.
[2:41:40] Congratulations.
[2:41:42] >>I'm Al Erma. I'm representing
[2:41:44] the Sonoma County Hospitality
[2:41:45] association this morning. We
[2:41:46] like to say we represent
[2:41:48] about 20,000 employees across
[2:41:49] the various hospitality sector
[2:41:51] and businesses in Sonoma
[2:41:53] County. We're really here
[2:41:54] housing, affordable housing is
[2:41:56] ike a top priority. As
[2:41:57] mentioned, I think Sue Rice
[2:41:59] Hopkins mentioned,
[2:42:00] as I was driving in, really
[2:42:01] supporting our workforce and
[2:42:02] housing is like job one. So
[2:42:04] we're here to support that. We
[2:42:05] think these impact fees,
[2:42:06] whether right izing them,
[2:42:08] lowering them or waiving them
[2:42:09] entirely, is very important if
[2:42:10] it provides. A modest incentive
[2:42:12] to housing developers. And the
[2:42:14] hospitality association
[2:42:16] supports that. So we support
[2:42:17] the board adopting today. One
[2:42:20] of the recommendations or one
[2:42:22] of the recommendations from the
[2:42:25] department regarding that. And
[2:42:28] thank you for your
[2:42:29] consideration.
[2:42:30] >>I did want to just throw in
[2:42:33] another comment regarding the
[2:42:34] discussion
[2:42:35] about insurance that was
[2:42:36] on the previous item. It's a
[2:42:37] huge issue. And as you know,
[2:42:38] I work
[2:42:39] with economic development more
[2:42:40] before So it's like a huge
[2:42:41] issue requires I think,
[2:42:42] a separate whole discussion
[2:42:44] about it So I would encourage
[2:42:46] you to do that. And regarding
[2:42:47] the FEMA mapping. Supervisor
[2:42:48] Rabbit mentioned,
[2:42:50] I think that's an issue too,
[2:42:51] something that needs to be
[2:42:53] taken up. I think the mapping
[2:42:54] just comes top down
[2:42:55] to our local units
[2:42:56] of government. The lady in
[2:42:57] Petaluma mentioned that she
[2:42:59] lives two blocks or three
[2:43:00] blocks from the river and they
[2:43:01] arbitrarily increased her
[2:43:02] insurance, I think, which I
[2:43:04] think that river hasn't flooded
[2:43:07] in, I don't know, 100 years
[2:43:08] maybe. So it is worth some more
[2:43:10] attention. Thank you for your
[2:43:12] time.
[2:43:15] >>Thank you so much for your
[2:43:17] comments. Welcome.
[2:43:18] >>Hi, good morning, board.
[2:43:20] Pat McDonnell. I'm the housing
[2:43:21] team supervisor at Legal Aid
[2:43:23] of Sonoma County. I am
[2:43:24] in support
[2:43:26] of the proposal brought
[2:43:27] before you today to waive or
[2:43:29] diminish impact fees. As a
[2:43:32] housing attorney who works full
[2:43:35] time on trying to keep people
[2:43:37] in housing, I can tell you that
[2:43:39] the work that we do at Legal
[2:43:41] Aid is very important,
[2:43:43] but it is not the full solution
[2:43:45] by any stretch
[2:43:47] of the imagination. What so
[2:43:48] many of my clients need is
[2:43:50] housing options. You know,
[2:43:52] more attorneys are great, but
[2:43:53] more attorneys can't save
[2:43:55] everyone. We need to make sure
[2:43:57] that we have sufficient housing
[2:43:58] to put people in. We talk all
[2:43:59] the time
[2:44:01] about a housing crisis, and I'm
[2:44:02] sure pretty much everyone up at
[2:44:03] the dais has had the experience
[2:44:05] of talking
[2:44:06] to a first responder, a fire
[2:44:07] chief, a police chief, and,
[2:44:09] you know,
[2:44:10] saying anything that you need,
[2:44:12] let me know, it's yours.
[2:44:14] Right. That is,
[2:44:15] the response that we often have
[2:44:16] in a crisis is we pull any
[2:44:17] resource, any policy tool, any
[2:44:19] policy lever that might be
[2:44:20] needed to resolve the crisis.
[2:44:21] But when it comes to housing,
[2:44:23] because of the nature
[2:44:24] of the crisis that it builds
[2:44:25] over the course of generations
[2:44:27] and it takes so long
[2:44:28] to resolve,
[2:44:29] we often don't put everything
[2:44:31] on the table that we ought
[2:44:32] to when we talk about trying
[2:44:33] to resolve the crisis. And so I
[2:44:35] encourage you to think of this
[2:44:36] crisis the way you would think
[2:44:37] of any other crisis. Any policy
[2:44:39] lever that is at your disposal
[2:44:40] is something that should be
[2:44:42] on the table. I encourage you
[2:44:44] to pull all of the levers. We
[2:44:46] are in such a crisis,
[2:44:47] and it requires the leadership
[2:44:49] of this board
[2:44:50] to make sure that we get out
[2:44:52] of it. Thank you.
[2:44:54] >>Thank you so much, Pat.
[2:44:56] Welcome.
[2:44:57] >>Good morning, chair and board
[2:44:58] members Nicholas Birtzel,
[2:44:59] representing Providence and our
[2:45:00] three acute care hospitals in
[2:45:03] Sonoma County. Providence is
[2:45:05] very supportive
[2:45:06] of housing development,
[2:45:09] specifically low and moderate
[2:45:10] income housing. We invest a
[2:45:12] significant amount specifically
[2:45:20] via our community benefit
[2:45:21] program, again here in support
[2:45:23] of the proposal to eliminate or
[2:45:24] reduce impact fees. It will
[2:45:25] spur economic development. We
[2:45:26] thank your wonderful staff here
[2:45:27] who has pointed out that
[2:45:28] significant resources are
[2:45:29] needed to address this issue
[2:45:30] and waiving these fees will
[2:45:31] spur development. We are
[2:45:32] supportive specifically
[2:45:33] of option one, which is the
[2:45:34] largest investment obviously
[2:45:35] in housing development.
[2:45:36] However, again,
[2:45:37] very supportive of all three.
[2:45:38] >>Options or the two additional
[2:45:39] options as.
[2:45:40] >>Well, should the board find
[2:45:41] that more preferable. Again,
[2:45:43] all
[2:45:44] of these are budget conscious.
[2:45:45] They're achievable, and within
[2:45:46] a short term.
[2:45:48] >>Will spur additional
[2:45:49] development,
[2:45:50] which is important.
[2:45:51] >>Not only to our patients,
[2:45:53] but to our caregivers. So,
[2:45:54] again, thank you for
[2:45:55] considering this very important
[2:45:56] issue. Thank you so much.
[2:45:57] >>Thank you so much.
[2:45:58] Nicholas. Welcome.
[2:45:59] >>Good morning. I'm Harry
[2:46:00] Davidian. I'm CEO of Digital
[2:46:02] Sensing and Control, a company
[2:46:03] based here in Sonoma County. I
[2:46:04] want to start out
[2:46:06] by commending the staff
[2:46:07] for this work they have done
[2:46:09] into developing these three
[2:46:10] proposals that you're
[2:46:11] considering today. And I think
[2:46:13] they provide a sound basis
[2:46:14] for you to make a decision.
[2:46:15] For me, the starting point of
[2:46:16] this discussion is this
[2:46:17] terrific report that was
[2:46:20] prepared by Generation
[2:46:21] Housing. Key points that I take
[2:46:23] away from that report are
[2:46:24] Sonoma County's population is
[2:46:25] aging and is aging faster than
[2:46:27] the state as a whole. An older
[2:46:28] population tends
[2:46:30] to need smaller housing units,
[2:46:33] but our housing stock is skewed
[2:46:36] toward larger units and there's
[2:46:40] a significant deficit with one
[2:46:42] to two bedroom units. 3. The
[2:46:43] cost
[2:46:44] of housing have risen rapidly.
[2:46:47] This has priced many people
[2:46:48] out of the market,
[2:46:49] especially younger People just
[2:46:51] starting out. What do these
[2:46:52] facts mean? There is a mismatch
[2:46:54] between the type of housing
[2:46:56] needed and the housing that's
[2:46:58] available in the county.
[2:47:00] There's a mishmash
[2:47:01] between the quantity of housing
[2:47:02] needed versus what's available
[2:47:04] in the county. And there's a
[2:47:06] mismatch between the cost of
[2:47:09] housing and what people can
[2:47:11] afford. This lack of affordable
[2:47:13] housing has negative regional
[2:47:14] economic consequences. It
[2:47:16] drives out younger workers and
[2:47:18] only those
[2:47:19] with high paying jobs can
[2:47:22] afford to live here. And the
[2:47:23] composition of our labor force
[2:47:24] gets skewed because of this.
[2:47:26] And businesses can't find
[2:47:27] people
[2:47:29] with the skills that they need.
[2:47:30] And a final point. The
[2:47:31] economics of building
[2:47:32] affordable housing units are
[2:47:33] lousy. It's difficult
[2:47:34] for developers
[2:47:35] to make the numbers work.
[2:47:37] Where does this leave us? We
[2:47:38] need more housing. We need more
[2:47:40] affordable housing. We need to
[2:47:42] rebalance our population
[2:47:43] distribution. Our economy needs
[2:47:44] more young people who are just
[2:47:45] starting out. And this requires
[2:47:46] that we rebalance the type of
[2:47:49] housing that stock that we
[2:47:51] have. Reducing the impact fees
[2:47:52] will help improve the economics
[2:47:54] of building the kind
[2:47:56] of housing we need. Please
[2:47:57] support option 1, which
[2:47:58] provides the most benefits and
[2:48:00] the most incentive
[2:48:01] for producing the kind
[2:48:03] of housing that we need. Thank
[2:48:06] you for the opportunity
[2:48:07] to speak today.
[2:48:09] >>Good to see you.
[2:48:10] >>Thank you so much. Harry,
[2:48:12] good to see you. Good morning.
[2:48:14] >>Good morning, supervisors.
[2:48:16] My name is Jocelyn Lynn and I'm
[2:48:17] the chief real estate
[2:48:19] development officer for
[2:48:20] Burbank Housing. As you know,
[2:48:22] Burbank Housing is a leading
[2:48:24] nonprofit affordable housing
[2:48:25] provider in Sonoma County. And
[2:48:26] I've been with Burbank
[2:48:28] for eight years. And I can tell
[2:48:30] you with firsthand experience
[2:48:32] that building hard. Building
[2:48:33] housing is hard. And the reason
[2:48:35] it's hard is because
[2:48:36] construction costs continue
[2:48:38] to rise, lending costs are
[2:48:39] high, and federal,
[2:48:40] state and local resources for
[2:48:42] affordable housing funding have
[2:48:43] dwindled. And while we've had a
[2:48:45] construction boom a little bit,
[2:48:47] with the disaster relief
[2:48:48] dollars that came into
[2:48:50] to our region, those disaster
[2:48:52] recovery funds have been
[2:48:54] exhausted. And so we're back
[2:48:55] to the drawing board
[2:48:57] of competing with other
[2:48:58] affordable housing providers
[2:49:00] throughout the state for very
[2:49:01] scarce and limited resources.
[2:49:03] My development team at
[2:49:04] Burbank Housing has the task
[2:49:05] of trying
[2:49:07] to make projects pencil. And so
[2:49:09] we put together development
[2:49:10] budgets, sources and uses. We
[2:49:12] run pro formas and financial
[2:49:13] projections. But no matter
[2:49:15] which way we thin slice it,
[2:49:17] the problem's always the same.
[2:49:18] Costs are high and there's not
[2:49:20] enough funding. One
[2:49:22] of the things we do is we go
[2:49:23] through our development budgets
[2:49:25] line by line. And one of those
[2:49:26] line items are development
[2:49:28] impact fees. And it's one of
[2:49:30] those where we can't squeeze,
[2:49:31] we can't cut,
[2:49:33] unless something changes
[2:49:34] at the higher level here. And
[2:49:36] so I'm in support
[2:49:38] of option one, which is
[2:49:39] to reduce 100% impact fees
[2:49:43] for affordable housing.
