Monday, April 30, 2018

S.R. City Council Agenda - May 2nd

Greetings!

Once again, our thanks to our friend Anne Seeley, of Concerned Citizens For Santa Rosa, for her analysis of the May 2nd City Council agenda.

Friends:    There is no Study Session before this 4PM meeting.

6 Proclamations and Presentations
  6.1  Proclamation of Water Awareness Month and Water-Use Efficiency Awards.   This is great recognition for people and businesses who have gone to extra lengths to save water.

Report
  14.2 Approval of the Preliminary 2018/19 Subregional System Operating, Capital Improvement, Debt Services Budget and Allocation of Costs.
  The Subregional System, operated by the City of Santa Rosa by agreement, serves Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park, Cotati, Sebastopol and the South Park Sanitation District.  The Laguna Treatment Plant processes 21.34 Million Gallons per Day (MGD) of sewage into treated Water that is sent to the Geysers for injection to produce steam to run its power plants.
   Annually, the Santa Rosa Council considers the costs involved in order to notify member agencies of their allocations of costs by May 2.

5PM Public Hearings
  15.1 Resilient City Development Measures.  They meant to address this last week, but a group of very unhappy homeless people who had been evicted from their camp in Roseland effectively ended the Council meeting before this could be considered.
   After the fires, staff wrote this document to speed up the processing of projects through the City's Planning Department.  It initially really concerned me because it removed many proposals from the usual public review opportunities (Planning Commission and the Design Review Board) and gave many more final decisions to the Zoning Administrator, a person whom I'd never seen identified.
  After more review, I see that the projects removed from Design Review's oversight are more minor uses.  Any projects that rise to higher concern are supposed to be elevated to Planning Commission and DRB.  This is a weak point, in which one administrator gets to decide what's of concern.
    If any of you have greater concerns about this document than I do, please let me know.

See you there!   Anne

-- 
Anne Seeley
Please note my new email address: aseeleysr@gmail.com
Tel: (707) 526-3925
Mobile (707) 484-8722

Saturday, February 10, 2018

District Elections Questions

Greetings!

There are three incumbent city councilpersons whose terms are up in November; John Sawyer, Chris Coursey, and Tom Schwedhelm.  Once district elections are adopted in April, candidates for this Fall's elections will be required to live in the districts selected for election.


  • Unless the districts where these three incumbents live are selected, or unless they move to districts which were selected for election, they will be unable to run.
  • All incumbents may run in districts in which they reside, regardless of whether their terms are up for election in 2018.  Upon their election, they would begin a new four-year term, and the Council would select a replacement for the remainder of their current term.
    • Tom Schwedhelm is the only incumbent living in the northwestern portion of the City.
    • Chris Coursey lives in the Junior College area of the City which, if combined with the Luther Burbank area, would include the home of Chris Rogers.
    • John Sawyer lives in the Bennett Valley area of the City, which also includes the homes of Jack Tibbetts and Julie Combs.
  • The City Council may select districts in which no incumbent resides.  Areas including east of the Junior College all the way to Oakmont, South Park, Roseland, and almost the entire western portion of the City south of Piner Road qualify.  In that case, no current incumbents would be eligible to run.
  • The possibilities include:
    • No incumbents running for office, all open districts.
    • Tom Schwedhelm and two open districts..
    • Chris Coursey and two open districts.
    • John Sawyer and two open districts.
    • Two or three above incumbents running, one open district.
    • Tom Schwedhelm running, John Sawyer running against Jack Tibbetts, Julie Combs or Chris Rogers (or all three), and Chris Coursey running against Chris Rogers.
    • Two of the three scenarios above, plus an open district.
I am sure there will be other possibilities for candidacies, dependent on decisions the Council will make.

So far, Tom Schwedhelm and Victoria Fleming had filed their intentions to run in 2018 with the City Clerk.


Sunday, January 21, 2018

S.R. City Council Agenda January 23rd

Greetings!

Once again, our thanks to our friend Anne Seeley, of Concerned Citizens For Santa Rosa, for her analysis of the January 23rd City Council agenda.

