The Study Session was called to order at 3:00 p.m. Mayor Condron, Vice Mayor Martini, and Councilmembers Evans, Rabinowitsh and Runyan were present. Councilmember Vas Dupre was seated at approximately 3:05 p.m. Councilmember Wright was absent. Also present were the following Museum Board members: President Marlene Ballaine and Trustees Terry Abrams, James Benefield, and William Knight, and Trustee Emeritus Will Pilcher.

President Ballaine made the initial presentation. She said that the Museum was moved about 20 to 25 years ago. It was known at that time that the building into which they moved would be too small and expansion was always intended. With the availability of the Conklin Brothers site, as well as the lot on the other side of the museum, it appeared that this is a good time to pursue the expansion. An informal feasibility study was conducted and it was determined that it would be a good idea to move in this direction if funds could be raised. Council's action last year to grant a 25-year extension of the Museum's lease, as well as the Press Democrat's decision that the Museum should be part of the millennium project, also contributed to the belief that this is the appropriate time to move forward. President Ballaine noted that the Press Democrat is donating 26 pages of advertising for the Museum during this next year. She said that Bill Knight's architectural firm provided a vision of the future Museum complex if the Board is successful in obtaining the Conklin Brothers site and the empty lot. She discussed the requests the Board has made of public donors and noted that they believe they are on the right track given the enthusiasm and interest that has been expressed on behalf of their vision.

President Ballaine explained that the Board does not envision the entire project happening at one time, but rather views it as a three-tiered project: 1) Remodeling the entire first floor of the existing Museum and using a portion of the funds from the Press Democrat to install an interactive historical component at the Museum. 2) Securing the Conklin Brothers property and redesigning the building. 3) Erecting a four-story Museum where the "Soggy Doggy" is now located. It is envisioned that the Museum could become a destination point in the Downtown. It could include traveling shows with an expanded history component. It could reflect the region, as well as the diversity of the community of Santa Rosa. She said she hopes the Council will continue its support of this project as it is important for revitalization and it is important for the community, children and citizens in general, to see their history reflected. She said all the right components are in place to move forward with this project.

Mr. Knight displayed renderings of the entire site and discussed the project in more detail. The first phase, involving the existing building, is underway. The second phase involves the Conklin Brothers site. The Museum Board envisions retaining only part of the existing structure. There is a need for an auditorium and significant display area and so a state of the art lecture auditorium is being planned. It will be a small ensemble-type of facility with sloping floors. This facility can be used for meetings, but will not be a large facility and so will not compete with the Luther Burbank facility.

Mr. Knight discussed the proposed 5,000-foot display area which would be used for traveling exhibits. The existing Museum is not adequate in any respect for these types of exhibits at this time. There are climate control/humidity problems as well as space problems. He said a community room with 90 to 100 seats is included, as well as a space for receiving for the Museum. He discussed plans for the courtyard, which would become a heritage area, a sculpture garden, etc.

Mr. Knight said the last phase would be to complete the major building; i.e., a facility that would have 16-foot ceilings and 9,000 square-foot areas that would be used as exhibit space for either permanent or transitional exhibits. This building would consist of three floors above ground. There would be administrative space and space for classrooms, a research library, conference rooms, etc. Mr. Knight briefly described how the Museum may be able to assist other non-profit organizations in filling some of their administrative needs. He said that there would be a floor below ground that would be used for the storage and preparation of major exhibits.

Mr. Knight said that a campus of the size proposed will fulfill the dreams of the Downtown Core Area Plan of a number of years ago. He envisions the new facility to be the cultural entertainment area of Santa Rosa. The Museum will also have enough room to become a regional Museum. He closed by reiterating that what he has presented is yet just a vision. It may be redesigned, but he thinks a facility of this scale and this nature is necessary for the area.

Mayor Condron asked for some information regarding parking. Mr. Knight responded that there are 750 parking spaces a half block from the Museum. The proposed Museum will be a considered a Downtown urban development. In addition, the plan will most likely be modified so that there will be drop-off areas for buses and disabled persons. In the short term, with the development being phased, an area will be surfaced for a few number of cars.

Councilmember Vas Dupre referred to the Bicycle Master Plan and said she hopes that, given the desire for alternative transportation modes, a bicycle path will be taken into consideration in this proposal. Mr. Knight assured her that there is plenty of space on the property to accommodate that type of thing.

Mr. Knight noted that the existing Magnolia tree will be preserved, with benches in its vicinity. He said that it is envisioned that there will be some type of display area on the corner of B Street to let the community know about upcoming exhibits as well as other activities in the community.

In response to Councilmember Rabinowitsh, President Ballaine confirmed that the art and traveling shows will include a variety similar to what the Museum currently has. However, she pointed out that not only is space a current problem, funding is as well, since there are many different fees involved in bringing traveling shows to the Museum. With the expanded facility, membership will grow. In addition, an endowment has been built into the expansion. The Museum Board has entered into some discussions in terms of a collaboration with the Sonoma County Repertoire Theater. In addition, a meeting has been scheduled with the Arts Council regarding collaborative efforts.

At this time, President Ballaine briefly expressed some of her concerns related to the issue of a homeless shelter. She urged Council to address this issue as a long-range problem, to set up a Task Force for that purpose including representatives from City Vision, and to lobby the Governor with the idea of keeping the National Guard Armory open. Mayor Condron responded, noting that the Council is in the process of lobbying heavily to keep the Armory open, using the services of the City's lobbyist.

Discussion followed regarding the proposed expansion plans for the Museum. President Ballaine and Mr. Knight responded to a number of questions. The Museum Board has hired a capital campaign consultant effective February 1. In addition, they are expecting to hear about some major gifts within the next couple of weeks. They don't envision this funding being found overnight. President Ballaine discussed the estimated costs to purchase the sites and said that the funding for the four-story building will occur in the future. She shared her optimism that once the plans for the Museum are evident, people will become excited about the project and come on board with it. She shared her enthusiasm, noting the wonderful opportunity this project is for the City.

Mr. Knight said that a portion of the budget is endowment money for operations. In addition, the Board has attempted to be realistic. Their estimates provide for inflation and they want the community to know the exact costs of the project.

The discussion continued, during which it was noted that funds will need to be sought from grants, foundations, and other sources outside of Sonoma County. It was also noted the funding is available to do the first phase, that the property can be purchased, and that the third phase of this project can wait.

At this time Trustee Jim Benefield discussed his belief that this project is a realistic one. He stated that given the size of the City and the County, it is time this community had a museum worthy of it. The fact that property on both sides of the Museum is available at this time makes this a remarkable opportunity and the campaign for this project must begin now. There is money in hand for the remodeling of the old Post Office. He reiterated earlier comments related to the need to purchase the other sites at this time. He discussed the uniqueness of the Museum operation, given that it encompasses both history and art. He pointed out that with the space in the new building, it would not be necessary for people to travel to the De Young Museum in San Francisco to see some of the major art exhibits; they could be displayed in Santa Rosa. He closed by stating that this would become the cultural campus in the heart of Santa Rosa.

President Ballaine noted other Museums that have been successful in major fund-raising campaigns.

Councilmember Vas Dupre inquired as to whether there is the possibility of the Museum obtaining a matching grant. President Ballaine responded that that possibility has not yet been discussed. The Board is just at the point where they want the City to know what they are proposing to do. They have spoken with and are on a list for funding with the Redevelopment Agency.

Trustee Terry Abrams briefly discussed the Board's decision not to consider a short-term project, but rather to take the position of forward planning. She reminded those present that this project will be done in phases. In addition, she noted that an endowment of $1 million is substantial for a Museum the size of this one.

Councilmember Evans expressed her support of the proposal, particularly in its placement in the Downtown. She concurred that the timing is right to commence this project. She referenced her visits to the Museums in Santa Barbara and Monterey, and stated that this project will measure up to those Museums. She said she is looking forward to the opportunities the Council will have to assist in this project. She discussed her hope that some of the historical character of the old Post Office building will be present in the final plans for the new Museum. She suggested that when considering the display board, the City's sign code be reviewed. Mayor Condron added that the parking ordinance should be reviewed as well.

Mr. Knight pointed out that it is important that the information about community events and activities be displayed tastefully both for pedestrians and vehicle traffic. There was a brief discussion regarding this matter.

Regarding the old Post Office building, Mr. Benefield pointed out that the pillars have been replicated in front of the proposed buildings. An effort has been made to tie in the architecture of the new buildings with the original one to the degree practical.

Councilmember Runyan suggested that this project be kept in mind as the search for a new Museum Director proceeds.

Mayor Condron closed the meeting by encouraging the Board to retain their vision and enthusiasm for this project, and offered Council's assistance in supporting and promoting the campaign to move the project forward.

The Study Session adjourned at 3:50 p.m. to a Closed Session.



Mayor Condron called the meeting to order at 4:12 p.m.


Present: Mayor Condron, Vice Mayor Martini, and Councilmembers Vas Dupre, Evans, Rabinowitsh, and Runyan.

Absent: Councilmember Wright.

Councilmember Runyan introduced Teen Council member, Elliot Kadar, who is a Junior at Maria Carrillo High School.