[2:49:45] Oftentimes these impact fees
[2:49:46] are typically
[2:49:47] over a million dollars,
[2:49:49] sometimes over $2 million,
[2:49:51] depending on the size
[2:49:52] of our project. To be able
[2:49:54] to eliminate it and to zero it
[2:49:55] out makes a huge difference
[2:49:57] in our development budget.
[2:49:58] Oftentimes, it's the tipping
[2:49:59] point for whether a project can
[2:50:01] move forward or not. So I ask
[2:50:02] that you consider option one,
[2:50:07] which is something we sorely
[2:50:08] need. Thank you.
[2:50:10] >>Thank you so much. Jocelyn.
[2:50:11] Good morning.
[2:50:12] >>Good morning. I'm Abby
[2:50:14] Arnold. I'm a homeowner
[2:50:17] in the Montgomery Village
[2:50:19] neighborhood. I often engage
[2:50:21] with people
[2:50:23] about their living situations,
[2:50:24] people who I come into contact
[2:50:27] with in my daily life. And I
[2:50:29] hear more and more people
[2:50:31] talking
[2:50:32] about their long commutes
[2:50:34] from Lake County, Alameda
[2:50:37] County, Contra Costa County.
[2:50:38] There are people who work here
[2:50:40] in Sonoma county and they live
[2:50:43] with friends and family members
[2:50:44] in these faraway places. And
[2:50:46] they end up commuting,
[2:50:48] polluting our air,
[2:50:50] burning fossil fuels, causing
[2:50:52] traffic,
[2:50:53] and adding three unpaid hours
[2:50:54] to their workday every day
[2:50:55] because they can't afford
[2:50:58] to live here. Our school
[2:51:00] districts are looking at
[2:51:01] closing schools because there
[2:51:03] aren't enough kids
[2:51:05] to fill them. This should be a
[2:51:07] huge wake up notice to all
[2:51:08] of us that we need to make new
[2:51:10] housing accessible and
[2:51:11] affordable
[2:51:12] for young families. You can do
[2:51:14] something about the high cost
[2:51:16] of new housing by adopting the
[2:51:18] proposed fee waivers. We
[2:51:20] understand that the cost
[2:51:21] of materials can't be
[2:51:23] controlled by the Board of
[2:51:25] Supervisors. And of course, we
[2:51:27] want the people who are doing
[2:51:28] the building
[2:51:29] to be paid fairly.
[2:51:30] But the fees,
[2:51:31] as the previous speaker
[2:51:32] described,
[2:51:33] are a significant part
[2:51:35] of the problem, along
[2:51:36] with the length
[2:51:37] of time it takes
[2:51:38] to get local approval. Reform
[2:51:39] of the development fee can make
[2:51:40] a big difference
[2:51:41] in how long it takes to get
[2:51:43] housing built. I encourage you
[2:51:44] to waive the impact fees today
[2:51:45] and help make Sonoma County a
[2:51:47] place where our workforce can
[2:51:49] find a place to live. Thank
[2:51:52] you.
[2:51:54] >>Thank you so much, Abby.
[2:51:56] Good morning.
[2:51:59] >>Good morning. I'm Renee Bick
[2:52:00] with Paradise Ridge Winery
[2:52:01] on the Sonoma County
[2:52:03] Hospitality association board
[2:52:04] and the Santa Rosa Metro
[2:52:06] Advocacy Council. And housing
[2:52:07] is affordable housing is one
[2:52:09] of the top subjects we talk
[2:52:12] about all the time. Actually,
[2:52:15] an investment
[2:52:18] in our housing is an investment
[2:52:20] in our community. I actually
[2:52:22] just got a two week notice
[2:52:25] of one of our employees who's
[2:52:29] pregnant and she is getting
[2:52:31] evicted because she can't
[2:52:32] afford to stay here in Santa
[2:52:34] Rosa. She's moving to
[2:52:36] Sacramento. And we need more
[2:52:39] affordable housing for the
[2:52:42] hospitality community and the
[2:52:43] community in general. It helps
[2:52:45] families,
[2:52:46] businesses and workforce more
[2:52:48] jobs, less crime, and increased
[2:52:51] tax revenue and decreased
[2:52:55] spending on social safety
[2:52:56] services. I encourage you
[2:52:59] to choose option one,
[2:53:01] eliminating the fees.
[2:53:02] >>Thank you so much. Good
[2:53:06] morning.
[2:53:09] >>Hello. Good to see you. I'm
[2:53:15] Bea Fernandez, and I'm actually
[2:53:16] wearing two hats
[2:53:17] to be up here today. The first
[2:53:18] one is just. For most
[2:53:21] of my life,
[2:53:22] I haven't been able
[2:53:24] to afford a home, and so I've
[2:53:25] been the dreaded renter. And I
[2:53:27] know that as when we would move
[2:53:32] into a neighborhood,
[2:53:34] we would hear. There was one
[2:53:36] particular woman that seemed to
[2:53:37] encapsulate what you guys hear
[2:53:38] all the time about building
[2:53:39] more housing and having renters
[2:53:40] come in. She came over and
[2:53:42] introduced herself and she
[2:53:44] said, just want to make sure
[2:53:45] that you guys know not to park
[2:53:47] in front
[2:53:49] of my house. I don't want
[2:53:50] to look at your car in front
[2:53:51] of your window. You know,
[2:53:52] it's totally public street.
[2:53:54] She wanted to make sure that
[2:53:55] she didn't want her property
[2:53:56] values
[2:53:58] to get lowered because, you
[2:54:01] know, we would make a mess
[2:54:03] in our yard. I mean,
[2:54:04] it was just like all the things
[2:54:06] that you hear from really
[2:54:07] entitled homeowners. And so,
[2:54:08] you know, we killed her
[2:54:13] with kindness. We were living
[2:54:14] there a long time,
[2:54:15] and we ended up. My husband's a
[2:54:16] saxophone player, and she would
[2:54:18] hear the music coming out
[2:54:19] of our apartment, and
[2:54:21] eventually she went and saw the
[2:54:24] band, and then he played
[2:54:25] for her daughter's wedding.
[2:54:26] You know, it was kind of
[2:54:28] like all of a sudden we were
[2:54:30] real people. And for me,
[2:54:32] as a graphic designer,
[2:54:35] I ended up. She hired me
[2:54:36] to do donor event materials.
[2:54:38] And so it was just. It was just
[2:54:41] in my own personal life, you
[2:54:43] could see how people can change
[2:54:45] their mind. And that. That
[2:54:47] in my other hat
[2:54:50] of generation housing,
[2:54:52] that's what I'm being tasked
[2:54:54] with is coming up with the
[2:54:55] public awareness campaigns that
[2:54:57] are going to give you guys a
[2:54:59] little bit more protection
[2:55:01] in a way, because I know a lot
[2:55:02] of homeowners are not very nice
[2:55:04] about these big apartment
[2:55:05] buildings getting put up and
[2:55:07] like, who lives there. So
[2:55:09] that's part
[2:55:11] of what generation housing, the
[2:55:12] public awareness is that real
[2:55:15] people live there. People that
[2:55:16] work here need to be able
[2:55:18] to afford to live here. And so
[2:55:19] I say impact fees are just one
[2:55:20] tiny little thing that we can
[2:55:22] do.
[2:55:24] But every little thing adds up.
[2:55:26] And I ask that you.
[2:55:28] >>Thank you.
[2:55:30] >>Be number one.
[2:55:31] >>Thank you. Thank you very
[2:55:32] much. Good to see you. Welcome
[2:55:35] and good morning.
[2:55:36] >>Good morning. My name is
[2:55:38] Jamie and Studley and I own a
[2:55:39] home between Sebastopol and
[2:55:41] Freestone. This is my first
[2:55:42] time before the Board of
[2:55:43] Supervisors. I'm also a member
[2:55:45] of Generation Housing, here to
[2:55:46] support a strong and bold
[2:55:48] impact fee reduction policy. I
[2:55:51] know you understand the urgency
[2:55:53] of adding housing. You don't
[2:55:54] have to be convinced of that.
[2:55:56] We all know that our economy,
[2:55:57] family well being, health and
[2:55:59] safety, safety and environment
[2:56:01] are dependent on the choices
[2:56:02] that you make and that we all
[2:56:04] make to increase housing. As a
[2:56:06] former president of Public
[2:56:08] Advocates, a statewide policy
[2:56:10] advocacy group, I know how
[2:56:11] important local rules and
[2:56:13] public understanding are to
[2:56:14] achieving our housing goals and
[2:56:16] arena allocation
[2:56:18] for our county. As a member
[2:56:19] of the board of the Sebastopol
[2:56:21] center for the Arts, I see how
[2:56:23] vital housing is to preserving
[2:56:24] the lively artistic and
[2:56:27] cultural community that is so
[2:56:28] central to our understanding
[2:56:30] of the glories of Sonoma
[2:56:31] County County. And as a former
[2:56:33] deputy under secretary of the
[2:56:34] U.S. department of Education, I
[2:56:36] understand the challenge that
[2:56:37] you face
[2:56:39] of matching goals and policy to
[2:56:40] decisions and values. I'm here
[2:56:42] to support the Generation
[2:56:44] Housing public proposed policy
[2:56:46] position. And number one,
[2:56:48] today I simply ask you
[2:56:50] to choose the best,
[2:56:52] boldest option
[2:56:53] for impact fee reform and
[2:56:55] to act now so that our values,
[2:56:57] commitments and words can turn
[2:56:59] into projects,
[2:57:00] shovels and homes
[2:57:02] for our neighbors. Thank you.
[2:57:04] >>Thank you so much. Good
[2:57:06] morning.
[2:57:12] >>Good morning. My name is
[2:57:13] Brenda Smith. I'm a proud
[2:57:15] resident in Rohnert park and
[2:57:16] currently living in an
[2:57:18] affordable senior housing
[2:57:19] community called Copland
[2:57:20] Creek Apartments. As a recently
[2:57:21] retired elementary school
[2:57:23] teacher from San Rosa City
[2:57:25] school, as of October 1,
[2:57:26] 2024, moving into Copland
[2:57:28] Creek Apartments allowed me
[2:57:30] affordable rent. 1300amonth.
[2:57:32] It's 170 units with cottages
[2:57:34] and apartments that includes
[2:57:36] free water, sewer, garbage. It
[2:57:40] has solar power, so I have
[2:57:42] solar panels. I have
[2:57:44] electricity covered,
[2:57:45] free parking with an income
[2:57:47] of 3700 now I can afford health
[2:57:50] care through covered
[2:57:51] California rent, my cell phone,
[2:57:53] groceries, gas,
[2:57:56] etc and I can substitute
[2:57:57] for additional income yet.
[2:57:59] Where are the Copland Creek
[2:58:02] apartments in Sonoma County?
[2:58:03] Prior to retiring I lived at
[2:58:06] Oak View of Sonoma Hills and
[2:58:07] Rohner Park. A 55 plus
[2:58:08] community paying a market value
[2:58:10] rent of 2300amonth with $40
[2:58:12] parking fee. Water, sewer and
[2:58:16] garbage was not included. That
[2:58:17] was an additional hundred or
[2:58:21] $100 a month when my income was
[2:58:22] $90,000 and healthcare was
[2:58:24] included in my salary. Seniors
[2:58:27] are 30% of the population of
[2:58:29] Sonoma County. How are you
[2:58:31] preparing and caring for the
[2:58:33] golden years? I support
[2:58:34] generation housing. I'm also a
[2:58:37] member to address the
[2:58:39] affordable housing issues. And
[2:58:41] I ask
[2:58:42] for bold leadership now. Be
[2:58:43] bold. Be brave. Be a leader. I
[2:58:46] look forward to seeing more
[2:58:47] affordable senior housing
[2:58:48] projects
[2:58:49] to support our teachers,
[2:58:50] nurses, firefighters,
[2:58:51] police officers who want
[2:58:52] to retire live in affordable
[2:58:53] housing projects that honor
[2:58:54] their pensions and their
[2:58:55] quality of life. Thank you.
[2:58:56] >>Thank you so much. Welcome.
[2:58:58] >>Thank you. Beth Craven,
[2:59:03] resident of Rohnert Park. I'm
[2:59:05] here to speak from two
[2:59:06] perspectives this morning. One
[2:59:08] is a parent of young adults,
[2:59:10] a student who's
[2:59:13] at the JC and as a volunteer
[2:59:14] with the homeless community.