Friends:

   There is no study session before this 4PM meeting
4PM
10.2  Matters From Council Regarding Future Agenda Items
   10.2.1 At the January 9 Council meeting Vice Mayor Chris Rogers requested an agenda item to discuss development in areas that were affected by the fires. Mayor Coursey seconded the request. They will discuss and vote  on whether to have this open, public discussion on new versus 'rebuild' development in areas that have burned multiple times.
  This is crucial as it will guide policy decisions and votes on individual proposals.
Consent
 12.1 Ordinance to Prezone Property at 3747 and 3753 Chanate Road.  They deadlocked on this (3 to 3 with 1 Council member absent) at their last meeting.

Report
  14.1 District-based Elections: Composition of Districts - Rescheduling of Public Hearings.
     The Council had embarked on its planned 5 public hearings before the fires, holding one on October 3 of last year.  Now the City Attorney recommends they they start over, with the first 2 hearings on February 6 and 13, before any maps are drawn up.  The last 3 hearings are recommended to be held on March 13, April 3 and April 10, intended for the public to comment on the draft maps of districts.
   The Council's deliberations must be complete in time to hold a November, 2018 City Council election using the new system.
   They are undertaking this project because the City is assumed to be in violation of the California Voting Rights Act, and has been threatened with a potentially costly lawsuit if it doesn't act. 

See you there!
Anne

Additionally, there are upcoming items on the agendas of the Housing Authority and the Bord of Community Services this week.  The Housing Authority will hear a staf report on the Journey's End Mobile Home Park on Monday at noon in the Council Chambers.  The Board of Community Services will have a final hearing on the Master Plan for the Roseland Creek Park on Wednesday at 4pm at the Finley Center.

Next week's (January 30th) City Council meeting agenda contains the following reports:

15.1 REPORT - ESTABLISH A HOUSING FIRST FUND (LANDLORD INCENTIVES, RISK MITIGATION, TENANT ASSISTANCE), AND HOUSING FIRST HOMELESS SERVICES AND FAMILY SUPPORT CENTERS

BACKGROUND: On July 11, 2017, Council, by motion, confirmed its direction on homeless services programing, including but not limited to the creation of a fund to provide landlord incentives, risk mitigation, and tenant assistance (Housing First Fund). Staff has collaborated with Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Santa Rosa (Catholic Charities) to develop a budget, in the amount of $512,000, and is seeking Council’s interest in supporting a Housing First Fund.

On November 14, 2017, Council approved a Grant Agreement for Homeless Services Center with Catholic Charities, in the amount of $100,000, for the period of November 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018 to expand the program’s hours of operation as part of the City’s Homeless Encampment Assistance Pilot Program. Council also directed staff to return with a budget and program to align the Homeless Services Center with the Housing First model for further consideration. Based on direction given by Council to staff on July 11, 2017, an evaluation of all City-sponsored programs in alignment with Housing First was to be completed as part of the Homeless System of Care Redesign, which is currently underway. Following Council’s direction on July 11, 2017 and November 14, 2017, staff has collaborated with Catholic Charities to develop budgets for two City-sponsored programs, Homeless Services Center ($259,000) and Family Support Center ($210,000), and is seeking Council’s interest in aligning these programs with the Housing First model.

Staff also seeks approval to amend the Fiscal Year 2017/2018 adopted budget within the General Fund and Homeless Shelter Operations Fund to appropriate funding for these purposes in the total amount of $981,000.

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended by the Housing and Community Services Department that the Council, by resolution, approve the following 1) creation of a Housing First Fund to provide landlord incentives, risk mitigation, and tenant assistance; 2) alignment of the Homeless Services Center, a City-sponsored program operated by Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Santa Rosa, with the Housing First model; 3) alignment of the Family Support Center, also a City-sponsored program operated by Catholic Charities, with the Housing First model; and 4) amend the Fiscal Year 2017/2018 adopted budget within the General Fund and Homeless Shelter Operations Fund to appropriate funding for these purposes in the total annual amount of $981,000.