Greg Entizne and Jim Rasmussen received a proclamation recognizing and commending Southland Corporation for its commitment to health, safety, and the diversity of the community as evidenced by their donation of office space, utilities and equipment for a Community Multi-Cultural Center. They acknowledged Police Commander Steve Thomas for being the driving force in promoting this involvement.


Eric Cook, Social Advocates for Youth, and Diane Olson, President of Junior Achievement of the Redwood Empire, received a proclamation proclaiming February 2 as Groundhog Job Shadow Day. Ms Olson noted that she and Mr. Cook are working together with partners throughout the community to provide these job shadowing experiences to approximately 500 students. Approximately 150 students participated in last year's first annual event. She distributed information regarding this opportunity. Mr. Cook acknowledged the partners in this program, pointing out the youth employment opportunities Groundhog Shadow Day provides in the County. He commended the Council for supporting this event. Mayor Condron spoke about the effectiveness of one-on-one relationships with teens and encouraged people to participate in this program by either contacting Junior Achievement or Social Advocates for Youth

Closed Sessions: At this time City Attorney Rene Chouteau announced that at the conclusion of the Study Session today Council met in Closed Session to discuss two potential litigation claims subject to Subsection (b)(c) of Government Code Section 54956.9. In addition, he requested that Council, prior to consideration of Item 8.8, meet in another Closed Session with Real Property Negotiators concerning 90 Brown Street (APN 009204006). The negotiating parties are the City of Santa Rosa and Guy and Denise Hamilton.

Mr. Chouteau also requested that Council add an additional litigation to the Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) in order to discuss the claim of Scott v. the City of Santa Rosa. To add this to the Agenda will require a vote of the Council. This Closed Session is required because of upcoming matters that will occur prior to the next Council meeting.

MOVED by Vice Mayor Martini, seconded by Councilmember Evans, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO ADD A CLOSED SESSION TOPIC TO THE AGENDA (additional litigation: Scott v. the City of Santa Rosa) TO THE AGENDA.


Mayor Condron briefly discussed the revised Council policy which will enable citizens to speak on Consent Items at that time on the Agenda.

Jack Osborne referred to the response to the letter which he received from the City Attorney's office. He said the concerns he expressed in his letter were not on behalf of himself, but rather to provide citizens with the opportunity to discuss any item on the Agenda before or after it has been called. He noted that Council can limit the public testimony, citing the five-minute limit recommended by the Attorney General's office. He then cited Council's policy which also provides for citizens to speak on any item on the Agenda.

Mr. Osborne referred to today's Consent Items, noting that the Agenda does not indicate the amount that will be spent on those items.

Don Russell, Rincon Valley Mobilehome Park, said that although Mr. Chouteau and Judi Lynch, Housing & Redevelopment, have acted on some of the concerns of the renters, concerns still remain. Some of the renters believe that there are conditions in some of the leases that overflow into non-compliance with rent control. He said he does not think the problems in the park have been resolved yet.

Darlene Grainger spoke about the shooting death of her twin brother in the Police Department lobby by Police three years ago. She said that today is their birthday and displayed a photograph of her brother, Dale Robbins. She referred to the complaints she made to the Council several months ago, during the discussions related to a potential civilian review board, related to this incident and said she has not yet received a response. She said that her son has organized an event for January 30 in memory of her brother. It will be held in Courthouse Square from noon until 4:00 or 5:00 p.m. Churches and activist groups are being invited to participate so that people with complaints can speak with representatives from these organizations. She pointed out that complaint forms are not readily available throughout key locations in the City (i.e., the public library, Peace and Justice Center, etc.).

Duane DeWitt, Santa Rosa resident, noted that he went to high school with Dale Robbins and sympathized with Ms. Grainger's pain. He said that when he first moved to Santa Rosa he had asked that new ways be implemented to increase citizen participation in the government decision-making process. More than four years ago the idea of a community Action Team (CAT) originated as a way to involve citizens. He asked that, even if the CAT is disbanded, some effort continue to be made on behalf of involving the public. He suggested ways that this could be done: 1) follow the State Attorney General's opinion regarding using the Brown Act to empower and develop a rapport with citizens; 2) schedule more meetings later in the day, instead of during the work day; 3) focus especially on the meetings for Redevelopment of Southwest Santa Rosa and the Roseland Redevelopment Project that currently exists in that area; and 4) hold meetings in the impacted neighborhoods.

Mr. DeWitt distributed a copy of an application for a Brownfield Revitalization Pilot Project Grant from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that was submitted two years ago by Community Builders. There is now a group in the Southwest Area called the Citizens Clean-up Coalition, which works under the banner of United Southwest 2000. Mr. DeWitt said it is possible to bring Federal funds into the Southwest Area to clean up toxins. He asked Council to review the application since it provides an explanation of how to use Federal funding and to work with the community in cleaning up this problem. He said an application for this funding is in process and there is a need for a jurisdictional agency to be included in this application. He asked that Santa Rosa's Redevelopment Agency be so designated.

Sandra French noted that she is a concerned parent in the Southwest Santa Rosa area and is very interested in the proposed West County Transportation Agency (WCTA) school bus maintenance and storage facility which is proposed to be located on West Robles and Juniper Avenues. She read a statement (on file in the office of the City Clerk) outlining her concerns related to the project, and asked that Council request a complete and comprehensive traffic impact study to determine the full impacts of the project, as well as to determine remedial steps that would alleviate all of the concerns.

Siegrid Smith,Southwest Santa Rosa, reiterated some of the concerns raised by Ms. French. She said she attended a meeting with Supervisor Mike Reilly last week and it appeared that the proposed maintenance/storage facility is a "done deal." She noted that most of the residents did not know about this proposal until after the death of an Elsie Allen High School student. She discussed the inequity of this situation. She pointed out that very few of the school districts in her area actually use the buses. She asked Council to investigate this matter.

Ruby Solberg referred to a program for senior citizens which was sponsored by Merrill Lynch. She expressed appreciation to the Lion's Club, the Volunteer Wheels staff, and Merrill Lynch for their efforts on behalf of this program (and similar ones, such as the one held on Christmas Day), and said she hopes the City will send letters thanking those people who assist in holding these types of programs. Ms. Solberg then discussed a site on Healdsburg Avenue owned by the State and suggested that it may be a facility the City and County should consider obtaining and holding onto for future needs.

Dennis Richardson referred to the proposed bus maintenance/storage facility in Southwest Santa Rosa and referenced a statement allegedly made by Supervisor Reilly that the Board of Supervisors thinks the study done by the City for the Southwest Area is adequate in lieu of an additional traffic study. He said the project's site acquisition staff also stated in a County Planning Commission meeting that the County hasn't heard about substandard roads or traffic conditions in the area. He distributed a copy of the Circulation and Transit Element of the EIR (Environmental Impact Report) that was prepared for the Southwest Santa Rosa Area Plan and pointed out sections of the report that seem to indicate that this area cannot support such a facility. He suggested that the WCTA facility will increase the density in Southwest Santa Rosa. He noted that the proposal includes the elimination of Juniper Avenue as a through street thereby increasing the already heavy traffic in a rural residential and industrial area. He reviewed some of the traffic projections contained in the EIR and pointed out that the ratings for the intersections and roads in the area are below standard. He asked Council to review the excerpts from the EIR and asked Council to meet with a representative of the Board of Supervisors to review these concerns.

Mayor Condron responded to many of the comments. She asked Ms. Grainger to provide the Clerk with her address. She pointed out that the majority of the toxic clean-up issues are within the County and indicated that she hopes Mr. DeWitt was also expressing his desire to participate with the County related to this matter.

Mayor Condron referred to the comments regarding the WCTA proposed bus facility and said Council will be discussing this matter under Written Communications and will determine their position at that time. She said a straw vote was taken at the County level resulting in three votes for the project and two against it. This issue will come before the County for a formal vote next Tuesday. She encouraged those interested to either submit their comments to the County Board of Supervisors prior to that meeting or to attend that meeting and voice their concerns. She said she will be meeting with Supervisor Smith tomorrow and will discuss this issue with him. She reminded those present that this is a County project within the County and so lobbying activities should be focused with the County.

Mayor Condron said the City will follow up on acknowledging the business community, and others, who sponsor events such as referenced by Ms. Solberg.

5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of January 19, 1999

MOVED by Councilmember Runyan, seconded by Councilmember Evans, CARRIED BY A 5-0-1 VOTE (Vice Mayor Martini abstaining because of his absence from the January 19 meeting), TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.


Vice Mayor Martini indicated that he will abstain from action or discussion on Item 7.1 since he was not present at the meeting when this item was first considered.


At this time, Mayor Condron asked whether members of the audience wished to speak on any Consent Items. No one responded.





MOVED by Councilmember Runyan, seconded by Councilmember Evans, CARRIED BY A 5-0-1 VOTE (Vice Mayor Martini abstaining) TO ADOPT AND WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT OF (Item 7.1):


MOVED by Vice Mayor Martini, seconded by Councilmember Runyan, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO ADOPT AND WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXTS OF (Items 7.2 - 7.4):






Scott Stinebaugh, Deputy Director of Utilities, made the staff presentation. On June 23, 1992, City Council, by resolution No. 20850, authorized the Mayor to execute a fifteen-month term contract with three one-year renewal options for biosolids hauling services to Total Waste Systems, Inc., of Novato in the amount of $169,200. The contract was subsequently extended for two additional one-year terms.