[2:59:17] You may remember I spoke
[2:59:21] to you all
[2:59:22] about six months ago
[2:59:24] about a young man, a friend
[2:59:25] of my son, who I asked to move
[2:59:26] in with us for the summer
[2:59:27] because he could not afford
[2:59:29] to live. His parents were first
[2:59:30] responders
[2:59:32] in the county and had chose to
[2:59:34] leave the state because they
[2:59:36] could not afford to stay. And
[2:59:39] we're also suffering the
[2:59:41] effects of trauma given our
[2:59:44] recent years. And we. He was
[2:59:46] trying to do it on his own,
[2:59:48] living in the dorms at the jc
[2:59:49] didn't have enough money. So he
[2:59:51] said, come stay with us
[2:59:53] for the summer. Well, it hasn't
[2:59:55] worked out. He's left the
[2:59:57] state. And this was a young man
[2:59:59] who was studying to go into
[3:00:00] counseling and therapy again,
[3:00:03] wanted to be a public servant
[3:00:04] like his parents. And so we are
[3:00:06] losing our homegrown
[3:00:08] individuals who are the support
[3:00:10] for our community
[3:00:13] to the working folks. We're
[3:00:15] losing them. And as a volunteer
[3:00:17] at the Unitarian Universalist
[3:00:20] congregation Saturday breakfast
[3:00:23] that has been serving breakfast
[3:00:25] to our homeless community for
[3:00:27] 25 years, we're in there,
[3:00:29] we're doing it every weekend.
[3:00:33] We're serving these people.
[3:00:36] We've been doing it 25 years,
[3:00:38] and it's getting worse. It's
[3:00:41] not getting better. And we're
[3:00:43] burning out. These
[3:00:45] organizations that are
[3:00:47] providing services that our
[3:00:49] federal government should be
[3:00:50] providing for are struggling,
[3:00:53] and we're burning out. And
[3:00:54] we're looking for you
[3:00:56] to give us some support
[3:01:01] to go a little further. So
[3:01:03] please support Gen H
[3:01:04] on this proposal. Thank you.
[3:01:06] >>Thank you so much. Good
[3:01:10] afternoon.
[3:01:12] >>Good afternoon, Madam
[3:01:13] Chair, Honorable Supervisors
[3:01:14] of Franca Rio Gallaher
[3:01:15] Community Housing. I'll start
[3:01:17] with a thank you to the board
[3:01:19] for continuing
[3:01:21] to keep this issue and this
[3:01:23] item at the forefront. We know
[3:01:24] that it's been years and months
[3:01:26] of pressing forward good policy
[3:01:29] and intentionality
[3:01:30] around breaking barriers,
[3:01:32] of creating housing, workforce,
[3:01:34] housing, affordable housing and
[3:01:35] housing that's necessary. You
[3:01:37] know, it's unfortunate that
[3:01:38] in this state of California we
[3:01:40] need fires to remind us
[3:01:43] of the housing crisis. And that
[3:01:45] becomes almost a Present
[3:01:46] reminder for those individuals
[3:01:48] that are impacted
[3:01:49] by the fires. We certainly felt
[3:01:51] it here in 2017. There was
[3:01:53] movement
[3:01:55] around streamlining permits,
[3:01:56] impact fees. And unfortunately,
[3:01:58] there are those that are
[3:02:00] unhoused or precariously housed
[3:02:02] that have never had the
[3:02:03] opportunity
[3:02:05] to have their homes be lost
[3:02:06] through wildfire,
[3:02:08] that face the same crises
[3:02:10] of housing affordability,
[3:02:11] being able to live
[3:02:13] in the community they work. So
[3:02:14] with that,
[3:02:16] I would just continue
[3:02:17] to encourage the board to be as
[3:02:19] aggressive and as flexible as
[3:02:20] you can to continue
[3:02:22] to move forward. The dichotomy
[3:02:23] that we do
[3:02:25] in fact have a housing crisis
[3:02:27] in this county,
[3:02:28] we need thousands
[3:02:29] of units built,
[3:02:30] we need thousands
[3:02:32] of units moved through,
[3:02:33] not just the entitlement
[3:02:34] process, being able
[3:02:35] to have a shovel
[3:02:36] in the ground. And I do
[3:02:38] appreciate staff's perspective
[3:02:40] that includes that as an
[3:02:41] identifying principle,
[3:02:43] that it's not just
[3:02:45] about getting projects through
[3:02:46] the entitlement pipeline, but
[3:02:47] actually getting them
[3:02:49] constructed and occupied
[3:02:50] by the residents and leave
[3:02:51] to live in them. So I still
[3:02:53] believe that right sizing is
[3:02:54] the right approach. Smaller
[3:02:56] units should pay smaller impact
[3:02:57] fees. I do believe that this is
[3:02:59] a step
[3:03:00] in the right direction. And I
[3:03:02] would encourage you
[3:03:03] to continue to break away those
[3:03:04] barriers that prevent us from
[3:03:06] housing the people that need
[3:03:07] to live in this community.
[3:03:08] Thank you.
[3:03:10] >>Thank you so much, friend.
[3:03:11] Welcome.
[3:03:14] >>Good morning, Chair
[3:03:17] Hopkins, supervisors,
[3:03:19] county executives and staff.
[3:03:20] It was more than a year ago
[3:03:22] when GENH made a public plea
[3:03:23] for common sense impact fee
[3:03:25] reform to ease the persistent
[3:03:26] pipeline paralysis resulting
[3:03:28] from the confluence
[3:03:30] of inflation, interest rate
[3:03:32] hikes, and the general
[3:03:34] unfavorable developer math
[3:03:36] unique to Sonoma County. We
[3:03:38] want to thank the staff,
[3:03:41] in particular Jennifer
[3:03:42] Larocque, for diving
[3:03:44] in and working creatively,
[3:03:45] internally and collaboratively
[3:03:47] with our team to bring back the
[3:03:49] options that have been
[3:03:50] presented to you today. We hope
[3:03:51] that this is the beginning of a
[3:03:53] productive working relationship
[3:03:54] going forward. Staff has
[3:03:56] presented you with three
[3:03:59] program options and recommended
[3:04:01] the mid level reduction
[3:04:03] in impact fees. Impact fee
[3:04:04] reform is a powerful and
[3:04:06] necessary asset in our effort
[3:04:08] to spur the housing production
[3:04:10] we need. And so we are asking
[3:04:12] that you choose the highest
[3:04:18] reduction which would be
[3:04:20] on par with the program voted
[3:04:22] in by the city of Santa Rosa
[3:04:24] in November. Today, we are
[3:04:26] looking forward to you moving
[3:04:28] forward a policy that is a bold
[3:04:29] first step in policy response
[3:04:31] to our housing crisis. Our
[3:04:33] vision of a future where
[3:04:36] everyone has a place
[3:04:38] to call home and the ability
[3:04:39] to engage in and contribute
[3:04:41] to an equitable, healthy,
[3:04:44] prosperous and resilient
[3:04:45] Sonoma county depends on it.
[3:04:47] Thank you.
[3:04:49] >>Thank you. So great. Yeah,
[3:04:54] you can distribute them. Our
[3:04:55] clerk can grab them and then
[3:04:56] share them with us and copy
[3:04:57] them if we need copies made.
[3:04:58] Thank you. Good afternoon.
[3:05:03] >>Good afternoon, Chair
[3:05:06] Hopkins, Supervisors, Staff.
[3:05:07] So what I want to present
[3:05:09] in front of you today is just
[3:05:11] some charts that show really
[3:05:13] just the breadth
[3:05:15] of the housing crisis. You all
[3:05:17] know this information,
[3:05:19] but I just want
[3:05:20] to hammer the point home. This
[3:05:21] first chart I have in front of
[3:05:23] me here shows our housing
[3:05:24] production over the past 40
[3:05:26] years. And it demonstrates that
[3:05:28] after the Great Recession, you
[3:05:30] had a 10 year slowdown. And
[3:05:32] while right now we see a boom
[3:05:34] in housing production,
[3:05:36] when you look at Santa Rosa's
[3:05:38] housing production,
[3:05:39] to really drill down
[3:05:40] into that data,
[3:05:41] we know that a lot
[3:05:43] of that recent boom has been
[3:05:45] due to fire rebuilds. It's been
[3:05:47] due to recent temporary
[3:05:48] disaster relief money. I just
[3:05:50] want to end that. This uptick
[3:05:52] of production that we see here
[3:05:54] still isn't really getting us
[3:05:55] to the historical average
[3:05:57] over the past four years
[3:05:58] of housing production. We're
[3:06:00] still really operating at a
[3:06:02] below average level. That's
[3:06:03] what got us into this crisis.
[3:06:06] Next chart after that,
[3:06:07] it's some information from one
[3:06:09] of your staff reports just
[3:06:11] showing the comparison
[3:06:13] between permits in 2023 and
[3:06:14] 2024. You can see a really
[3:06:16] steep decline
[3:06:17] in just that recent period.
[3:06:19] And this is the consequence
[3:06:21] of inflation. This is the
[3:06:22] consequence of high interest
[3:06:25] rates. A really unfavorable
[3:06:27] economic climate for building
[3:06:28] housing just further
[3:06:29] underscores the need
[3:06:31] to take action now
[3:06:32] to do something about that.
[3:06:35] Our fourth chart is just
[3:06:37] another chart that shows the
[3:06:38] lack of production
[3:06:40] in recent years. We're actually
[3:06:42] on pace to produce fewer units
[3:06:43] this decade than we were in the
[3:06:44] decade following the recession.
[3:06:46] And then our last chart is just
[3:06:47] a comparison of Santa Rosa and
[3:06:48] the county
[3:06:50] to other jurisdictions. When
[3:06:51] you keep fire rebuilds
[3:06:53] in our data, it looks like
[3:06:54] we're doing pretty well
[3:06:56] compared
[3:06:57] to similar jurisdictions
[3:06:58] across the state. But when you
[3:06:59] take those fire rebuilds out,
[3:07:00] it really shows that we're
[3:07:01] lagging behind. And so all this
[3:07:02] data is just
[3:07:03] to show the significance of
[3:07:05] this program that you guys are
[3:07:06] considering today. Thank you.
[3:07:07] >>Thank you. Great information.
[3:07:09] Appreciate it. Good afternoon,
[3:07:10] Jen.
[3:07:13] >>Good afternoon. Chair
[3:07:15] Hopkins, Vice Chair Macio.
[3:07:16] Welcome, Supervisors, County
[3:07:18] Executive Rivera and staff.
[3:07:21] Jen, Close Generation Housing
[3:07:24] Ed here to urge you to choose
[3:07:25] the greatest reduction
[3:07:26] presented here because it's
[3:07:28] necessary to move stalled
[3:07:29] projects forward, necessary
[3:07:30] to ensure projects move forward
[3:07:32] with as many use as possible
[3:07:33] to incentivize new units to
[3:07:35] make affordable housing
[3:07:36] production here economically
[3:07:39] feasible and competitive
[3:07:40] with other jurisdictions.
[3:07:42] Because it pays for itself
[3:07:43] through increased property tax
[3:07:44] revenue created by
[3:07:46] reassessments when vacancy
[3:07:47] rates rise,
[3:07:48] supporting movement
[3:07:49] in the housing system through
[3:07:51] increased sales tax revenue,
[3:07:52] through decreased investments
[3:07:54] in managing and mitigating
[3:07:55] homelessness, through greater
[3:07:57] local economic activity created
[3:07:58] by new residents and residents
[3:07:59] with more money
[3:08:01] in their pockets. Because you
[3:08:03] will not find a healthcare
[3:08:04] community needs assessment,
[3:08:06] a climate action plan, a
[3:08:07] community resilience and
[3:08:09] disaster preparedness plan, a
[3:08:10] social justice plans or an
[3:08:12] economic development plan
[3:08:13] without a significant
[3:08:14] affordable housing component.