15.2 REPORT - HOUSING FIRST-FOCUSED SAFE PARKING AND CAMPING, COMMUNITY HOMELESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (CHAP) BACKGROUND: On November 21, 2017, Council confirmed its interest in exploring Safe Parking and Camping, specifically a Housing First-focused program on a single City-sponsored site plus support to sites on private property through the Community Homeless Assistance Program (CHAP), which allows for safe parking and camping among other activities, and directed staff to return with a program proposal for further consideration. Staff has consulted with Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Santa Rosa (Catholic Charities), former operator of a Safe Parking Program, to develop a preliminary program model with cost estimates and is seeking confirmation from Council regarding its interest to support a Housing First-focused Safe Parking and Camping Program plus support to private sites as part of the Community Homeless Assistance Program (CHAP).

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended by the Housing and Community Services Department that the Council, by motion, provide direction on shelter expansion through a Housing First-focused Safe Parking and Camping Program to include a City-sponsored site plus support to private sites as part of the Community Homeless Assistance Program (CHAP).

Gregory

Thursday, November 9, 2017

Joint City/County Meeting this week

Greetings!

From Scott, a very keen observer of our citizen engagement:

For those who weren't at the joint meeting of the Sonoma Board of Supervisors and the Santa Rosa City Council, the below is a mildly meandering, semi-eternal attempt at opinionated meeting minutes that veers eventually to a screed on activism, citizenry, and my personal regret at my behavior. I apologize for any confusing sarcasms and lack of clarity.

This was an important meeting, perhaps historic for Sonoma county– not for what they did, but for what they didn't do. In the immediate aftermath of this meeting, Santa Rosa announced a renewed attack on the homeless at 6th street. The people in tents, sheltered from the rain, are to be helped by being evicted and scattered, so they can enjoy new shelter digs where available, whether they can stand shelters or not; and so they can get lots of great services they'd want if they only knew what was good for them. That announcement, deftly delivered on the sly, is an apt coda to the wary uncertainty I felt about intentions during the whole joint meeting. I couldn't help sensing the other shoe hadn't dropped. The feeling defines the evening for me. 

It wasn’t the content of the meeting, which was slippery and earnest, with the ritual nodding in unison about progress and challenge, using interchangeable phrases and broad-brushed topics to parade, one at a time, the officials' senses of urgency. All very normal. But a much larger, entirely unreasonable proportion of the meeting time than usual was spent on such catharsis and good-cheer whitewash. A month into this, and they still seem stunned. In the almost two hours before public comment, almost nothing tangible or actionable was said. Vanishingly few pointed or intelligent questions by officials; controversy either banned from view or seen as nonexistent; no clear demarcation of approaches or mention of specific risks. No discussion of agriculture (or business at all), or examples of crisis/finance/homeless excellence from elsewhere, or the roughest of detail on homelessness status/plans, or a hint of financing scenarios (in an involved financial context.) About a dozen black and brown faces in the crowd total, counting photographers (the half-dozen or so Latino commissions Sonoma county maintains are needing pay raises, apparently, or they had the night off. Too bad; they all missed the thin, impromptu old-white-liberal cheer and applause about the annexation of Roseland.) OH, I forgot (the mayor intoned at one point), it's a historic meeting of the council and supervisors, like, I don't– in my  27 years– have we even done this bef– I mean, wow– y'all, this is a big day. And look, you were here for it, wow. We're being momentous. Just by sitting here, with our name tags on. And you're going to have a li'l ol' part of it all rub off on you, too, just you wait. I mean, look at all the cameras.

About a quarter of us didn't have seats, and the room was full, at capacity: gawd help us if they'd've actually advertised the meeting adequately, so that a reasonable amount of people had come (total was probably about 250 or so, roughly one for every 2,000  adult citizens.) First, after the predictable intonements of historicity and urgency and unification, we stared together at the video of a re-virgining of a residential lot (in Wikiup, I think). It went on for a few minutes, from nice angles, courtesy of a drone pilot. The lot was getting watered down and smoothed over, and it was all better, it'll have a house on it probably in a few business days, bam; that's how we roll, it was almost inferred; we've, like, done shit like this up and down California and to infinity and beyond ad nauseum, this is gonna succeed like you're not gonna even want to beg me to stop being sick of suc–

To anyone other than a Sonoma county native, the video would've been boring and stupid; we were all hushed and excited, naturally pleased to see something/anything that didn’t look like a scene from the zombie apocalypse. We all tacitly agreed this was good news, like the first tendril making its way to the surface, not even green yet. Bad stuff all gone. Deadline in two weeks, by the way, for people to fill out their permission slips for the re-virgined lots, you're fools if you don't sign up to be so smoothly unyuckified...yet only a third of the lot owners have agreed so far– no discussion on these 3,000+ non-responses as a problem, no discussion of any related action items. A two-foot-high stack of the permission forms were dumped on the greeter desk during the meeting, and were left there after the greeter was gone. I saw them as I left. Give them to your friends!, let's all move on this. Like, together.