On March 7, 1995, by Resolution No. 22119, the contract was amended to change the contract period to March 1, 1995, through February 28, 1997, with the option to extend the contract for three additional one-year terms. In addition, the disposal location was changed from the County of Sonoma Refuse Site, Petaluma, to Redwood Landfill, Inc., of Novato. On March 18, 1997, by Resolution No. 23401, the contract was extended for an additional one-year term through February 28, 1998. The contract was extended for a second one-year term on February 24, 1998, by Resolution No. 23452.

The biosolids hauling services consist of hauling dewatered biosolids produced by the Laguna Wastewater Treatment Plant's belt press. This product is loaded into sanitary trailers and once full are used to transport the biosolids to the Redwood Landfill and/or land application sites within Sonoma County.

At time of contract renewal on February 24, 1998, it was estimated that the contractor would haul approximately 10,000 tons of biosolids during the extended contract term. This estimate was based on having the Laguna Compost Facility in full production prior to expiration of the current contract. However, due to the impact of the El NiƱo rainy season and the lack of an off-site storage location for both biosolids and finished compost, more biosolids were hauled to the land fill than was anticipated, resulting in depletion of contract funding. The City plans to complete an off-site biosolids storage site in FY 1998-99. Completion of this site will eliminate the need for land filling of biosolids and its associated costs.

It is estimated that an additional contract encumbrance of $181,151 will be needed to pay invoicing currently in suspense and to haul an additional 6,139 tons of biosolids through the remainder of the contract term. At the request of the Utilities Department the Purchasing Agent has issued Amendment No. 8 to the contract for said encumbrance. Under the City's Modification and/or Change Order Policy, Amendment No. 8 requires approval by City Council.

It is recommended by the Utilities Department that the City Council, by resolution, approve Amendment No. 8 to Contract No. 93-4237 for an additional contract encumbrance of $181,151.

Jack Osborne questioned whether the biosolids storage facility will be finished. He suggested it would be in the best interests of the County and the City if the City used the Sonoma County landfill for disposal of the biosolids; i.e., Sonoma County would gain the financial benefits. He also questioned whether the City will be able to store the quantity of biosolids anticipated.

Mr. Stinebaugh responded. Regarding the completion of the storage facility, this is weather-dependent, but it is anticipated that this year will be drier than last year and so staff believes the facility will be completed. Staff also thinks it will be possible to dispose of all of the material. It was originally envisioned that one-third of the biosolids would be disposed of at the landfill, one-third would go for composting, and one-third would be made available to farmers. Staff is on track with this proposal and the amount disposed of at the landfill is continually being decreased. He noted the reduction in contract costs as a result.

In response to Councilmember Runyan, Mr. Stinebaugh clarified that the contract provides for some of the compost to be hauled to farmers. That cost is not included in the $10,000 and is much less. There is also a cost to haul to the compost facility and that is also much less than the costs for taking the material to the landfill.

MOVED by Councilmember Runyan, seconded by Vice Mayor Martini, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO ADOPT AND WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT OF (Item 8.1):



Bob Pacheco, Senior Buyer, made the staff presentation. He explained that the reason this item is not on the Consent Calendar is because the lowest bid received did not include the required bid bond. Therefore, it was considered non-responsive. Because of that situation, this bid award did not fit the criteria for action under the Consent Calendar.

On November 11, 1998, the bids for Invitation For Bids (IFB) 98-99-19, solicited by the City for elevator repairs & upgrades at Parking Garages #9 and #12, were opened and read aloud by the Purchasing Agent.

In Fiscal Year 1997-98, the City contracted for the repair of a leaking hydraulic cylinder and plunger assembly in elevator "A" at Parking Garage #12. During this repair it was found that the hydraulic jack assembly was not encased in a steel well casing which allowed corrosion to occur on the jack assembly and subsequent leakage. As a result of this finding, staff concluded a high probability exists that elevator "B" is in the same condition. Therefore, it was necessary to budget for the same type of repairs to elevator "B" in FY 1998-99. This was for the purpose of preventing any jack assembly leakage and subsequent soil contamination. Garage #9 repairs mainly involve ADA upgrades and the replacement of an aged elevator controller.

The Invitation For Bids (IFB) requested bids on three primary bid items and two alternate bid items. The alternate bid items were for an amount to be deducted from primary Bid Item No. 1, if an adequate well casing is found to be present and can be reused, and for additional upgrades to Parking Garage #9 not included in primary Bid Item No. 3.

Of the eight bidders on the City's bid list for this project, four bidders responded with written offers on all bid items. Of the four bids received, two were considered non-responsive for failure to submit with their bid the required bid guarantee. The two remaining bidders are considered responsive to the solicitation.

As a result of the evaluation of all bids, the bid submitted by Empire Elevator Company is deemed the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. Award of bid is recommended for primary Bid Items 1 through 3 and optional Bid Item 1a.

It is recommended by the Administrative Services and Transit & Parking Departments that the City Council, by resolution, authorize award of bid and authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue a contract for elevator repairs and upgrades to Parking Garages #9 and #12 to Empire Elevator Co. of Petaluma in the amount of $120,520 and authorize the Mayor to execute a contract for primary Bid Items 1 through 3 and optional Bid Item 1a.

Councilmember Runyan referred to the need for repair as stated in the report and asked for clarification. Mr. Pacheco responded that this project resulted because elevator "A" underwent some repairs of a similar nature in the last fiscal year. In the process of the elevator excavation it was found that the jack assembly did not have a steel casing around it. This lack allowed corrosion and leakage of hydraulic fluid to occur, as well as soil contamination. It is unclear what will be found during the subject excavation. However, if a steel casing is in place, the bid will allow for a deduction of well-drilling time which will offset that part of the project.

Jack Osborne explained why he believes that before obtaining bids it should be determined as to whether a specific problem exists.

Mr. Pacheco responded. The bid does allow for removal of contaminated soil. It is not known until the process of excavation has commenced as to what type of contamination will be encountered. Therefore, staff only estimates what they believe will be present based on the previous project. He pointed out that contractors are reluctant to commit to a contract with an unknown such as greater contamination than anticipated.

MOVED by Councilmember Evans, seconded by Councilmember Runyan, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO ADOPT AND WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT OF (Item 8.2):



Sonia Binnendyk, City Planner, made the staff presentation. On December 10, 1998, the Planning Commission voted 4-3 to recommend the City Council annex/pre-zone the 23 lots in the Monte Verde County Island to the RR-40, RR-20, and R-1-6 Districts consistent with a proposal supported by many residents in the annexation area. This proposal consists of prezoning 17 of the parcels to the RR-40 District (one-acre minimum lot size) with the remaining 6 parcels being pre-zoned to the RR-20 District (20,000 square foot minimum lot size) and R-1-6 District (6,000 square foot minimum lot size). These latter properties adjoin Spain Avenue as well as Monte Verde Drive, and the RR-20 District is proposed at the front half of the lots adjacent Monte Verde Drive, with the R-1-6 District proposed at the rear half adjacent Spain Avenue.

The General Plan designates most of the annexation area for Very Low Density Residential land uses, permitting a maximum of 2 units per acre. The only area in a different land use category is the rear portion of the 6 lots along Spain Avenue which is designated Low Density Residential, with a permitted density range of 2 to 8 units per acre. The proposed prezoning districts have been tailored to be consistent with these General Plan designations. The RR-40 and RR-20 Districts are recommended in areas identified as Very Low Density Residential and the R-1-6 District is recommended only in the limited area along Spain Avenue identified as Low Density Residential.

Residents in the annexation area have expressed a strong desire to preserve the rural character of the portion of Monte Verde Drive currently in the County by retaining the existing large lots and avoiding urban street improvements. The proposed zoning districts address these concerns by precluding future lot splits within the annexation area, except along Spain Avenue. The RR-40 District will not permit any of the 17 lots proposed for this designation to subdivide. The RR-20 and R-1-6 Districts proposed for the six lots with frontage on both Monte Verde Drive and Spain Avenue will allow these lots to subdivide in the future but still retain a rural character along Monte Verde Drive. The intent is to permit the rear portion of these parcels to eventually develop with single-family lots matching the lotting pattern and number of lots on the opposite side of Spain Avenue but retain acre lots along Monte Verde Drive.

Residents are requesting annexation largely to obtain access to City sewer service. After annexation, residents intend to create an assessment district to pay for installation of a sewer line in Monte Verde Drive. A water line has previously been installed; therefore, City water service is already available.

Ms. Binnendyk pointed out that in the past, prior to the annexation of properties which have the potential for a subdivision, the City has always required that mitigation agreements be signed with the School Districts. However, with the passage of Proposition 1A, it has been unclear since November whether those agreements are still necessary. The City Attorney's office has reviewed that proposition and has determined that the mitigation agreements with the School Districts are no longer needed. Proposition 1A provides funds which are intended to mitigate the development impacts of new projects on the schools. Therefore, no School District agreements have been requested or required from the residents in the subject annexation area.