[3:08:16] We cannot get a handle
[3:08:18] on our if we don't get a handle
[3:08:20] on our housing crisis, we
[3:08:21] simply cannot make meaningful
[3:08:23] progress on any of the other
[3:08:25] community wide goals that we
[3:08:26] share. Finally, in addition
[3:08:29] to going forward with, we hope,
[3:08:30] the greatest reduction, we ask
[3:08:33] that you provide direction
[3:08:34] to staff
[3:08:36] on two additional points. The
[3:08:38] first is please request a NEXUS
[3:08:39] study progress report
[3:08:41] with enough time
[3:08:43] to extend this program in the
[3:08:44] event that that study is
[3:08:46] progressing slowly, as you
[3:08:47] know, sometimes happens. And
[3:08:49] second, please continue diving
[3:08:51] into the issue of fees,
[3:08:52] particularly about right sizing
[3:08:54] wastewater fees, which are
[3:08:55] significant, and how we can
[3:08:57] create a parallel track for
[3:08:59] large projects that ensures
[3:09:00] that they get the same level
[3:09:01] of incentives as provided
[3:09:02] with this program
[3:09:03] without limiting access
[3:09:05] to this program to smaller
[3:09:06] projects that add gentle
[3:09:08] density throughout the county.
[3:09:10] One last thing. According
[3:09:11] to a California Housing
[3:09:13] Partnership model,
[3:09:15] meeting arena goals up to 120
[3:09:16] will provide approximately
[3:09:18] 50,000 people
[3:09:19] over the deed housing,
[3:09:21] affordable housing over the
[3:09:23] deed restricted period. So
[3:09:24] let's get these folks keys
[3:09:25] asap. Thank you for your
[3:09:27] leadership.
[3:09:28] >>Thank you very much, Jen.
[3:09:29] Are there any other members
[3:09:30] of the public who wish
[3:09:32] to comment on this item?
[3:09:33] Seeing none,
[3:09:34] it will bring it back
[3:09:35] to my colleagues for questions
[3:09:36] and discussion.
[3:09:37] >>Supervisor Gore thank you
[3:09:39] Chair Hopkins, and I think
[3:09:41] everybody sitting here. I'm
[3:09:42] really interested
[3:09:43] in where my colleagues want
[3:09:45] to go. There's as much as
[3:09:46] there's discussion. I mean
[3:09:47] we've reviewed this ad nauseam
[3:09:49] last year, but it's a pleasure
[3:09:50] to have a new colleague here.
[3:09:53] You know, number one is I think
[3:09:54] acknowledging that this is
[3:09:55] called a fee, but it's really a
[3:09:56] tax. I think another thing
[3:09:59] that's come up, I'll just state
[3:10:00] my opinion is that strongly in
[3:10:02] last year's revisions and what
[3:10:03] we looked at is that we have
[3:10:05] withdrew sales taxes and county
[3:10:06] investments, especially with
[3:10:09] the departments most directly
[3:10:11] impacted partners and
[3:10:14] transportation, public works,
[3:10:16] that is public infrastructure,
[3:10:17] we have drastically increased
[3:10:18] the revenues into those areas.
[3:10:20] I do not think that these
[3:10:21] projects
[3:10:22] in the amount that we're
[3:10:24] talking about that comes back
[3:10:25] to the county in these areas
[3:10:29] should be banked upon
[3:10:30] in the future for the risk
[3:10:31] of another tax on housing. So
[3:10:33] I'm really Interested
[3:10:34] in where my colleagues are
[3:10:36] on that. I think, you know,
[3:10:39] all probably be for the most.
[3:10:41] For the most, in my mind,
[3:10:43] proactive opportunity here. I
[3:10:45] don't really distinguish
[3:10:49] between low income and moderate
[3:10:52] because moderate is not really
[3:10:55] livable here in Sonoma county
[3:10:57] as it is. This idea, you know,
[3:10:59] of all the projects that we
[3:11:00] come
[3:11:01] across that people actually
[3:11:03] have to stay
[3:11:04] in their current jobs
[3:11:05] to not be moved
[3:11:06] into other areas for subsidized
[3:11:07] rates. I know this is
[3:11:09] like a one time fee
[3:11:10] for what it goes into, but I
[3:11:12] just think that this is one of
[3:11:13] many reasons why we're not
[3:11:15] producing the housing that we
[3:11:17] need in this area. And I want
[3:11:18] to thank individuals here and I
[3:11:19] want to thank staff for
[3:11:20] bringing this forward. I think
[3:11:21] the options are great. I would
[3:11:23] approve
[3:11:25] of staff recommendation,
[3:11:26] but I'd like to go further.
[3:11:28] And so I'm looking
[3:11:30] for questions and comments
[3:11:32] from my colleagues as well.
[3:11:33] Thank you.
[3:11:34] >>Thank you very much,
[3:11:35] Supervisor Rabbit,
[3:11:36] >>Thank you very much and I
[3:11:37] appreciate all the comments
[3:11:38] today. And obviously this issue
[3:11:39] is near and dear
[3:11:40] to me as an architect, being
[3:11:41] on both sides of the counter,
[3:11:42] paying and writing some pretty
[3:11:43] significant checks for clients
[3:11:44] over the year, as I know some
[3:11:46] of my colleagues
[3:11:47] in the audience know and trying
[3:11:49] to understand. When I was first
[3:11:50] elected in the city of
[3:11:51] Petaluma, I was running about
[3:11:52] parks and the lack thereof and
[3:11:54] the fact that we had. And
[3:11:55] actually Petaluma has three
[3:11:57] separate park impact fees. Not
[3:11:59] just one, but three. Park
[3:12:01] acquisition, park development,
[3:12:03] then open space, which actually
[3:12:04] was brought forward
[3:12:06] to finance Lucchese up
[3:12:08] on the hill, which is amazing
[3:12:10] to me. Lafferty, I'm sorry.
[3:12:12] Yeah, I said Lucchese, I'm
[3:12:16] sorry. So not only do I support
[3:12:18] reducing the development impact
[3:12:20] fees, actually I can support
[3:12:21] eliminating development impact
[3:12:22] fees entirely until we adopt a
[3:12:24] new nexus study which ties the
[3:12:26] infrastructure impact
[3:12:28] improvements needed as a result
[3:12:30] of the new development being
[3:12:32] proposed. I think, as
[3:12:33] Supervisor Gore just said,
[3:12:35] unfortunately, development
[3:12:36] impact fees have just become a
[3:12:38] revenue line item tax
[3:12:39] on a budget. In.
[3:12:42] In my understanding, and again,
[3:12:43] correct me if I'm wrong,
[3:12:45] anyone, it's supposed to be.
[3:12:47] And I always picture, you know,
[3:12:49] we as a community own all the
[3:12:51] assets. These parks, these
[3:12:52] roads, we're paying for this.
[3:12:54] We've paid our taxes. We pay
[3:12:56] our taxes. You're going
[3:12:57] to come
[3:12:58] in and join our community.
[3:13:00] You're going to have to buy
[3:13:01] into that. And we're going to.
[3:13:02] And we want the same standard.
[3:13:04] And that's why for me,
[3:13:05] we've talked
[3:13:07] about park standards. It's
[3:13:08] important
[3:13:09] to have a park standard. So you
[3:13:10] know what you're charging the
[3:13:12] new people that are coming in.
[3:13:13] My hometown, Petaluma has a
[3:13:16] park standard. I think it's 3
[3:13:17] acres for community parks, 2
[3:13:18] acres per thousand residents,
[3:13:20] 3 acres
[3:13:21] for per thousand residents
[3:13:23] for a community park, 2 acres
[3:13:24] per thousand residents
[3:13:25] for a neighborhood park. If
[3:13:26] you're adding a thousand
[3:13:28] people, it's pretty easy. You
[3:13:29] can do the math. Here's what
[3:13:31] you need to add. You can build
[3:13:33] it yourself or, and,
[3:13:34] or you can pay the
[3:13:36] in lieu fees
[3:13:37] on that. I think we need
[3:13:39] to make sure that we get
[3:13:40] to that. That's why I look
[3:13:41] forward to the NEXUS study.
[3:13:43] Truly tying, truly tying the
[3:13:44] impacts that those new
[3:13:45] developments and there are real
[3:13:47] impacts that, you know,
[3:13:48] put a couple thousand units
[3:13:50] at the end of Airport
[3:13:53] Boulevard, there's going
[3:13:55] to be impacts and they need
[3:13:57] to be mitigated accordingly.
[3:13:58] But it shouldn't just go
[3:14:00] into a general fund and be used
[3:14:01] for haphazard projects here and
[3:14:03] there. And I believe that we've
[3:14:04] gone down into that place.
[3:14:08] So, you know,
[3:14:10] my only caveat would be
[3:14:12] to look to the county
[3:14:15] administrator's office and
[3:14:17] understand
[3:14:18] of the fees that we've
[3:14:20] collected to date and through
[3:14:22] this year what have been
[3:14:23] allocated. Because yes, we can
[3:14:25] backfill, but I think
[3:14:27] above and
[3:14:29] beyond that we're backfilling.
[3:14:30] It's just an internal shell
[3:14:31] game of paying for projects
[3:14:33] in a different manner. But if
[3:14:36] we're charging the development
[3:14:37] impact fee, it should really
[3:14:40] mitigate the development as
[3:14:43] it's intended. And I do think,
[3:14:45] and there's been a lot
[3:14:49] of legislation on the trying
[3:14:50] to fix and I've been as part of
[3:14:52] these housing groups that I've
[3:14:54] been on in the region. Every
[3:14:55] time I see Scott Wiener, I will
[3:14:57] tell the senator you need
[3:14:59] to look
[3:15:01] at development impact fees.
[3:15:02] They vary widely. And I think
[3:15:04] I've mentioned this before,
[3:15:05] a single family home and city
[3:15:07] of Sacramento has one
[3:15:09] of the lower impact fees,
[3:15:11] according to the Turner center
[3:15:13] for housing innovation,
[3:15:15] $20,000 and change in Fremont
[3:15:16] of all places. Fremont was
[3:15:19] about 150,000. Why, why would
[3:15:21] one be that and one be the
[3:15:23] other? And actually, you know,
[3:15:24] I would even say in terms
[3:15:27] of fair housing, what's
[3:15:29] Fremont's and not
[3:15:31] to disparage Fremont, you can
[3:15:32] pick any other city,
[3:15:34] Hillsborough, Atherton, you
[3:15:35] name it. The cities that want
[3:15:37] to steer housing
[3:15:38] in a certain direction and. Or
[3:15:40] stop it at all. So I think that
[3:15:42] this discussion is timely.
[3:15:44] It's been timely. It should
[3:15:46] have happened 20 years ago,
[3:15:50] should have happened in 1978
[3:15:52] when or seven when Prop 13 came
[3:15:54] in,
[3:15:55] because they've only started
[3:15:58] since Prop 13 and it's just a
[3:15:59] way to offset the revenue loss
[3:16:01] from Prop 13 initially. So I
[3:16:03] think it's timely. I think that
[3:16:05] we need to make sure that again
[3:16:07] there's been the legislation
[3:16:09] that I talked about, even,
[3:16:11] even the latest legislation,
[3:16:13] square footage based upon that.
[3:16:15] I do think that there's nuances
[3:16:17] to that too though, because
[3:16:19] while I think the market rate
[3:16:21] homes are typically built
[3:16:23] larger with more bedrooms.
[3:16:25] Bedrooms are the cheaper
[3:16:26] building, you know, rooms
[3:16:28] to build on the rental side of
[3:16:30] the market. I don't think that
[3:16:31] we should necessarily forego a
[3:16:32] three bedroom unit because
[3:16:34] there are a lot
[3:16:36] of multi generational families,
[3:16:37] perhaps first generation,
[3:16:39] that would benefit from that.
[3:16:42] And the only way that their
[3:16:43] housing is affordable is
[3:16:45] to have more people
[3:16:47] in the unit,
[3:16:48] not necessarily have more units
[3:16:50] in the building. So there is,
[3:16:52] it's not as cut and dry and I
[3:16:55] think we need
[3:16:56] to make sure we go
[3:16:57] after the type
[3:16:59] of housing that we want. And
[3:17:00] again, I will say this for
[3:17:01] folks here and I had this
[3:17:03] discussion
[3:17:04] with the good executive
[3:17:06] director of GenH. I do wish
[3:17:07] that, you know, our fees,
[3:17:09] Sonoma county really only has
[3:17:11] two fees under the auspices
[3:17:13] of the Mitigation Fee Act,
[3:17:14] Parks and transportation. And
[3:17:15] again, depending
[3:17:17] on what you're building,
[3:17:18] they total about between 12,
[3:17:20] $15,000 thereabouts. It's not a
[3:17:21] lot
[3:17:23] in the big picture as compared
[3:17:24] to other jurisdictions. It's
[3:17:26] probably the lowest
[3:17:28] of any jurisdiction
[3:17:29] in the county to be honest.