With the cleanup proceeding so clearly miraculously well (nothing else about the cleanup- high-level milestone steps, etc.– were  mentioned in this "update," other than one unreadable slide which seemed to be designed to convey it was too complicated for laymen to involve themselves), and a happy, high-level smudge in place of even the teensiest timing or data or risk or cost detail, there were very few questions asked by our representatives, none difficult. I'm afraid I don't remember what the FEMA fellow said during his five minutes, sorry. Discussion then swerved to agenda item 2, the barest of skeletons to hang a county's hopes on: hey y'all, we might be able to raise money in a new, cool way, prolly save some money (oh, really??) doing it in this zippysnake way we can't fully explain here, it's so complicated, wish we could, but it'll be waaay better than a bond measure, it's hella modern, moguls figured out how to get something for nearly nothing that hardly anybody pays for, just the people who benefit, in 90 easy payments (2x/year for 45 years, out of victim's future taxes). At this mess of pottage, a mild bit of musical chairs logically before we're all nodding in unison again; token symbolic/clueless objections/concerns, to project earnestness, no numbers or forecasts in sight or asked for. More nods in unison. 

I left the meeting having no faith that our leaders had a firm sense of direction or priority. Platitudes were used like Survivor tokens through the three agenda items (cleanup status, financing, homelessness status.) No initial impressions of costs or options of any of it, nor basic scenarios, nor even a broadbrush breakdown of the 2-4+ billion cost estimates. No sources and uses of funds, as it's so embarrassingly, starkly termed in the real world; no sense how it all might merge with or work with or overlap with other private or public state/federal funds or loans.

We did get a 'fire subcommittee' of leaders that we need to make decisions and coordinate research (actually set up before the meeting and announced), with at least two members (Julie Combs, Susan Gorin) who will hopefully help us balance prudence, clarity, and aggressive action the way we must to pull this off well
(think planning department...and who is this fire subcommittee's chair? That'll end up vital, and wasn't mentioned.) This is a group that needs to be watched, bless their earnest little hearts: here is a whole new level of challenge beyond the usual of managing large vineyard developments and kowtowing to NIMBY annoyance from homeless people under a bridge in winter. I see reams of hours sitting with those 5 in our future; or perhaps we'll meekly let them get away with closed or 'informal' (non-public) sessions. Are we as citizens up to the task of managing these oft-errant officials on the biggest task of their political careers?

Public comment eventually did befall our representatives. We're the equivalent of a used condom at public meetings: we're what's left over after the excitement of earnest pronouncements, and muted assurances of re-electability. Cue the practiced pallor of distraction and irritation so common on the supervisors during public comment time; you can watch them shut down mentally as it begins. No one could be pleased, it seemed, even in these dark times, that we have so many who wish to share often carefully wrought ideas, on such an important subject. Instead, it was addressed as a mandatory above-average public management nightmare that all these people wanted to speak– and 90 seconds, as Santa Rosa's mayor assured us in a scolding tone, after not even attempting to hide his usual exasperation at the speaker count, is more than enough to convey whatever the hell it is that a citizen who's going to be ignored anyway can have to say. 