Ms. Binnendyk said that two property owners within the RR-40 District want to be pre-zoned to the RR-20 District. This issue arose during the Planning Commission hearing. She displayed a map showing the location of the properties involved and discussed the difference between the two districts. The RR-40 District would not permit development, but the RR-20 District would allow the owners to submit lot-split requests in the future. She stated that neither the Planning Commission nor the staff supported either of these requests. The major reason staff did not support the request is because of the commitment to the neighborhood to retain the large lots and the rural character along Monte Verde Drive. Staff is concerned that these requests could create a precedent that could eventually trigger other piecemeal zoning requests in the island, thus undermining the goals of retaining the larger lots and avoiding street improvements.

It is recommended by the Planning Commission that the City Council, by resolution, adopt a Negative Declaration and introduce an ordinance annexing/pre-zoning the Monte Verde County Island to the RR-40, RR-20 and R-1-6 Districts with 17 lots being pre zoned to the RR-40 District and the remaining 6 lots being pre-zoned to the RR-20 District adjacent Monte Verde Drive and the R-1-6 District adjacent Spain Avenue.

Councilmember Vas Dupre commented that this project is a good example of the citizens working with each other and City staff to solve an issue.

Mayor Condron opened the public hearing.

John Daly discussed the key objectives and recent progress on the proposed project and said he also supports the formation of a sewer assessment district. He pointed out that houses in the subject County island were built in the 1950s and have been prevented from expanding due to septic system capacity limitations. Residents supporting a sewer assessment district want the ability to expand their houses via adding a bathroom, bedrooms, etc.

Karine Villeggiante opposed the proposal. She expressed concern that when she and her husband purchased their property in April 1998 the current situation was not disclosed to them. They have not had any problems with their septic system or their well. She stated for the record that there are other residents on the street who are opposed to the annexation.

Jim Hummer, representing the Grandalls, reviewed the discussion held at the Planning Commission hearing at which time two of the other residents in the island spoke in favor of the RR-20 zoning at 5220 Monte Verde Drive, and at which time Ms. Binnendyk said staff would not have concerns about that rezoning for that address, or for 5521 Monte Verde Drive, if it is supported by the neighborhood. He also stated that the Grandalls are supportive both of the annexation and a sewer assessment district. The only area of disagreement has to do with the zoning designation for their parcel. He explained why this zoning would not be of a precedent-setting nature and why the goal of retaining the unique rural character of the neighborhood can still be retained. He discussed the problems created by the drainage ditch on the southern portion of the lot and explained how the associated problems could be resolved with the subdivision and development of the back portion of that lot.

Charles Gordon explained why he is also requesting the RR-20 zoning designation. He discussed the current lighting situation, noted that adjacent property owners are in the City and are hooked up to City sewer, and pointed out that the sewer and water lines were installed for hook up to his property prior to his purchase of it. He noted the existence of asphalt sidewalks on the south side of Monte Verde Drive, noting that the installation of a similar sidewalk in front of his property may assist in obtaining a lot split for his property. He discussed the reasons why his family wants to split the lot.

Carol Gotz noted that her residence is almost at the top of the hill on the south side of the street. She opposes the annexation because of the proposed sewer assessment district. She noted that she purchased her house recently because of the rural uniqueness of the area. She stated that there are several other residents who are opposed to the proposal as well. She suggested that the drainage ditch will have to be retained since it is actually a storm drain. She said that if the annexation is pursued and the area is brought into the City, full City services should be provided (i.e., upgrades to the area such as streets, sidewalks, lighting, etc.). She asked Council to postpone action until more information is available on this issue.

Emma Chance opposed the annexation, noting the problems she and other residents on fixed incomes will experience with the additional costs. She said she is representing the property owners at 5422 Monte Verde Drive (Memeo's) and 5244 Monte Verde Drive (Pennato's) who are also opposed to the project. She discussed the length of time she has lived in the area and noted that she has not had problems with her septic tank or well. She expressed concern that there may be additional fees in the future if the residents are hooked up to the sewer at this time.

Andy Villeggiante reiterated some of the concerns his wife raised earlier in the hearing and stated his opposition to the proposal. He asked if there is a record of any failed sewers in the neighborhood or any contaminated wells, and stated that he does not believe that there are. He stated that this will not continue to remain a rural area if it is annexed.

Jack Osborne referred to the EIR for Skyhawk which designates Monte Verde Drive as a collector street. He noted that once the street comes into the City it will have to be improved and should be improved to City standards. He questioned whether the RR-40 District will actually prevent lots from subdividing. He said he does not object to the proposed annexation, but noted that if no subdivisions are going to be permitted, that should be so designated for the record.

Dave Hoffman said when he purchased his house in the area he was informed of the current situation by his realtor. He spoke in support of the annexation, noting the serious septic problems for those residents at the bottom of the hill and explaining why it is doubtful that he could get approval to add a room to his house. He discussed the increasing costs of obtaining sewer access as time passes. He noted his preference that the area retain its rural character and said that atmosphere can be maintained by the restraints on growth and subdivisions, which is the recommendation of the Planning Department. He discussed the situation surrounding the drainage ditch, pointing out the areas where there are safety hazards, and noting that the majority of the street has adequate sidewalks on one side.

A resident from Monte Verde Drive discussed the history and location of the existing sidewalks, his efforts and failure to improve his septic system in order to get approval to add another bedroom, and his support of the proposed annexation.

Charlene Bornstein discussed her involvement with and the history of this proposal as well as the County's action to install a walkway on the south side of the street in the County section only. She also referred to traffic impacts on Monte Verde Drive. She stated her support of the project as well as the zoning being recommended by the Planning Department. She pointed out that the area of Monte Verde Drive that is in the City is not as safe for pedestrians as is her area.

Paul Bussard spoke in support of the proposal and clarified some of the earlier comments. He noted that the sidewalks are made of shale, with asphalt curbs. He discussed the location of the drainage ditches. He explained that when this issue first arose in 1984 or earlier all but three property owners were in favor of a sewer assessment district. That is no longer the case. He discussed the costs which he thinks would be incurred by property owners for the installation of a sewer main, pointing out that there would be additional expenses to actually connect to the sewer. While he supports the proposal, he opposes any street improvements. He explained why he thinks the zoning is appropriate.

Doug Lawrence spoke in support of the proposal. He noted that some of the neighbors will incur very high costs if the sewer service is not provided. If the annexation is delayed, those expenses will double. He did not object to the zoning for the property on Spain Avenue.

Hearing no further comments, Mayor Condron closed the public hearing.

Mayor Condron noted that the only way additional improvements would proceed in this area would be through the implementation of an assessment district. Ms. Binnendyk clarified that this could be done in two ways. One way is via an assessment district as noted by Mayor Condron. However, if a property has not been subdivided, the City cannot require the owners to provide the money for street improvements; i.e., there must be a request for a subdivision. She noted that an assessment district would have to be supported by a majority of the property owners in the island.

Regarding the storm drain, Ms. Binnendyk explained that it will remain unless that property is zoned so as to achieve a lot split. She explained that in order for the property to subdivide, the request of Mr. Hummer to zone that area as an RR-20 District would have to be approved. However, what is being proposed is the RR-40 District.

In response to Councilmember Vas Dupre, Mr. Blackman said Council would have to concur that the request by the two property owners for RR-20 zoning should be incorporated and the resolution and ordinance would have to be changed accordingly.

Councilmember Vas Dupre asked about the provisions for a payment schedule for those people who would incur a hardship if a sewer assessment district were established. Chuck Regalia, Deputy Director of Public Works - Planning, briefly reviewed what would have to occur under Proposition 218. The district would have to be approved by a majority of the neighbors. If it were approved, all owners would have the obligation to participate and at this time there is no hardship provision.

In response to Vice Mayor Martini, Mr. Regalia clarified that the only action Council is taking at this time is to pre-zone the subject area and that zoning would be established if the area is annexed to the City. He discussed the annexation process, including LAFCO's role, the public protest hearing that would have to be held if LAFCO approves the annexation, what would trigger an election, and what Council's role would be related to the annexation. He also briefly discussed what would need to occur to establish a sewer assessment district.

Vice Mayor Martini commended the residents for the amount of time and effort they have expended toward resolving this situation. He pointed out the difficulties related to the government process and suggested that Council needs to respect the efforts of the Monte Verde residents and the need to move this project forward. He cautioned Council not to refine this proposal at this point in the process, particularly as it relates to the two parcels that want the RR-20 pre-zoning. He suggested that Council needs to take into consideration what the neighborhood and Planning Commission have done in regards to this project, move the project forward, and let the rest of the democratic process take place. He stated his support of the proposal as recommended by the Planning Commission and staff.

Councilmember Runyan echoed Vice Mayor Martini's comments.

MOVED by Vice Mayor Martini, seconded by Councilmember Evans, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO ADOPT AND WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT OF (Item 8.3):





Judi Lynch, Housing and Redevelopment Programs Specialist, made the staff presentation. Burbank Housing Development Corporation (BHDC) requests that the City issue multifamily private activity bonds up to $1.4 million to refinance the acquisition and rehabilitation of Apple Valley Lane/Papago Court properties.

The City is required to hold a Tax Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) public hearing and, if supported, adopt a resolution authorizing the bond issue by the City. The financing is structured so that the citizens of Santa Rosa will have no financial liability to the bondholders should the owner default on its bond payment.