[3:17:31] And so I wish, and I can say
[3:17:33] this, I have a family member
[3:17:34] now,
[3:17:36] I'm not financially associated
[3:17:37] with it, that has a multi unit
[3:17:39] building project in the county
[3:17:40] that doesn't pencil out and
[3:17:42] it's not necessarily the impact
[3:17:43] fees that are keeping that
[3:17:44] from being built. I wish, you
[3:17:46] know, and I one could argue
[3:17:48] that every penny counts and it
[3:17:49] does, but this is,
[3:17:51] there are so many other issues.
[3:17:52] But again, I think I just want
[3:17:55] to lay the groundwork that this
[3:17:56] is not going to be the panacea
[3:17:58] that will start construction
[3:18:00] tomorrow. It's not. And again,
[3:18:01] cities where the development
[3:18:03] should occur generally have
[3:18:05] many more categories. There's
[3:18:07] one city in this county that
[3:18:09] has the following categories
[3:18:12] of impact fees. Fire
[3:18:14] suppression impact fee,
[3:18:16] law enforcement impact fee,
[3:18:18] aquatic center impact fee,
[3:18:19] public facilities impact fee,
[3:18:21] traffic impact fee, parkland
[3:18:23] acquisition, parkland
[3:18:24] development, maybe I gave away
[3:18:26] which city. I'm talking about
[3:18:27] open space acquisition fees,
[3:18:29] library facility fees,
[3:18:30] community center fees and
[3:18:31] among others. And that's just
[3:18:33] one. You know,
[3:18:35] over the years, the reason that
[3:18:36] we have a housing crisis is
[3:18:38] that many jurisdictions just
[3:18:39] looked upon the increased
[3:18:41] market that we all either
[3:18:43] benefit or are cursed by and
[3:18:45] kept adding different taxes
[3:18:48] to it. You can't do this in
[3:18:50] Kansas, that Kansas is not
[3:18:54] going to take care of their
[3:18:55] facilities this way because
[3:18:57] you'll never get it because the
[3:18:59] property values are not what
[3:19:00] they are here. So It's a catch
[3:19:02] 22. So as for myself,
[3:19:03] I'm certainly supportive
[3:19:08] of going full bore
[3:19:09] on reduction
[3:19:10] for the pilot program until the
[3:19:12] NEXUS study comes in. I do
[3:19:13] would even go further looking
[3:19:16] at what obligated dollars are
[3:19:19] out there because I don't want
[3:19:21] to cut us short.
[3:19:22] But I would encourage both on
[3:19:24] the transportation side and I
[3:19:25] know that some of this is
[3:19:27] general plan. CEQA also place
[3:19:30] projects that need to be built
[3:19:35] for the build out within the
[3:19:38] general plan. I know that
[3:19:39] that's part of it. So I don't
[3:19:41] want
[3:19:44] to go and put put ourselves
[3:19:46] in any liability in that way.
[3:19:47] So I look to staff
[3:19:49] to help us, guide us
[3:19:50] on how best
[3:19:52] to make sure that we don't fall
[3:19:54] off that cliff. But I do look
[3:19:56] for the NEXUS study and I just
[3:19:58] talked
[3:19:59] to the county administrator
[3:20:01] about the how we scope that
[3:20:03] out that we, you know, too many
[3:20:05] nexus studies are numerator
[3:20:06] over denominator and that's
[3:20:08] what it is. And that's why the
[3:20:09] fees range in the range that I
[3:20:11] mentioned before. We need
[3:20:12] to do a much,
[3:20:14] much better job. We need
[3:20:15] to tie it directly to the true
[3:20:18] impacts that the development
[3:20:19] brings and then build that out
[3:20:22] accordingly so that we can all
[3:20:24] enjoy having places
[3:20:25] for our kids
[3:20:27] to live and places
[3:20:28] for the next generation
[3:20:30] to live within the county and
[3:20:32] also contributing to the
[3:20:33] overall infrastructure which
[3:20:35] definitely needs to happen.
[3:20:37] Thank you and I apologize
[3:20:38] for the getting
[3:20:40] on the soapbox.
[3:20:43] >>Thank you. Supervisor
[3:20:45] Corsi.
[3:20:47] >>I want to thank the staff for
[3:20:48] a well researched and thought
[3:20:51] recommendation here. A couple
[3:20:53] of quick questions. You Ms.
[3:20:55] LaRock, you mentioned a couple
[3:20:58] times in your presentation
[3:21:00] about a cap. The cap is the
[3:21:01] $1.5 million, is that correct?
[3:21:03] >>It's a great question because
[3:21:05] there are a couple caps. So
[3:21:08] good
[3:21:09] to provide clarification. Our
[3:21:11] backfill cap would be $1.5
[3:21:12] million. What departments
[3:21:14] collected in fiscal year 2324
[3:21:18] to continue that current level
[3:21:20] of programming and project
[3:21:22] development. The other caps
[3:21:24] that I mentioned are up for
[3:21:25] board discussion today and
[3:21:29] that's how many units we
[3:21:30] include in the program. So you
[3:21:32] know we've got the three
[3:21:34] options with different levels
[3:21:36] of fee reductions
[3:21:38] within each option. The board
[3:21:40] has a choice
[3:21:42] of capping the program
[3:21:44] at either half
[3:21:45] of our RENA obligation. Our
[3:21:46] full RENA obligation or
[3:21:48] essentially not having a cap
[3:21:49] allowing projects that are
[3:21:50] in the current pipeline
[3:21:52] to come through even if we
[3:21:53] exceed our RENA obligation.
[3:21:54] >>So my back of the envelope,
[3:21:59] the number one option, which is
[3:22:05] the one that's being
[3:22:06] recommended by Gen h, it's
[3:22:08] about $10,000 a unit. If we cap
[3:22:11] it at $1.5 million, the
[3:22:14] backfill, that's 150 units. If
[3:22:16] we go to number three,
[3:22:23] which is not a single figure
[3:22:28] but a range, I get about 175
[3:22:30] units for $1.5 million there.
[3:22:33] If we went all the way to our
[3:22:37] RENA obligation or beyond,
[3:22:39] what would the cost? What would
[3:22:40] the loss be?
[3:22:47] >>I appreciate the question
[3:22:48] because it indicates that I
[3:22:49] need to do a little bit more
[3:22:51] explanation here. So I'll start
[3:22:53] by saying that we wouldn't
[3:22:54] necessarily. We would not stop
[3:22:56] providing reductions when we
[3:22:57] hit our backfill cap. We just
[3:22:59] wouldn't provide any more
[3:23:01] backfill two departments. So we
[3:23:05] would be able to extend up to.
[3:23:07] In our. Let me see.
[3:23:17] >>That's why I'm asking here.
[3:23:18] I'm wondering what we're
[3:23:19] committing to.
[3:23:21] >>Yeah. So in option one,
[3:23:22] if we were to go up to half
[3:23:24] of arena cap, we'd be looking
[3:23:25] at about 562 units. And the
[3:23:26] potential total fees
[3:23:27] in that universe would be
[3:23:29] about 5.6 million.
[3:23:31] For full reno, we'd be looking
[3:23:33] at about 953 units for 9.6
[3:23:35] million total universe of
[3:23:37] potential fees that could have
[3:23:39] been collected
[3:23:42] during that time. And then if
[3:23:44] we were to look
[3:23:47] at all the units
[3:23:49] in the affordable pipeline,
[3:23:51] that's about 1900 units and
[3:23:52] would have a total potential
[3:23:54] fee universe of about 19
[3:23:56] million.
[3:23:58] >>And just for clarity,
[3:24:00] that those figures that Ms.
[3:24:02] Larocque provided are
[3:24:03] on slide 4 of your packet.
[3:24:05] >>Correct.
[3:24:07] >>So you could see the three
[3:24:08] options. And then she designed
[3:24:10] it so you could go horizontally
[3:24:12] and look
[3:24:13] at the different variations of
[3:24:15] it.
[3:24:16] >>Thank you.
[3:24:17] >>And I want to echo,
[3:24:19] and you're welcome to project
[3:24:20] it just so that the public gets
[3:24:23] an opportunity to view what
[3:24:25] we're talking about. And again,
[3:24:27] it. I really appreciate the
[3:24:30] exchange here because there's a
[3:24:33] backfill cap, which is the cost
[3:24:34] that we would want the board
[3:24:37] to recognize
[3:24:39] in their decision making. But
[3:24:41] that backfill cap doesn't have
[3:24:44] to translate into the units
[3:24:46] that would be capped. Right.
[3:24:48] Because what we're trying
[3:24:49] to respect from our colleagues
[3:24:51] at Rote and Regional Parks is
[3:24:52] that for a time now,
[3:24:55] they've been operating in
[3:24:56] about a million and a half
[3:24:58] of mitigation planning.
[3:24:59] Anything that would have
[3:25:01] Collected more than that. They
[3:25:02] would probably would have
[3:25:03] to start considering what kind
[3:25:04] of planning would that be. So
[3:25:06] we're not considering that
[3:25:07] for backfill. And the slide is
[3:25:10] up.
[3:25:14] >>Yeah, somehow I missed this
[3:25:15] and it's not in the,
[3:25:16] the presentation that I printed
[3:25:17] out for myself.
[3:25:18] >>So. So.
[3:25:27] >>Okay, this is not. We have a
[3:25:28] number here, but we don't know
[3:25:29] exactly what the full impact is
[3:25:32] that hasn't been analyzed. We
[3:25:34] haven't heard
[3:25:35] from regional parks,
[3:25:37] for example, or
[3:25:39] from public infrastructure
[3:25:41] on what this would mean. And
[3:25:43] I'm a little uncomfortable
[3:25:46] with the size of those figures
[3:25:48] in the full.
[3:25:50] >>Impact is going to be
[3:25:52] something that will forever
[3:25:53] continue to escape us because
[3:25:54] these numbers here assumes all
[3:25:57] these projects are going
[3:26:01] to go through, right? And these
[3:26:03] projects, as you will see
[3:26:05] in the attachment
[3:26:07] of your report, they are
[3:26:09] at various stages. Right. And
[3:26:11] even if they were
[3:26:13] to all be completed,
[3:26:15] they'd probably be completed
[3:26:16] within the next three
[3:26:17] to five years type
[3:26:19] of situation. Right. So I guess
[3:26:20] what I'm trying to have you
[3:26:21] visualize is that the fees
[3:26:23] being reduced are not all going
[3:26:28] to come
[3:26:30] in year one or all going
[3:26:31] to come completely
[3:26:33] between year one and two and
[3:26:35] by the time we get
[3:26:36] to the next study is probable.
[3:26:38] And again, that's the impact
[3:26:40] analysis that escapes us
[3:26:42] because it's all
[3:26:43] about probability now, right.
[3:26:44] By the time we get to the NEXUS
[3:26:47] study and we might establish
[3:26:48] per square footage fees because
[3:26:50] of AB602 or do something
[3:26:53] different as suggested by
[3:26:54] Cher Rabbit, we will be in a
[3:26:55] different world.
[3:26:57] >>Right.
[3:26:58] >>And it's possible that many
[3:26:59] of those units will be in that
[3:27:02] time continuum and not the
[3:27:04] immediate term.
[3:27:07] >>Okay.
[3:27:11] >>In the end, you know,
[3:27:13] I'm not willing to go
[3:27:14] down the road
[3:27:15] of no impact fees
[3:27:17] at all because
[3:27:20] in the end there's an impact to
[3:27:21] the general plan or the general
[3:27:23] general fund. We're starting
[3:27:24] with this $3 million
[3:27:26] over two years,
[3:27:27] but we already have an impact
[3:27:31] to the general fund on the
[3:27:32] roadside where we put extra
[3:27:33] money in every year
[3:27:34] for good reasons.