BHDC plans a private purchase of the bonds by SAMCO (Savings Associations Mortgage Company, Inc.), a lending consortium and a long-time participant in financing of affordable housing. Bonds which are privately placed are not rated. Council would need to waive its AA or better rating as required by its bond policy upon approval of this request.

Approval of the bond issue will allow BHDC to refinance a five-year loan on 40 of the units acquired and rehabilitated and reduce the interest charged on a 30-year loan that they currently have on the other 8 units.

Public benefits of the acquisition include:

It is recommended by the Department of Housing and Redevelopment that the City Council, by resolution, authorize the City to issue bonds up to $1.4 million to finance the acquisition and rehabilitation of 48 units on Apple Valley Lane and Papago Court by BHDC and waive its bond rating requirement.

In response to Vice Mayor Martini, Ms. Lynch confirmed that the action Council will be taking will not interfere with the Community Development/Planning Department's discretionary actions either through the Planning Commission or City Council. She stated that the City is not put under any obligation to grant any other approvals for this project by issuing these bonds. Vice Mayor Martini noted that two of the bond issues that will be brought to Council at this meeting are for new projects involving new construction. Ms. Lynch confirmed that both of those projects will have to undergo the development process and the necessary level of public review regardless of Council's action

Mayor Condron opened the public hearing.

Jack Osborne questioned the need for an AA rating on the bonds issued. He questioned how the City knows whether BHDC will be getting the best interests on these bonds. He also suggested that there is an ultimate obligation to the City if the borrowers default. He expressed his lack of understanding as to why BHDC determines who to sell the bonds to since they are the City's bonds.

Terry Hilton, Concerned Citizens for Southwest Area Youth, spoke in support of this project and asked Council to ratify it.

Hearing no further comments, Mayor Condron closed the public hearing.

In response to Mr. Osborne's questions, Tom Downey, Bond Counsel with Jones Hall, explained in detail the rating for these bonds, particularly noting that the bonds are being sold only to institutions that can make their own judgments related to the projects and whether those projects, and the revenues they produce, will be able to produce the revenues to pay off the bonds. In these situations, the lending institutions don't look to the credit rating agencies to determine the likelihood of the repayment of the bonds. Rather, they do their own review.

MOVED by Councilmember Vas Dupre, seconded by Councilmember Evans, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO ADOPT AND WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT OF (Item 8.4):



Judi Lynch, Housing and Redevelopment Programs Specialist, made the staff presentation. The California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA) plans to issue multifamily private activity bonds up to $7,940,000 to finance the acquisition and construction of the Courtyards Apartments by KOA Development, Inc. The City is a participant in the CSCDA Joint Powers Authority and must approve the bond issue.

The City is required to hold a Tax Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) public hearing and, if supported, adopt a resolution authorizing the bond issue by CSCDA. The financing is structured so that CSCDA, the Joint Powers Authority, and the City will have no financial liability to the bondholders should the owner default on its bond payment.

Over 70% of the units will be either three or four bedrooms which will help to meet the need of large family affordable housing in the community.

Public benefits of the project include:

It is recommended by the Department of Housing and Redevelopment that the City Council, by resolution, authorize the California Statewide Communities Development Authority to issue bonds to finance the acquisition and construction of the Courtyards on Burt Street by KOA Development, Inc.

Mayor Condron opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, Mayor Condron closed the public hearing.

MOVED by Councilmember Rabinowitsh, seconded by Councilmember Evans, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO ADOPT AND WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT OF (Item 8.5):



Judi Lynch, Housing & Redevelopment Programs Specialist, made the staff presentation. The California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA) plans to issue multifamily private activity bonds up to $6.7 million to finance the acquisition and rehabilitation of Santa Rosa Gardens Apartments by RHC Communities. The City is a participant in the CSCDA Joint Powers Authority and must approve the bond issue.

The City is required to hold a Tax Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) public hearing and, if supported, adopt a resolution authorizing the bond issue by CSCDA. The financing is structured so that CSCDA, the Joint Powers Authority, and the citizens of Santa Rosa will have no financial liability to the bondholders should the owner default on its bond payment.

All units, except two manager's units, receive direct rent subsidies from HUD which expire in eleven years.

Public benefits of the acquisition include:

Potential negative impacts include:

It is recommended by the Department of Housing and Redevelopment that the City Council, by resolution, authorize the California Statewide Communities Development Authority to issue bonds to finance the acquisition and rehabilitation of 4601 Montgomery Drive by RHC Communities.

Mayor Condron opened the public hearing.

Jack Osborne pointed out that the money for this proposal will be used to rehabilitate existing units and said that he does not think the City will gain anything from this project. He questioned the City's moral obligation to look at the underlying economics (i.e., economic viability) of this action.

Mayor Condron noted that the advantages of rehabilitating these buildings have been evident in the Apple Valley Lane/Papago Court area.

Mr. Blackman pointed out that the subject project was an assisted housing project in the late 1960s and provides housing resources for low-income people. That loan has run its course and unless financing of this type is approved, the project would revert back to the private market. The rent would then no longer be based on the ability of people to pay. The proposed action will make the units available for an additional 30 years.

Hearing no further comments, Mayor Condron closed the public hearing.

MOVED by Councilmember Runyan, seconded by Councilmember Evans, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO ADOPT AND WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT OF (Item 8.6):



Judi Lynch, Housing and Housing Redevelopment Programs Specialist, made the staff presentation. The California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA) plans to issue multifamily private activity bonds up to $6.7 million to finance the acquisition and construction of Meadowview Park Apartments by KOA Development, Inc. The City is a participant in the CSCDA Joint Powers Authority and must approve the bond issue.

The City is required to hold a Tax Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) public hearing and, if supported, adopt a resolution authorizing the bond issue by CSCDA. The financing is structured so that CSCDA, the Joint Powers Authority, and the City will have no financial liability to the bondholders should the owner default on its bond payment.

Over 70% of the units will be either three or four bedrooms which will help to meet the need of large family affordable housing in the community.

Public benefits of the project include:

It is recommended by the Department of Housing and Redevelopment that the City Council, by resolution, authorize the California Statewide Communities Development Authority to issue bonds to finance the acquisition and construction of Meadowview Park Apartments on Old Stony Point Road by KOA Development, Inc.

Mayor Condron opened the public hearing.

A property owner on Hearn Avenue, asked whether the project was adjacent to her property. Following a brief review of the map, Ms. Lynch confirmed that it is.

Hearing no further comments, Mayor Condron closed the public hearing.

MOVED by Councilmember Evans, seconded by Councilmember Runyan, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO ADOPT AND WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT OF (Item 8.7):


At this time Mayor Condron reordered the agenda to consider Item 10.5.

10.5 COMMUNICATION - J. Seal re: Traffic Analysis of West County Transportation Agency Bus Facility.

Mr. Blackman noted that a private traffic engineer was consulted who indicated that he does not believe enough traffic information is available at this time to support a Negative Declaration, nor that there is sufficient information to determine what the traffic impacts will be. Mr. Blackman briefly noted that this project is in process and is in the Southwest Area in the County. This matter will be taken to the County for action next Tuesday.

Mr. Blackman said he asked the City Traffic Engineer what it would take to produce the type of information required to make a decision. The Traffic Engineer indicated that it would take about six weeks to obtain that information and recommended that if this direction is pursued, an outside consultant should be hired to perform the study given the current workload of the staff. Mr. Blackman indicated that there will be an impact with the proposed use, but staff is unable to advise Council at this time as to the nature of that impact.

Mayor Condron explained that Council needs to decide whether they want to make a statement to the County and, if so, what that statement will be.

In response to Vice Mayor Martini, Mr. Chouteau confirmed that the County has the discretionary approval of this project and can do what they want to with it regardless of the City's opinion related to the it.

Councilmember Runyan said he has spoken with Supervisor Reilly regarding this situation, but encouraged the citizens of the Southwest Area to attend the Board of Supervisors meeting on Tuesday to voice their concerns.

Jim Seal said that the County, in its interpretation of the CEQA law, has said that if there is any substantial information that would potentially overturn a Negative Declaration, they cannot move forward with that Negative Declaration. He said he feels the information provided by the outside traffic consultant made that test and so the City and the residents can at least raise the question that there seems to be substantial evidence to go forward with a full traffic impact report. Therefore, this item could be removed from the Consent Calendar next Tuesday. However, the Board of Supervisors will only do so if there is credible evidence from a source such as the City or a traffic engineer that all of the impacts have not been properly identified and mitigated.

In response to Vice Mayor Martini, Mr. Blackman indicated that the City's Traffic Engineer does not believe enough traffic information is known to determine whether a traffic impact study is necessary.

Vice Mayor Martini suggested that the Council needs to clarify this matter with the County, requesting that they not use the City's information for this project. Councilmember Rabinowitsh concurred. He pointed out that the City has an interest in this project since it is in the City's urban boundary and will be part of the City. Therefore, it is in the City's interest to request that enough information be provided to do an analysis of the potential traffic impacts.

In response to Councilmember Vas Dupre, Mr. Blackman explained that it would be up to the County to determine whether to go through an open bid process for a consultant.

Councilmember Evans concurred with Vice Mayor Martini's suggestion.

Mayor Condron will be meeting with Supervisor Smith in the morning and will bring forward Council's concerns. A letter will be prepared stating the Council's position that a more in-depth traffic impact study must be done before County proceeds with this project.

Council adjourned to a Closed Session with the Real Property Negotiators at approximately 6:50 p.m. and reconvened at approximately at 7:20 p.m. with the same Councilmembers present.


Steve Burke, Director of Housing & Redevelopment, said the Armory is located on Armory Drive, adjacent to the freeway by the Santa Rosa Junior College campus. The Armory has been used from November through March during the past nine years as a winter homeless shelter which serves single people. It opens for this purpose at about 7:00 p.m. and is vacated by the homeless people at approximately 7:00 a.m. The majority of those people leaving the Armory will typically walk Downtown to the Homeless Services Center.

Mr. Burke said that the City of Santa Rosa has been responsible for signing the licensing agreement each year during which the Armory has been used as a shelter. He explained that the funding for the shelter comes from the City, County and to a great extent from private businesses, churches and individuals. The shelter cannot operate beyond this winter season (March 1999) as a result of action taken by former Governor Wilson. Legislation is being introduced to extend that period of time. However, at this time there is no indication as to whether that legislation will be approved and signed by the new Governor.

Mr. Burke pointed out that the Armory Shelter is one of a number of facilities available in the City of Santa Rosa. It is the largest facility for single adult men and women, but there are approximately 12 other facilities spread throughout the City for different segments of the homeless population. There are also other shelter operations in other parts of the County.

Mr. Burke said that the replacement efforts began in the early part of the 1990s and involved the City of Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, local non-profits, and more recently representatives from various neighborhoods. During these last few years a number of discussions have been held on an ongoing basis with members of the City Council and the Housing Authority, and different possibilities have been considered as to how to meet this need. In 1993, former Mayor Maureen Casey sent a letter to Supervisor Halberson, outlining an approach involving a County-wide plan. That letter references the Governor's decision to close the two Armories. That was anticipated to occur first in 1996.

Mr. Burke said an attempt was made in 1995 to acquire and rehabilitate the Holiday Inn. There have also been efforts to promote legislation to keep the Armory open or to obtain funding that would assist in an alternative location for an Armory Shelter. It was Santa Rosa's efforts that caused the last extension; i.e., to keep the Armories open for an additional three years. This City is the model that was used for the other 16 Armories that exist throughout the State of California.

Mr. Burke said the County reviewed all of its properties, to no avail, to locate a site that may be consistent with the needs of a shelter. In one of the City's "Update" publications, which is mailed to utility users in the City, a plea was made in 1997 for ideas/recommendations for possible sites. In addition, the City, County, and National Guard have had extensive conversations about finding an alternative site for the Armory and then transforming the current Armory site into a shelter. However, that was not feasible.

Ultimately, the City issued a request for proposals in March of 1998 which identified funds for capital costs of $500,000 and $100,000 per year for the operating costs. A major funding effort was extended to the different communities within Sonoma County. The result of that process was the receipt of one proposal from Interfaith Shelter Network for a building (old warehouses) on Sebastopol Road owned by Exchange Bank. Before the RFP was disseminated, staff had enough information to know there may be at least two sites that may fit within the established funding limit, one on Petaluma Hill Road and one on Sebastopol Road. Staff indicated that the non-profits should look for a facility that they felt would be in the best interests of operating their programs and meeting the needs of the community. Mr. Burke discussed the efforts with Exchange Bank, noting that last summer it was found that that site was no longer available. Since then, staff has been working with a group of people from the Homeless Task Force to determine whether there are alternatives available. Those are the alternatives presented by Gale Brownell on January 12 in the Joint Study Session with the Housing Authority: 1111 Petaluma Hill Road and the General Hospital site at 6th and A Streets. Both sites appear to be feasible. Staff has received a letter from Catholic Charities indicating a willingness to pursue either site, but noting their preference for the General Hospital site.

Mr. Burke said staff is asking the Council to consider whether this process is one which has produced a result with which to proceed. If not, the kinds of criteria that might be used to seek other feasible locations should be addressed.

Mr. Burke responded to questions raised by Vice Mayor Martini. He indicated that an average of 120 men and women stay at the Armory. He believes of those, 12 to 20 are women. The other facilities in the City service run-away youth, battered women, and families. The Gospel Mission is the only other shelter that provides emergency shelter for single men. Mr. Burke said he thinks they have approximately 80 beds. He estimated that there is probably a need for several hundred beds in this community. When the weather is the worst, people crowd the Armory Shelter and Gospel Mission. Otherwise, they may find refuge under bridges, behind bushes, around buildings, and in different locations throughout the community.

Mayor Condron opened the public hearing, asking those present to limit their comments to three minutes.

The following is a summary of the various positions taken by the speakers. In most cases the speakers emphasized their concerns for and compassion towards the plight of the homeless, while at the same time stating why they would either support or oppose a Shelter in the areas proposed.

The following speakers opposed the placement of a homeless shelter in the Downtown/General Hospital site:

Chris Facas, representing the majority opinion of the Downtown Partnership Committee (DPC); Richard Bartlett, General Manager of Santa Rosa Plaza; James Meacham; Laura Graham (she also suggested the old Yardbirds Store on Mendocino Avenue should be considered as a potential site, as should the old Bike Peddler place on Cleveland Avenue); Harold Wetjen, Morgan Street resident; Dave Dupont; Gary Wetjen, Morgan Street; Allen Thomas; Carol Dean, President of the West End Neighborhood; Sher Ennis; and Nancy DuPont.

The concerns cited by the previous speakers include: more homeless services are housed in Downtown Santa Rosa than in any other location throughout the City; the presence of homeless and transient persons bring real and perceived problems such as panhandling, sleeping in public places, urination/defecation in public places, aggressive behavior, and property and personal crimes; other areas of Sonoma County need to recognize their fair share in this problem; not enough time was given to the Downtown community to participate in addressing this problem and no formal proposal or plan was provided for review or comment; Downtown facilities would be overwhelmed with the overflow from the Armory; all of the services should not be placed in one area, but should be dispersed; the services should be spread throughout the community which would benefit the community as a whole; the existing programs at the General Hospital should not be displaced or disrupted; there are many projects in the Downtown that could be impacted by a shelter in the Downtown (Prince Greenway project, Convention Center, etc.); there is a high level of police calls for services at the Armory; a smaller (50-bed) homeless shelter should be built in Santa Rosa and the other cities in the County should build their own; and the neighborhood has declined with the presence of the homeless, at least one violent assault was made by a homeless person, and some of the residents don't feel safe as a result of their experiences.

Several of the previous speakers discussed the personal negative experiences they have had with homeless people on their own property (robberies, disposal of garbage, etc.).

The following speakers supported the placement of a homeless shelter in the Downtown Area/General Hospital Site:

Bernie Schwartz, owner of California Luggage on Fourth Street, Past President of the Downtown Development Association, and member of the DPC (he also offered to partner with the City, County, and others in this effort); Ralph Morgenbussha, owner of Ralph's Santa Rosa Subs and the Hot Dog Cart Downtown (also supports location on Petaluma Hill Road); Jessie Hatfield; Brad Smith (read excerpts of a letter written by Pat Boyce and Norm Harrison of the American Legion Auxiliary), Morgan Street; Tula Jaffe, Coordinator for the Sonoma County Task Force for the Homeless; Ron Debelak; Penny Vangellow; Marcia Koenig; Dian Shulkin; Keoki Raymond; Georgia Berland, former Director of the County Human Services Commission and founding member of the Task Force on the Homeless; Elayne Kahn; Maureen Shaw, Executive Directors of Catholic Charities; Carlos Perez; John Cochral, Third Street; and Sam Hollis.

The comments made by the previous speakers include: the Downtown would not be damaged by the presence of homeless people as there has already been a steady decline in foot traffic and visitors for years that doesn't have anything to do with the homeless; Catholic Charities provides daily support to their clients and it makes good business sense to have them operate this shelter as well; it would be helpful to the homeless people to have a shelter in the vicinity of Catholic Charities; the Catholic Charities Homeless Services Center staff has contributed to the increased self-esteem of their clients, enabling them to become more productive citizens, and those people need a safe and warm housing environment; people without neighborhoods/without places to stay need to be taken into consideration; many of the homeless people hold full-time or part-time jobs but cannot afford housing; a Downtown shelter would eliminate some of the homeless sleeping on private property; the location of the entrances and lighting would be of concern in establishing a new shelter; the shelter would not generate an increase in homeless people or increase the burden in this neighborhood; the problems that exist are not caused by the services provided to these people and will not go away by not providing services, but are decreased with the services; Santa Rosa is not the only City in the County providing Shelters; dispersing services is not practical; having the facility in the General Hospital area will not draw more homeless people but will provide those who are already here with a place to sleep; the costs of dispersing homeless shelters is prohibitive; this site is affordable and would be a consolidation of existing services and would most effectively service the homeless population where it already exists; homeless people are not the cause of many of the crimes; the shelter must be in town for those who are using it and have to get to their jobs (i.e., some people return to the shelter between jobs to shower and it would not be possible to do this if the shelter was not in town); and homeless people struggle on a daily basis just to find a place to sleep and a way to keep clean and need a condensed and organized center.