[3:27:35] But the general fund, the loss
[3:27:38] of income to the general fund
[3:27:46] impacts everyone. And a lot
[3:27:48] of the people who depend on the
[3:27:52] general fund are the same
[3:27:53] people who are trying to help
[3:27:55] with housing, the folks
[3:27:57] with greater needs,
[3:28:00] lower incomes. I'm going
[3:28:01] to just go with my feeling that
[3:28:03] we take option number three
[3:28:06] here because the lower cost
[3:28:08] gives us more bang
[3:28:11] for the buck, more units
[3:28:17] for the effort here. And it
[3:28:18] also includes the size
[3:28:22] of the units which, you know,
[3:28:26] we've been talking about,
[3:28:30] right. Sizing fees. And this is
[3:28:33] the one that does it best
[3:28:35] in my View. Thank you.
[3:28:41] >>Thank you, Vice Chair
[3:28:42] Hermosillo.
[3:28:45] >>Thank you. I think the only
[3:28:47] feedback I have is first,
[3:28:48] thank you for your work
[3:28:52] on this. And it is important
[3:28:53] to right size fees. We know
[3:28:55] that there is a significant
[3:28:56] need of housing
[3:28:58] in the very low, low income.
[3:29:00] But also last year I was
[3:29:02] at a pinning ceremony for fire
[3:29:04] department firefighters and the
[3:29:05] majority of them are coming
[3:29:10] from out of town. One
[3:29:12] firefighter comes from
[3:29:13] Arnold, California to work
[3:29:16] in the Valley. And so we need
[3:29:18] to right size fees
[3:29:19] in all types of housing. So
[3:29:24] thank you,
[3:29:27] >>Supervisor Gore.
[3:29:29] >>Yeah, I appreciate the
[3:29:31] conversation. I think it's a
[3:29:33] really back
[3:29:34] to that slide that you put up.
[3:29:36] You don't have
[3:29:38] to pull it back up again,
[3:29:40] by the way, but back to the
[3:29:42] slide that you pulled up.
[3:29:43] Let's remind ourselves that
[3:29:44] that is all unrealized revenue
[3:29:47] from a tax on future housing
[3:29:49] for which we are not building
[3:29:50] that housing now. So the true
[3:29:52] impact of these impact fees, in
[3:29:53] essence could be less housing
[3:29:55] or is less housing
[3:29:56] like that's what I said before
[3:29:57] in kind
[3:30:00] of a way was if the real impact
[3:30:01] of these impact fees is less
[3:30:03] housing, then we failed, you
[3:30:05] know, the budget to potentially
[3:30:06] manage our existing parks, our
[3:30:10] infrastructure and our other
[3:30:12] things for more people being
[3:30:17] in our unincorporated areas or
[3:30:19] in our cities that use our
[3:30:22] unincorporated areas. I would
[3:30:25] challenge that that analysis
[3:30:27] of what it's not commensurate
[3:30:32] with every single individual
[3:30:34] coming in of how much needs
[3:30:35] to be paid. A lot
[3:30:37] of parks get paid
[3:30:38] to a certain level
[3:30:40] in a standard
[3:30:41] of service and they get built
[3:30:43] out and then people coming
[3:30:46] to those. The investment was
[3:30:48] made by a lot of people
[3:30:49] individually beforehand. So.
[3:30:50] So my thing here is kind
[3:30:52] of back to this point is
[3:30:53] whether no matter where the
[3:30:54] colleagues vote for the levels
[3:30:56] of reduction, I want
[3:30:59] to echo that. The program for
[3:31:00] my druthers should not be
[3:31:02] capped at the amount
[3:31:04] of money that we put into it. I
[3:31:06] would say if we put the $3
[3:31:07] million over two years,
[3:31:08] which seems to be supported
[3:31:10] for backfill,
[3:31:12] that's enough backfill. If the
[3:31:14] program continues
[3:31:16] at that point,
[3:31:18] if we fill up that backfill,
[3:31:21] maybe a way to do it is we
[3:31:22] could request that you all come
[3:31:27] forward and we do an update
[3:31:29] right
[3:31:31] before we just start eating
[3:31:33] into not accepting fees. But I
[3:31:36] would rather not put a
[3:31:38] arbitrary stop the program
[3:31:40] based upon that.
[3:31:44] >>Right.
[3:31:45] >>Just based upon how much
[3:31:46] money we are willing
[3:31:47] to backfill. The irony is that
[3:31:48] as supervisors said on this
[3:31:49] side is that once the nexus fee
[3:31:52] comes back, then we're going
[3:31:53] to have an opportunity
[3:31:55] to see where this is. But I,
[3:31:57] but That's, I think that's a
[3:31:59] different provision. So
[3:32:00] in one degree, I'd like us,
[3:32:02] I'd like to us
[3:32:03] to consider voting
[3:32:04] on the options herein. And then
[3:32:06] on the second side is maybe see
[3:32:09] if the colleagues are
[3:32:11] interested in supporting
[3:32:12] capping the program or not
[3:32:14] capping the program based upon
[3:32:16] the dollars. I'd love
[3:32:17] to see what the demand is
[3:32:19] out there, personally. Thank
[3:32:21] you.
[3:32:23] >>And so just for
[3:32:24] clarification, my understanding
[3:32:25] was that we are essentially
[3:32:26] backfilling our departments at
[3:32:28] a level that has been actually,
[3:32:30] that's a relatively high year
[3:32:32] that we chose. So they will be
[3:32:34] kept whole, but the program
[3:32:35] could still continue, right,
[3:32:36] to that sort of a set amount
[3:32:39] that can be drawn
[3:32:40] down and then we can continue
[3:32:42] to waive the fees and just
[3:32:44] simply not collect them and not
[3:32:46] add to the departments. Is that
[3:32:47] correct?
[3:32:48] >>Bingo.
[3:32:49] >>Correct.
[3:32:50] >>It is correct. And I don't
[3:32:51] want the audience and the board
[3:32:52] to recognize that what we have
[3:32:53] framed
[3:32:55] for you is a two year program.
[3:32:57] That, that it's in place for
[3:33:00] two years or when the nexus
[3:33:02] study comes, whichever comes
[3:33:03] earlier.
[3:33:04] >>Well put.
[3:33:06] >>Because again, you,
[3:33:07] you've asked staff
[3:33:08] to do the work
[3:33:09] of the nexus study. As
[3:33:11] Supervisor Rabbit said to.
[3:33:12] This is intended to be an exist
[3:33:14] study that really analyzes
[3:33:15] impacts from development and
[3:33:16] you'll have then a more
[3:33:18] detailed information for what
[3:33:19] would happen once this ends.
[3:33:21] >>Right.
[3:33:23] >>And we're trying to
[3:33:24] synchronize them to be. At the
[3:33:25] same time.
[3:33:26] >>I'm just going to keep my
[3:33:29] remarks really brief and then
[3:33:30] go over to my colleague who's
[3:33:32] leaning in. I support parks. I
[3:33:33] support, you know, traffic
[3:33:36] mitigation and improvements
[3:33:37] in our public infrastructure.
[3:33:39] And I support, and I think that
[3:33:40] what is beautiful is that no
[3:33:41] matter what option we choose
[3:33:43] today, staff has come forward
[3:33:44] with solutions that keep our
[3:33:45] departments whole while also
[3:33:47] allowing us
[3:33:48] to incentivize the development
[3:33:49] of affordable housing. So I
[3:33:50] just want to say thank you
[3:33:51] to staff. I look forward to
[3:33:52] seeing where we have a
[3:33:53] majority. I want
[3:33:55] to acknowledge my colleague,
[3:33:56] Supervisor Abbott, you're
[3:33:57] leaning in for a comment. And
[3:34:00] then we can also, I mean, we
[3:34:01] can either take a straw poll or
[3:34:02] we can just. I heard a couple,
[3:34:03] I think on option one,
[3:34:04] if someone wants
[3:34:05] to make a motion, we can see
[3:34:06] where the votes fall.
[3:34:08] >>I was just going to say
[3:34:09] for myself,
[3:34:10] and I think this has been true
[3:34:11] over the course of many, many
[3:34:12] years, if you believe there is
[3:34:14] a housing crisis and that
[3:34:15] crisis can be addressed or
[3:34:17] mitigated by lowering these two
[3:34:18] development impact fees. And
[3:34:20] again, I was honest. And
[3:34:21] whether or not this will make
[3:34:22] the huge difference
[3:34:24] in the world to be seen.
[3:34:26] But also remember,
[3:34:28] it never was intended
[3:34:30] to be a hit to the general fund
[3:34:34] because these aren't
[3:34:37] necessarily while they're
[3:34:39] in the general fund,
[3:34:40] they're dedicated dollars
[3:34:42] to mitigate the impact
[3:34:44] of the development. All the
[3:34:45] projects on that list have not
[3:34:46] been built. There are no
[3:34:47] impacts until they are built.
[3:34:49] And again it goes to the
[3:34:51] problem that we have that we
[3:34:52] have a line item attacks that
[3:34:54] we've been putting into
[3:34:56] projects that aren't
[3:34:58] necessarily always related
[3:35:00] to the development. And I think
[3:35:01] that to me that's why this is
[3:35:03] different. And we could
[3:35:05] prioritize infrastructure
[3:35:07] projects. And I think all the
[3:35:09] projects that parks have done
[3:35:11] over the years are wonderful
[3:35:12] and great. And I think the
[3:35:15] projects that have been
[3:35:17] identified through
[3:35:18] transportation are wonderful
[3:35:19] and great. We can certainly
[3:35:21] always identify those and
[3:35:23] prioritize those and go through
[3:35:24] our general fund dollars and
[3:35:25] act accordingly. But again,
[3:35:28] I go back to the intent
[3:35:29] of development impact fees were
[3:35:31] to mitigate impact of
[3:35:32] development identified. I also
[3:35:33] am a big fan of development
[3:35:43] agreements where you can mix
[3:35:45] and match and really go
[3:35:46] above and
[3:35:48] beyond and maybe shift to all
[3:35:49] parks if there's not a
[3:35:51] transportation impact and those
[3:35:53] kind of things. And I think
[3:35:55] that we should be creative as
[3:35:56] we do that. But again,
[3:35:58] if there's a. If this helps
[3:36:00] spur housing,
[3:36:02] let's spur housing. And again
[3:36:03] I. The caveat is that I don't
[3:36:05] want to have a hole
[3:36:06] in the existing budget with
[3:36:07] monies that have been
[3:36:08] appropriated,
[3:36:10] but not necessarily coming out.
[3:36:12] But I look forward to the nexus
[3:36:14] study.
[3:36:15] >>Thank you. Supervisor Gore.
[3:36:18] >>It would be appropriate to
[3:36:21] put a motion. I move that we
[3:36:26] boldly select item number one
[3:36:31] which is reduce parks and
[3:36:33] traffic fees by 100%. That
[3:36:35] average reduction is 10,144 per
[3:36:37] unit. Furthermore, I request
[3:36:40] that we bring back maybe six
[3:36:45] months or during budget. It
[3:36:50] could be a consent calendar
[3:36:51] item or an update
[3:36:53] on the nexus fee study.
[3:36:56] However you all determine when
[3:36:58] is an appropriate time in
[3:36:59] between now and 12 to 18 months
[3:37:01] from now so that we don't blink
[3:37:03] this away. So I'm requesting
[3:37:06] maybe a six month update. Have
[3:37:08] we allocated, do we have the
[3:37:10] how much allocation towards
[3:37:12] that 3 million dollar backfill?
[3:37:16] Are we at. So we're not just
[3:37:17] disappearing
[3:37:19] into that. I think
[3:37:21] at that time we could talk
[3:37:22] about if further policy
[3:37:23] discussions because I'm still
[3:37:26] very interested in existing and
[3:37:27] future law which is
[3:37:29] around sewers, water hookups
[3:37:31] which are very expensive.
[3:37:35] But I have been told
[3:37:37] by county staff are not allowed
[3:37:40] for us to move forward
[3:37:42] under the current,
[3:37:44] these current proposals. Is
[3:37:45] that correct?
[3:37:48] >>The county Council's
[3:37:50] perspective is that we would be
[3:37:52] required
[3:37:54] to backfill any reduction to
[3:37:55] the sanitation connection
[3:37:56] district. That fee with county
[3:37:58] general fund required.