Several of the previous speakers discussed their current situations as homeless people and the assistance they are receiving from the current shelter. Others noted that they have not had any problems with the homeless in the area.

The following speakers opposed the placement of the homeless shelter in South Park:

Kathleen Mariola, lifelong resident in South Park; David Addlemam; Adam Bower; Kim Matherly; and Julie Hincher.

The concerns raised by the previous speakers include: many improvements have been made in South Park during the last few years and this situation may be reversed; within a six-block radius there are already a number of drug/alcohol rehabilitation residences and transitional housing programs; there are more than a fair share number of facilities in the area already; there is a problem with abandoned vehicles and people living in vehicles in the area; the pride in the community may be negatively impacted; the trend of improved property values may be negatively affected; the improved relationship between the community and the City of Santa Rosa may be jeopardized; the success of the businesses in the area will be jeopardized; when considering the children, it is a priority to keep the neighborhood free of garbage and human waste; additional security will be needed in the neighborhood; and there are reasons why the families/relatives of the homeless haven't sheltered them and why they haven't found jobs.

In addition to the previous concerns, the following questions were raised regarding a proposed shelter in South Park: 1) Will the shelter be open seasonally or year-round? 2) Will the shelter be for short-term/overnight use or for long-term use (30 days to six months)? 3) How many people will be allowed at the shelter? 4) Will there be procedures for admitting people into the shelter (i.e., security checks, fingerprinting, etc.)? 5) Are there provisions to protect people inside and outside of the shelter? 6) What will happen with people who are turned away from the shelter? Questions were also asked as to what daytime services will be provided in the immediate area for those people using the shelter (i.e., restrooms, drinking water, food, etc.).

Cynthia Fitzsimmons, Frazier Avenue, supported the placement of a homeless shelter in South Park as well as anywhere else in the City. She said a leaflet distributed in the community was appalling in that it equated homelessness with child molestation. She discussed the success experienced by people who have received assistance through the shelters (including personal success stories or stories of close relatives/friends) and pointed out that nearly every family in South Park is one paycheck away from homelessness. She noted that the shelter will have a process in place to police the surrounding area and will handle each problem on a case-by-case basis.

The following speakers supported homeless shelters in general: Duane De Witt (he also discussed a document entitled, "The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy" which points out that housing has not kept pace with the demand); Susan Blair, representing the Purple Berets; Anthony Jones; Don Nowacki, volunteer/homeless advocate and member of the Board of Directors of the Interfaith Shelter Network; John Davenport, President of the Interfaith Shelter Network; Pam Wallace, Executive Director of the Interfaith Shelter Network; Karen Sommer, business person in the community; Ben Hario, Flower Avenue; Santos Garcia; Sherry Redman; Peter (last name unknown); John Lowry; Elizabeth Basile; Peter Fetters; Antonio Reza; Nancy Taveras, volunteer supervisor at the Armory Homeless Shelter; and Daniel Lettix.

The comments made included: Santa Rosa is experiencing a housing crisis and Sonoma County is one of the most expensive places to live in the Nation; modulars could be built throughout the community to assist in this problem; the homeless are not drug-addicted child molesters and should not be demonized; the fastest growing segment of the homeless people are women with or without children and youth fleeing violence in their own homes; shelter for the homeless must be a priority of the community; affordable housing is critically lacking and a growing number of homeless people are the working poor; homelessness is a matter of circumstances and is not a life-style choice; providing a safe shelter is preferable to allowing homeless people to slowly deteriorate physically and mentally as a result of their harsh living conditions; a permanent shelter similar to the one in Marin County should be established; don't scatter the services as it is more efficient to have them in one place; time is of the essence and the Interfaith Shelter Network would be willing to work with the neighbors or Catholic Charities regarding this matter if either of these sites is approved; these problems will not disappear and they need to be addressed at this time; consideration should be given to the expansion of the Cultural Arts Center and how a homeless shelter may impact that; services such as transportation must be provided in any area; health issues on behalf of both the clientele and neighborhood should betaken into consideration; the current problem is larger than just a homeless problem; the shelter will assist people in moving through and getting out of homelessness; the proposed shelter is not an additional one, but a replacement for the Armory; whatever site is chosen, there must be enough beds for the homeless (150 are not enough); and although there is a need to start with a consolidated homeless shelter, eventually it needs to be dispersed.

Some of the comments made by the above-referenced speakers also included personal experiences and benefits to those people who have used or are currently using the services of the shelters.

In response to Vice Mayor Martini's earlier question, Ms. Wallace noted that consistently 80% of those people who use the shelter are men and 20% are women. She also displayed a chart showing who the homeless people are: people who have been turned away from other programs, the working poor, the mentally ill, the physically disabled, abused women, veterans, American Indians/other minorities, and families whose children are displaced because they can't afford housing. She pointed out that only 8% of the users are substances abusers. The largest percentage of the users are disabled, and the next largest percent are the working poor.

Bob Marshall, City Vision, said City Vision is a new organization and they do not have the resources to assist in the solution to the homeless problem. However, if the Governor permits the use of the Armory for the next year, the participants of City Vision would volunteer to assist the Council in this matter, either to reach out to the neighborhoods or to facilitate reaching a solution.

Walter Clark, business owner on Petaluma Hill Road, explained why he believes the shelter should be broken up into smaller groups so that all areas will have a shelter (Healdsburg, Wikiup, etc.).

Elizabeth Basile also suggested that what is needed in Santa Rosa are drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs, subsidized rentals for people who are attempting to overcome their homeless situation, and mental hospitals since these are the causes of homeless.

Hearing no further comments, Mayor Condron closed the public hearing.

Councilmember Runyan discussed the efforts which have gone into a search for a new shelter, pointing out that this is not a new effort. He said that Council cannot depend on the possibility that Governor Davis will extend the use of the Armory. He said he favors the General Hospital site because it is an area that already serves homeless people. He noted that every community has a homeless problem and there is a need to constantly encourage the community at large to assist in this matter. He also noted that the City is not attempting to solve the homeless problems of the entire County. This City is only addressing about 10% of the problems, and those are the ones which exist within Santa Rosa. He suggested that a search needs to be made as to what the best practices are throughout the country. He discussed the need for institutions for people with mental disabilities. He stated that most of the homeless people who are causing the problems in neighborhoods are not the ones who are using the shelters. He closed by stating that by keeping the shelter on A Street, the homeless people will be more focused in that area and will not be meandering throughout the neighborhoods.

Councilmember Evans said she is not prepared at this time to say what site she would favor for a shelter. She discussed her concerns that a public hearing regarding this matter was not held until now, realizing that this issue has been underway for many years. She stated that having one singles homeless shelter is not going to solve the problem. She also stated that it is very clear that additional services are needed such as drug/alcohol-related services, transitional housing, permanent housing, etc. She spoke about her tour today of the Homeless Services Center and the Family Support Center, noting that she was impressed with both operations, with the needs they are filling, and with the staff who are providing those services. She said that while she is a supporter of the Downtown and has been involved in many of the Downtown projects, and her business is Downtown, she is open to a homeless center being Downtown. It may, ultimately, be a place that is appropriate for the services. While she is not ready to make such a decision, if this area is pursued, the offer of assistance from the City Vision group should be taken up. She pointed to the need for more lighting and police patrol in the Morgan Street area and said that if the Downtown site is chosen, serious attention must be given to mitigate the negative impacts that will result.

Councilmember Vas Dupre commended the members of the audience for the way in which they conducted themselves. She also expressed appreciation to the Mayor for holding this meeting at a time when so many people could be present or watch the meeting on television. She discussed her involvement over the years with the Task Force for the Homeless and acknowledged them, as well as all of the other people (staff, Burbank Housing, etc.), who have been involved in attempting to find a solution to this problem. She pointed out that this issue has been compounded by other problems such as the existence of toxic wastes and by issues related to greed. These problems will have to be addressed and settled with assistance beyond what the City Council can provide. She noted that she is empathetic with those people who have had negative experiences because of the presence of homeless people. She said people will have to, and will, work together to resolve this situation.

Councilmember Rabinowitsh noted that this hearing has been very beneficial, pointing out the mutual respect and care for the community, and for the people who need assistance, that was evident. He said that if the issue of homelessness is not addressed by a permanent solution it will worsen. The people who will be served are those who are already in the community. He concurred that additional services must be provided (drug/alcohol-related, food) and problems related to security, lights, litter, etc., must be addressed. He indicated that the General Hospital site would be his preference since there are already some services available to some degree in that area. He discussed his advocacy of, and involvement with, Downtown issues, but pointed out that most of the homeless population live in the Downtown. He was not prepared to make a decision on the size of a shelter, but suggested that consideration should be given to reducing its size and to finding other locations throughout the community (i.e., churches). The search for other sites should continue, but at this time he thinks the most promising site is the General Hospital site. He discussed the need to work together (City, neighbors, non-profit organizations, and homeless people) in the attempt to find a solution.