[3:38:01] >>We couldn't just. And once
[3:38:02] again, I'm interested. So some
[3:38:06] of that I'm getting lost
[3:38:08] in my motion. So I had a motion
[3:38:10] on the table which was to
[3:38:11] approve item number one and
[3:38:13] then have a program update six
[3:38:14] months
[3:38:16] from now or appropriately
[3:38:17] during budget. And then I feel
[3:38:18] like at that time we would
[3:38:20] discuss these other items. I'll
[3:38:21] leave that there
[3:38:23] through the chair.
[3:38:24] >>A point
[3:38:25] of clarification.
[3:38:27] >>So under item one,
[3:38:28] if we could.
[3:38:29] >>Go back to the slide, there
[3:38:31] are three sub options.
[3:38:33] >>Basically. Do we want to cap
[3:38:34] the number.
[3:38:36] >>Of units that this applies
[3:38:37] to, to half of our arena,
[3:38:38] the full arena,
[3:38:40] or the entire pipeline of
[3:38:41] affordable projects currently?
[3:38:43] >>And so those three options
[3:38:45] are laid.
[3:38:46] >>Out on that slide.
[3:38:50] >>I apologize. Thank you. The
[3:38:52] entire 1C affordable pipeline.
[3:38:53] >>Got it.
[3:38:56] >>And do we have a second
[3:39:00] for that motion? There is a
[3:39:02] motion and a second from
[3:39:03] Supervisor Rabbit. We will take
[3:39:05] a roll call vote on this one.
[3:39:06] And before we do,
[3:39:08] I just want to.
[3:39:09] To say thank you so much. I. I
[3:39:10] neglected to do this earlier
[3:39:11] to members of the public who
[3:39:12] provided such thoughtful,
[3:39:13] compelling testimony. And I
[3:39:14] always appreciate testimony
[3:39:16] that comes with data,
[3:39:17] so thank you for that, too.
[3:39:19] But thank you
[3:39:20] for being here today and
[3:39:21] for participating
[3:39:22] in that process. Marcy, unless
[3:39:23] there are any other comments.
[3:39:24] Going once, going twice.
[3:39:25] Great. Call it. Oh, wait. Damn
[3:39:27] it. I was not fast enough.
[3:39:28] Supervisor.
[3:39:30] >>Buzzer beater.
[3:39:31] >>I just think, as we. And I
[3:39:32] appreciate Supervisor Gore's
[3:39:34] comment, I just think as we go
[3:39:35] forward, a food for thought.
[3:39:37] You know, I think what happens
[3:39:38] with especially the utility
[3:39:39] connection fees is the last.
[3:39:41] It's like this room is the last
[3:39:43] person in the room. Did that
[3:39:44] last. Last person make it
[3:39:46] crowded or did the first. If
[3:39:48] you're in traffic, is it the
[3:39:49] first car that makes the
[3:39:50] congestion or is it the last?
[3:39:52] We have this habit
[3:39:54] of charging that last person.
[3:39:55] You know, I would say
[3:39:56] at least 80% or 90% or more
[3:39:59] of mitigation and not taking
[3:40:02] into account the cumulative
[3:40:04] effect. And I think that those
[3:40:06] fees, in my opinion,
[3:40:08] really fall that way and need
[3:40:09] to be looked at.
[3:40:10] >>All right. I think now anyone
[3:40:12] else going one's going with.
[3:40:15] Great. Marcy.
[3:40:17] >>[ ROLL CALL ]
[3:40:32] >>And that does carry
[3:40:33] unanimously. So thank you all
[3:40:34] so much for being here.
[3:40:35] >>And for clarification,
[3:40:36] this item will come back to the
[3:40:37] board as a resolution to. So we
[3:40:38] can mechanize this. Thank you.
[3:40:40] >>Thank you very much. And also
[3:40:41] thank you
[3:40:44] to everyone who has been
[3:40:45] waiting for comments
[3:40:46] on matters not listed
[3:40:48] on the agenda. We are just
[3:40:49] going to take a brief 10 minute
[3:40:50] bio break and then we will come
[3:40:52] back for the public comment
[3:40:54] on matters not on the agenda.
[3:40:55] [ RECESS ]
[3:48:52] >>And with that, thank you all
[3:48:53] for your patience. We will be
[3:48:54] taking public comment
[3:48:55] on matters not listed on the
[3:48:56] agenda and you will have two
[3:48:58] minutes to make your public
[3:48:59] comment welcome.
[3:49:01] >>It surprised you today when I
[3:49:05] said today or excuse me,
[3:49:08] today I said that February 22nd
[3:49:09] is George Washington's
[3:49:10] birthday. A lot
[3:49:12] of folks don't even think
[3:49:13] about that anymore. Used to be
[3:49:15] a holiday when I was a
[3:49:18] youngster. So keep this
[3:49:20] in mind about George
[3:49:23] Washington. Born 1732, died
[3:49:24] 1799, 225 years ago. Important
[3:49:25] things have happened
[3:49:27] since obviously, but he was the
[3:49:28] guy that was the first
[3:49:30] commander in chief of the
[3:49:31] Continental Army. They were
[3:49:33] called the Patriots forces and
[3:49:35] also the British called them
[3:49:39] rebels and revolutionaries. So
[3:49:40] what's really important is that
[3:49:43] he implemented a strong, well
[3:49:44] financed national government at
[3:49:46] the time and he set the
[3:49:48] precedents for not just
[3:49:51] Republicanism in our nation,
[3:49:54] but a peaceful transfer of
[3:49:57] power and the two term
[3:50:00] traditional. These are very
[3:50:02] important things to have. And
[3:50:03] in his farewell address he
[3:50:05] pointed out that we had to have
[3:50:06] national unity and avoid
[3:50:09] regionalism. Well, this is
[3:50:12] important right now because
[3:50:13] of what's happening at the
[3:50:14] federal level. I hope you had a
[3:50:16] chance to see the news article
[3:50:17] about Jack Smith's article
[3:50:19] being his report partially
[3:50:21] allowed out into the public.
[3:50:23] You should really read what was
[3:50:25] put in there. It's very
[3:50:28] important. And I brought
[3:50:29] something else too. This is a
[3:50:31] book about becoming a US
[3:50:32] citizen. I can bet you that
[3:50:39] almost all Native American.
[3:50:40] I'll rephrase that. Americans
[3:50:42] born here in the United States
[3:50:43] may not know how to become an
[3:50:44] American citizen. This is a
[3:50:46] very difficult book, full
[3:50:48] of difficult questions
[3:50:49] about being an American. So I'm
[3:50:52] one of those guys that wants to
[3:50:53] be a full service citizen. I
[3:50:54] try to do my best
[3:50:56] within the limitations of the
[3:50:59] way our governmental system
[3:51:01] works. I hope you'll understand
[3:51:02] that I'm a firm believer in
[3:51:04] having more citizens and I'm
[3:51:05] going
[3:51:07] to be the best one I can.
[3:51:08] Thank you.
[3:51:09] >>Some time Put yourself
[3:51:10] to sleep.
[3:51:11] >>Appreciate it. Thank you.
[3:51:14] >>Good afternoon.
[3:51:15] >>Good afternoon, Madam Chair
[3:51:17] members. Welcome to the Vice
[3:51:19] Chair. My name is Katherine
[3:51:21] Dodd. I live in WikiUp and I
[3:51:25] just had a disappointing chat
[3:51:27] with Supervisor Gore briefly
[3:51:30] about the casino and how
[3:51:33] Important it is to negotiate
[3:51:35] fire safety and road safety
[3:51:37] in the WikiUp MarkWest area
[3:51:41] where the highway patrol is
[3:51:42] responsible
[3:51:44] for traffic control. So I'm
[3:51:46] hoping that there'll be robust
[3:51:47] public hearings on that. But
[3:51:48] I'm here today as an
[3:51:49] environmental health
[3:51:50] specialist. I'm a retired
[3:51:52] public health nurse and I've
[3:51:53] done environmental policy
[3:51:54] for several years. The
[3:51:56] information I'm presenting is
[3:51:57] from UMass Loyal Toxics
[3:51:58] Reduction Institute called
[3:51:59] TURI. It's a report from 2018
[3:52:01] and for more recently the
[3:52:02] Santa Clara County Medical
[3:52:03] Society. All of us want to be
[3:52:05] in healthy environments
[3:52:07] for work and play. And we
[3:52:08] expect our public spaces, we
[3:52:09] expect our elected officials
[3:52:11] are ensuring that there are no
[3:52:12] poisonous dangers.
[3:52:14] Specifically, concerns exist
[3:52:16] for children who are uniquely
[3:52:17] vulnerable to the effects of
[3:52:19] toxic chemicals because their
[3:52:20] organ systems aren't developed.
[3:52:22] They breathe more air and
[3:52:23] faster and per body unit they
[3:52:26] absorb more toxins.
[3:52:28] For these reasons, it's
[3:52:30] particularly disappointing that
[3:52:32] you approved an expenditure
[3:52:34] of almost a million dollars
[3:52:37] on poisonous plastic grass in
[3:52:38] December which I just learned
[3:52:40] about. I don't follow the
[3:52:41] agendas that carefully.
[3:52:43] Plastic grass has over 16,000
[3:52:47] chemicals that only 4,000
[3:52:49] of which have ever been tested
[3:52:51] for safety. Artificial turf. I
[3:52:54] will come every week if I have
[3:52:56] to do an education on
[3:52:58] artificial turf and how
[3:52:59] dangerous it is. PFAS
[3:53:01] in particular. But the fills
[3:53:03] that they're proposing are are
[3:53:05] held together with plasticizers
[3:53:07] that have phthalates in them
[3:53:08] that are endocrine disruptors.
[3:53:10] They're causing premature
[3:53:12] development of young girls and
[3:53:14] infertility amongst young boys.
[3:53:16] >>But I do want you
[3:53:19] to know that that will be
[3:53:22] on our calendar
[3:53:23] for later this year
[3:53:25] to discuss. And so we haven't
[3:53:27] yet published the calendar
[3:53:30] of some even items. But there
[3:53:31] was direction the artificial
[3:53:33] turf issue as well as also
[3:53:34] artificial or a policy going
[3:53:36] forward. So thank you very
[3:53:37] much.
[3:53:39] >>Thanks. You'll hear more. Is
[3:53:40] it two minutes?
[3:53:42] >>It's two minutes. Yes. Hello
[3:53:52] again.
[3:53:53] >>Hi.
[3:53:54] >>Good afternoon. Thank you
[3:53:55] for appointing me to the
[3:53:56] Local Integrated Waste
[3:53:57] Management Task force. I'm here
[3:53:58] today to talk
[3:53:59] about contamination. Toxic
[3:54:01] pollution that's being shredded
[3:54:03] up and distributed all
[3:54:04] across our county land. We live
[3:54:06] in one big watershed. I want
[3:54:08] to thank you for your support
[3:54:12] for measure J
[3:54:14] in our agricultural industry.
[3:54:15] Critically important.
[3:54:17] But we have another Oh gosh.
[3:54:20] Critically important also is
[3:54:25] the financial and environmental
[3:54:30] risks of artificial turf
[3:54:31] for our ag economy. And this is
[3:54:33] preventable if we stop
[3:54:35] distributing shredded toxic
[3:54:38] forever chemicals across our
[3:54:40] land which kills the soil and
[3:54:42] eliminates carbon sequestration
[3:54:44] capacity. Artificial turf may
[3:54:45] seem convenient but it carries
[3:54:47] long term consequences. The
[3:54:49] Forever chemicals. They are
[3:54:50] such an issue that they are
[3:54:55] shutting
[3:54:57] down farms and ranchers
[3:54:58] across the country. Please
[3:55:00] notice these articles when they
[3:55:02] come up across your newspapers
[3:55:04] in Maine, where milk was deemed
[3:55:05] unsafe,
[3:55:07] farms are being shut down. In
[3:55:09] Texas, the PFAS runoff from
[3:55:12] adjacent farms is getting onto
[3:55:14] other farms and causing
[3:55:15] livestock deaths and destroying
[3:55:18] those businesses. Supervisor
[3:55:21] Hopkins, you cited at the
[3:55:23] Measure J kickoff that we have
[3:55:25] the best butter here,
[3:55:26] organic butter. What a disaster
[3:55:29] it will be if we contaminate
[3:55:30] the well water, which the
[3:55:32] Farm Bureau is shutting
[3:55:34] down wells in Southern
[3:55:36] California due to forever
[3:55:37] chemical contamination. We
[3:55:39] gotta get ahead of this risk.