Vice Mayor Martini concurred that it was important to hear the opinions of the community related to this issue. However, he was not surprised by those comments. He said that to suggest that there will not be impacts on any portion of the community to provide these services would be a fallacy. While the majority of the people who are homeless are good people, it only takes a small percentage of people to make it difficult for other people to operate. He reiterated some of the previous comments that efforts have been underway related to this issue for a very long time. He pointed out that while discussing this issue in terms of efficiency of service is important, that does not necessarily mean that is the best way of dealing with this problem. It is important to seek success as well as efficiency, which includes not only providing services for the homeless, but in preserving the neighborhoods. For this reason, when considering the two sites currently proposed, he is not willing to suggest that the shelter should be at the General Hospital site. If there could be a shift of some of the uses at the Kitchen or the Mission, he would consider this further. In addition, he is not willing to add a 150-bed shelter to that neighborhood. He would, however, be willing to consider, if the current Armory can be used for another year or more, establishing a 25- or 30-bed emergency shelter at the General Hospital while other sites are pursued. He would also be willing to consider resources for placing a 25- or 30-bed facility on Petaluma Hill Road, but that would stretch the resources. He would support finding out whether the County would be willing to use some of their facilities at the Fairgrounds on an emergency basis to provide 20 or 30 beds, and to ask the churches and community centers in the City to provide three, four, or five beds on an emergency basis. He said that while that may not be an efficient use of the resources, efficiency is not the only goal. In the short term, he is in favor of continuing to lobby with the Governor to keep the Armory open and looking to smaller service providers at the location she mentioned, as well as trying to expand what already exists.

Mayor Condron also expressed appreciation for those who participated in this meeting. She especially acknowledged Catholic Charities and the Interfaith Shelter Network for their services. She summarized the messages conveyed to Council at this meeting: greater efforts must be made on behalf of providing entry-level housing, that the entry-level housing that exists hasn't been affordable enough, and there is a need to address security issues in the Morgan Street neighborhood. She stated that while there is a need to continue lobbying for the use of the Armory, it will not be a permanent solution. She explained why she does not support the use of the General Hospital site for the shelter, citing the services that already exist there, as well as the many projects that are underway to enhance the Downtown, as some of her reasons. She said she would support the Petaluma Hill Road site. She would also consider supporting the dispersal of the shelter and services.

Councilmember Vas Dupre briefly referred to a public meeting that will be held Monday, February 1, at 4:00 p.m. at the City Hall Annex, 90 Santa Rosa Avenue, Second Floor Conference Room, for the purpose of receiving more information regarding this matter. Councilmembers are invited to attend. Mr. Burke clarified that after the opportunity to further consider the site on Sebastopol Road was lost, staff attended a meeting with the Homeless Task Force, at which time that group indicated an interest in forming a committee to continue to look at alternative sites. As a result, next Monday's meeting will involve a subcommittee of participants from the Homeless Task Force, representatives from the County and City, and some neighborhood representatives.

A brief discussion followed, after which Mr. Chouteau suggested that Council continue this matter to the meeting of February 2 as a Report item. Councilmember Evans said that she did not want to stop public discussion on this matter and reiterated some of her earlier comments about the importance of public input. Councilmember Rabinowitsh concurred and stated that there is a need to look at more options and to have more dialogue with the community before a decision can be made.

Mayor Condron pointed out that while the public hearing has been closed, as a report item, members of the public can speak for three minutes at that meeting.




Councilmember Evans said she met last week with Senator Chesbro and reiterated the overwhelming need for the continued use of the Armory. He committed to using his best efforts to get legislation passed for this purpose.

Councilmember Runyan said he and Mayor Condron met with Mark Kostielney, County Director of Health Services, and his staff regarding the ambulance program. He noted the need for Council to provide more input and said he wants more information regarding the impact of an emergency dispatch center. There are still a number of issues that need to be considered that are germane to Santa Rosa and it is his hope the City will have another opportunity to meet with the County regarding this matter before they make a decision that will impact the City.

Vice Mayor Martini expressed appreciation to the Council and members of the community for their support this last week following his wife's surgery. He said he will be unable to serve on the CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) Subcommittee this year and asked for a volunteer to take his place on that committee. It was noted that the first meeting is tomorrow morning from 9:00 to 11:00 a.m. Councilmember Vas Dupre noted that she is on the subcommittee, but it will be necessary for her to abstain when a couple of the applicants are considered since she is a member of their board. Following a brief discussion, Mayor Condron said she will serve in Vice Mayor Martini's place.

Councilmember Vas Dupre referenced her appointment to the Child Care Committee and said she was pleased to see the article in the newspaper regarding that issue (i.e., a major donor from Santa Rosa assisting Sonoma State University in helping parents become students). She requested that a Study Session be held regarding the construction that is occurring on hillsides and ridge tops in the City. She said she and Councilmember Rabinowitsh attended a meeting yesterday regarding the Bicycle Master Plan and brought forward the need for alternative transportation to be kept in mind when considering new projects in the City such as the remodeling of the County Museum, the Convention Center, etc. She also said she and Councilmember Rabinowitsh attended a meeting regarding the Santa Rosa Media Access Center. It is hoped that the Media Access Center will assist Santa Rosa City Schools in addressing the remedial needs and technological interests of students.

Mayor Condron said the Santa Rosa School Board has contacted her to schedule the quarterly joint meeting with the Council on February 8 at 4:00 p.m. If that date is feasible, the meeting will be held in the Mayor's Conference Room. Councilmember Vas Dupre reminded Council that the Town Hall meeting regarding transportation will be held at 3:15 p.m. on that day. Council concurred that 4:30 p.m. would be acceptable on that same date.

Mayor Condron said that she, Councilmembers Vas Dupre and Evans, and Mr. Blackman attended the joint meeting of the Santa Rosa School Superintendents to discuss issues related to safety. The Superintendents had received City Traffic Engineer Gene Benton's report related to pedestrian needs in the vicinity of the schools. She briefly noted that the Superintendents are in agreement with the direction the City wants to proceed and are willing to work with the City on this matter. She referred to the City Attorney's analysis of the proposed Patrick's Law and said that at the meeting with the School Superintendents, the recommendation was made that Mr. Chouteau meet with the County Attorney who services all of the School Districts to determine whether either something else could be written or approval could be granted to the language already submitted by the Council. She said that Mr. Chouteau will speak with Bob Henry regarding this matter. She discussed the importance of proceeding with getting this legislation passed.

Councilmember Evans suggested there may be a way that some local legislation could be enacted such as a Council policy, City ordinance, County ordinance, or some other such regulation to ensure that a situation similar to the one at Elsie Allen High School doesn't occur again. She suggested that Mr. Chouteau raise this possibility in his discussion with Mr. Henry.


Mr. Chouteau noted that this meeting will adjourn to a Closed Session to consider the topic which was added to the Agenda (i.e., additional litigation: Scott v. the City of Santa Rosa).


10.1 COMMUNICATION - League of California Cities Legislative Bulletin.

This item was provided for informational purposes only. At the suggestion of Councilmember Runyan, Council concurred that letters of opposition should be sent related to AB 83 (Home Based Businesses; Local Preemption).

10.2 COMMUNICATION - League of Women Voters re: Bay Area Workshop.

This item was provided for informational purposes only. Councilmember Vas Dupre said she will be attending the workshop and noted that the League of Women Voters will be conducting a two-year study of the impact that local decisions have on surrounding communities. They will be focusing on affordable Housing and will be requesting copies of the local General Plans. They will also be meeting with various Department Heads and City Managers on this issue. All interested persons are invited to attend.

10.3 COMMUNICATION - D. Richardson re: Opposition to Locating Permanent Homeless Center in Downtown Santa Rosa.

This item was provided for informational purposes only.

10.4 COMMUNICATION - Peterson Lane Neighbors re: Request to Add Marsh Road to List of Streets Needing Improvements for Pedestrians.

This item was provided for informational purposes only. The letter will be referred to Traffic Engineer Gene Benton so that he can conduct a review of the request.

10.5 COMMUNICATION - J. Seal re: Traffic Analysis of West County Transportation Agency Bus Facility.

See the discussion held earlier in the meeting for information regarding this item.

10.6 COMMUNICATION - Burbank Housing Development Corporation re: Proposal to Provide for the Development of Efficiency Units.

This item was provided for informational purposes. It will be referred to the Planning Commission since the proposal will have ramifications on density and planning requirements. Vice Mayor Martini noted that this issue has been raised before the Housing Subcommittee of the Council. He urged that comments be obtained from the Planning Commission, but stated that this is an issue the Council should be working on.

10.7 COMMUNICATION - G. Johnson re: Council Study Sessions.

This item was provided for informational purposes only.

At this time Mayor Condron referred to the meeting with Mark Kostielney and his staff regarding the ambulance program and said that Mr. Kostielney wants Council's input, invited Council to comment on any of the materials they've received related to the proposals, and offered to speak to the Council before the County moves forward with the proposals. The County has established a team that will make the decision, but is willing to receive any recommendations from the Council.


Hearing no further business, the Mayor adjourned the meeting to a Closed Session at approximately 10:40 p.m.


There being no announcements to make after the Closed Session, the Mayor adjourned the meeting to the next regularly scheduled meeting to take place on February 2, 1999, at a time to be set by the Mayor.