[3:55:40] And protect our ag economy.
[3:55:42] Thank you.
[3:55:45] >>Thank you very much. Good
[3:55:47] afternoon.
[3:55:49] >>Good afternoon. Please don't
[3:55:50] stop start the clock yet. I
[3:55:51] just want
[3:55:52] to mention how detrimental
[3:55:53] to public comment it is
[3:55:54] for the time to be delayed
[3:55:56] by two hours. And I've been
[3:55:57] here before. But consider that
[3:55:59] it's not enough time
[3:56:01] for you guys
[3:56:02] to express any comments now.
[3:56:04] And this is part
[3:56:06] of public comment, so we have
[3:56:08] to start the clock. Thank you.
[3:56:11] >>Okay, I want to say. Sonoma
[3:56:13] County Agricultural
[3:56:16] Preservation and Open Space
[3:56:20] District December 10, 2024.
[3:56:21] U. K. Almost a million dollars
[3:56:22] to put plastic grass in
[3:56:23] Shopland Park. It wasn't well
[3:56:24] publicized. It was
[3:56:25] surreptitiously included in
[3:56:27] your meeting that day. I can't
[3:56:29] even find it in the agenda,
[3:56:31] but I did watch the tape. I
[3:56:32] went to watch the video
[3:56:35] for a minute. I'd like
[3:56:38] to quote David Robinson, the
[3:56:42] park manager from Sonoma
[3:56:43] County Regional Parks, who
[3:56:45] said,
[3:56:47] for the past five years, we've
[3:56:48] been watching climate change
[3:56:51] unfold in Sonoma county before
[3:56:53] our very eyes. I began
[3:56:57] thinking, why isn't addressing
[3:56:59] climate change one
[3:57:00] of the top priorities
[3:57:01] at regional parks? How do we
[3:57:02] get everybody, field staff,
[3:57:03] visitors,
[3:57:04] park managers involved
[3:57:05] in making a difference?
[3:57:06] That's David Robinson of
[3:57:07] Regional Parks. I came here
[3:57:08] today to tell you
[3:57:09] about my capitulation, my
[3:57:10] quitting, okay? You guys
[3:57:11] decided to put this stuff in
[3:57:12] Shoflin Park. You could have
[3:57:13] stopped it. You didn't. I've
[3:57:14] been losing sleep over this.
[3:57:16] I'm not losing sleep anymore
[3:57:17] because I'm giving up
[3:57:19] on that particular issue. Not
[3:57:21] on the issue of plastic grass
[3:57:22] on public lands in Sonoma
[3:57:23] County. But you beat me,
[3:57:25] okay? So that's what I'm here
[3:57:27] to publicly declare. I wish the
[3:57:29] newspaper was still here.
[3:57:30] They're not. I wish the
[3:57:32] audience was still here.
[3:57:34] They're not. You're stifling
[3:57:35] public comment. That's all I
[3:57:37] have to say. You're doing a lot
[3:57:40] of good things, too. Sorry
[3:57:43] about that. Thank you and
[3:57:44] again, this will be agendized
[3:57:46] at some point
[3:57:47] for our discussion, which means
[3:57:48] that we could actually respond
[3:57:49] to you later in the year. And
[3:57:50] we expect the calendar
[3:57:52] of significant items
[3:57:53] to be brought before the board
[3:57:54] to vote and adopt sometime in
[3:57:56] February. Is that correct?
[3:57:57] Yes. All right,
[3:57:58] thank you and apologies
[3:58:00] for the lateness.
[3:58:02] With that we are going
[3:58:03] to adjourn
[3:58:04] into closed session. We will be
[3:58:05] back to report out
[3:58:06] on closed session. Or do you
[3:58:08] have other report outs you want
[3:58:09] to do? I said the calendar has
[3:58:10] it or the agenda has it listed
[3:58:11] that will report out
[3:58:12] on the 28th. I can do the
[3:58:13] report out if we want
[3:58:14] to come back out. Otherwise I
[3:58:16] would suggest that the board do
[3:58:17] its disclosures report outs now
[3:58:19] and then we'll go
[3:58:23] into closed session and.
[3:58:25] Report
[3:58:26] out next time.
[3:58:27] >>Okay. All right, so you want
[3:58:28] to stick with the 28th. Okay.
[3:58:30] So we'll report out
[3:58:31] on closed session
[3:58:32] on the 28th, but we can report
[3:58:35] on meetings. Is that the next
[3:58:45] schedule? Okay. The report
[3:58:46] out will be at the next
[3:58:47] scheduled meeting which is
[3:58:48] January 28th
[3:58:49] for closed session. Okay. And
[3:58:50] with that, anyone want
[3:58:51] to report on their meeting?
[3:58:52] Supervisor Rabbit?
[3:58:53] >>Yeah. Last Thursday 9
[3:58:54] January I did chair the state
[3:58:58] seismic safety commission up
[3:58:59] in Sacramento where a couple of
[3:59:01] the actions taken I remained as
[3:59:02] chair. There's a long
[3:59:04] discussion on fire
[3:59:05] after earthquake especially
[3:59:06] in light of what was happening
[3:59:07] in the south land. There's a UC
[3:59:09] Berkeley Pierce research that's
[3:59:11] going to be taking place
[3:59:12] although we're working
[3:59:14] on the scope
[3:59:15] of that conflagrations
[3:59:17] like wildfire. Less the winds
[3:59:19] but multiple ignition sources.
[3:59:20] So just as dangerous Update
[3:59:21] on the shake table that
[3:59:22] with the 10 story building that
[3:59:24] we're going to shake apart.
[3:59:26] Down in San Diego There was a
[3:59:29] 7.0 earthquake in late
[3:59:30] December at what's called the
[3:59:32] Mendocino triple junction
[3:59:34] off the coast of Rio Del where
[3:59:36] the Cascadian fault begins
[3:59:39] going north. The San Andreas
[3:59:42] fault ends from the south and
[3:59:44] another fault that
[3:59:47] perpendicular off of there. So
[3:59:49] very active. And I do want
[3:59:51] to make note of this because I
[3:59:52] think it's really interesting
[3:59:54] if you have the Myshake app. I
[3:59:56] did not know this. I probably
[3:59:58] should have. There's been $3.8
[3:59:59] million 8 million downloads.
[4:00:03] One in 20 phones have this app.
[4:00:04] It's actually owned and
[4:00:06] operated by Cal oes which is a
[4:00:07] good thing because I'll tell
[4:00:08] you that it has an
[4:00:09] accelerometer within the app.
[4:00:11] So if you leave that app
[4:00:13] on your bedside table,
[4:00:15] it'll report back the frequency
[4:00:18] of the building. And there's a
[4:00:21] research program that we just
[4:00:22] invested in last week that will
[4:00:23] use that app
[4:00:26] in all the buildings around to
[4:00:28] identify damage post earthquake
[4:00:29] because the frequency changes
[4:00:32] when the earthquake occurs and
[4:00:34] it is supposed to rebound back
[4:00:36] to what it was prior.
[4:00:38] But it won't because it may be
[4:00:40] an indication of damage and
[4:00:41] by the percentage of frequency
[4:00:42] change or rebound will indicate
[4:00:44] whether or not the building has
[4:00:47] significant damage. Which I
[4:00:51] think is pretty interesting.
[4:00:52] You could imagine after a huge
[4:00:53] earthquake that that could be a
[4:00:56] real quick indicator of initial
[4:00:58] damage and then allow identify
[4:01:01] places for engineers to go
[4:01:03] in and to make sure that the
[4:01:05] building is safe. So I just
[4:01:06] thought that was really
[4:01:09] interesting. There's one that
[4:01:13] had a. It was 3.25 Hz pre
[4:01:14] quake, 2.42 during the quake
[4:01:17] which is again as you expected
[4:01:19] because it's a softening of the
[4:01:20] building and then it bounced
[4:01:22] back to 3.17 lower than what it
[4:01:24] was before. Now you'd have
[4:01:27] to look
[4:01:28] at that individual building to
[4:01:30] see what the frequencies
[4:01:31] they're starting off with the
[4:01:32] high rises because they move
[4:01:33] more but they could also do it
[4:01:34] for lower,
[4:01:35] lower buildings as well. So I
[4:01:36] thought I'd mention that
[4:01:37] because I found that pretty
[4:01:38] interesting. The good thing
[4:01:39] that it's owned by Cal OES is
[4:01:40] that immediately afterwards you
[4:01:42] won't get advertisements
[4:01:43] from structural engineers,
[4:01:44] engineers and or you know, your
[4:01:46] insurance companies as what I
[4:01:47] would imagine if it was
[4:01:49] privately held.
[4:01:50] >>Who else is ready
[4:01:53] with meetings to report out
[4:01:54] on Supervisor Gore?
[4:01:59] >>Just a couple things. Number
[4:02:02] one is yesterday I joined
[4:02:03] Regional Parks
[4:02:05] on a prescribed burn at
[4:02:06] Foothill Regional Park. Just
[4:02:09] great work. I wanted
[4:02:11] to give just mention that to
[4:02:13] the colleagues that it was
[4:02:14] great to see them. We're going
[4:02:16] to post some videos along
[4:02:17] with them and other things. It
[4:02:18] was even though it was a gusty
[4:02:19] day because this was not a
[4:02:20] ground prescribed fire,
[4:02:23] a controlled burn. It was piles
[4:02:24] that they've been doing
[4:02:26] in a lot of our districts and
[4:02:27] in other areas they were able
[4:02:29] to light them one at a time and
[4:02:30] manage them appropriately. It
[4:02:32] was just very impressive, you
[4:02:33] know,
[4:02:35] from a culture perspective
[4:02:36] of being able to do that. We,
[4:02:38] that we're, we're all afraid.
[4:02:39] Second thing is,
[4:02:41] is that we're going to meet
[4:02:43] on the 28th, but on the 29th
[4:02:45] and the 30th we're hosting
[4:02:47] for the North Coast Resource
[4:02:48] Partnership which is one of the
[4:02:49] appointments that I hold and
[4:02:50] I'm the co chair of at the
[4:02:52] Greaton Casino which has
[4:02:55] sponsored us. It'll be seven
[4:02:57] counties, 35 tribes and I know
[4:03:00] Supervisor Hopkins is the
[4:03:02] chair. We have you making some
[4:03:03] comments there, but if any
[4:03:04] of my other colleagues want
[4:03:05] to attend any of it,
[4:03:06] I just wanted
[4:03:07] to make sure that you follow up
[4:03:08] with me if there's anything.
[4:03:09] Okay. Thank you. I would just
[4:03:12] say a lot of it is that group
[4:03:13] is a primary conduit of climate
[4:03:17] bond or water bond money and
[4:03:19] that's really going to be what
[4:03:20] we focus on.
[4:03:26] >>Great. Vice Chair
[4:03:28] Hermosillo, anything to report?
[4:03:29] >>No meetings yet.
[4:03:32] >>Great. Supervisor Corsi.
[4:03:35] Okay. I just wanted to mention
[4:03:36] that we did have a joint
[4:03:38] meeting of the Lower Russian
[4:03:39] river and Coast Municipal
[4:03:40] Advisory Councils on Thursday
[4:03:41] night
[4:03:43] for their BROWN act training.
[4:03:44] Have lots of new members,
[4:03:45] which is very exciting. And
[4:03:47] then had a regional measure ad
[4:03:49] hoc with SCT rcpa,
[4:03:50] which I also had with
[4:03:51] Supervisor Rabbit to discuss
[4:03:52] the regional transportation
[4:03:54] measures still in conversation
[4:03:57] around the Bay Area. And with
[4:03:59] that we have no adjournments
[4:04:01] today,
[4:04:02] but we will be adjourning into
[4:04:04] closed session and we'll report
[4:04:05] out at our next regularly
[4:04:07] scheduled meeting on January 28.