The controlling and shaming tone of the mayor; the hurry and bluster over every ten seconds of delay (OMG, she's going to try to get her written statement's last paragraph out! Who does she think she is?); the chiding insistence that the lords and ladies weren't to be impeded in their offices by more than 90 seconds by any given citizen, and that number not a bit slapdash, and not to be appended to or, heaven forbid, extended by applause or noise of any kind. Courtesy is the lubricant of administrative miracles, with disorder and delay the very ribs of devilry, and he wasn’t going to have it. And this schoolmarming by our betters was tolerated and obeyed by us and the officials alike as the norm, even when it went so far as the mayor saying that we “were taking away time” from other citizens if we made for unnecessary delays from speaker or non-speaker extended chatter, or questions, or consternations, or concerns. Think a moment: did he mean he was going to not allow the final speaker, or have the last guy only speak 17 seconds because other citizens wasted 73 seconds total, with reactions and opinions and other devilry, and recompense had to follow upon the public? Was he doing the math, like a soccer ref, keeping track of penalty delays and subtracting? Or maybe it was one of his assistants…what the fuck is it about public service that makes us nearly instantly so incurious and know-it-all, so incapable of sensing whom and why we serve, even when those we serve are fighting ruin and worse? Why, the instant one is elevated to speak on behalf of the People, do we lose the ability to sit still and pay attention to the gold, dross, rumor, silver, and chattel that comprises the minds of the mix of concerned, involved citizens? Where the fuck do people get off not only thinking we're supposed to put up with that shit from a public official, but we're to like it, to reward it with obedience and respect? I will not; I cannot. 

I say that, and yet, in an important way, we were no better than this rude, thoughtless mayor. Of course our homeless are to be swept away, to somewhere invisible; we're getting sucked right into this cattle chute that’s so alluring at the moment. We might ascribe our activists’ joint and several silences at the meeting to the civic unity we all want, to commit ourselves as a team and solve a grave emergency well. Instead, I fear we’re simply well schooled, like those who stayed away and those who always stay silent, thinking their voice doesn’t matter. We were afraid to seem as crazy or impractical as Peter, the vegetarian/evangelical/conspiracist, who stormed out in the middle, after a God-tinged pronouncement about faithlessness and hypocrisy and Article 21. I only hope we don't look back in a year and realize that his was the nearest to the right response of all of us. We should be frightened much more easily than we are out of this meekness when our public servants mix this imperious dominion with such a mush of do-gooder smarminess. Which of us stood and cried, "Are you still planning on destroying the homes at 6th street?" And which of us, hearing that, would've shouted along, until they had to answer a simple fucking question, one that they knew we would ask if we knew the depths of their manipulation? And what would we have done if they had answered yes? Would we have boo'd for 30 seconds, and murmured to ourselves about fighting them some coming day, on some related subject? What good, exactly, would any of that do for the homeless under the 6th street bridge, who lose their home next Tuesday? They risk their health and all their comfort in this fight against inequality: what do I risk when I speak out? 

Quiet we were, though, and patient, through what on balance ended up a waste of time, outside of much of the public commentary, a couple of decent official's questions, and one or two practical statements. The citizen's reward for our individual attention, care, and consideration was that 90 seconds we had to speak at the supervisors while they dealt with other issues (as is their wont. Most of the councilpersons, in contrast, were relatively quite attentive.) For the supervisors don't see it as their job to listen during public comment, much less communicate; their presence is what we pay for, no more. In the shadow of disaster, that disrespect and inattentiveness is a terrible trait to exhibit, with an unknown new spike of risk slathered atop the risk we've constantly dealt with from it. Supervisors don't have an alternate magic or telepathic means of gaining the mind of the citizenry during emergency, when a sense of reality at the ground level is so urgent and so hard to see. Or do they seek the minds of others behind the scenes instead, with thoughts that seem more worthy? 

An *utter* lack of discussion or engagement with any citizen, for or against any suggestion, no matter how prepared the speaker, or how experienced, or professional, or pointed, or pertinent. No questions: "I'm sorry, I didn't catch your last." "How do you think we should finance this, then?" "Will you speak with me after, please?" No comments, stern or kind; not a one. No spoken thank yous I heard, other than the one used unremittingly as a broom by the mayor, to scoot the unwashed rapidly away when their widow’s mite of time had vanished. No recommendations explicitly acknowledged as helpful, or important. No notes taken of ideas, not that I could see; no sum up of any ideas, no agenda or potential agenda items proffered from any citizen words. No criticism, pointed or poor, answered with even a word. 

None of the many excellent points about process, finance, direction, concerns or priority brought up in public commentary will be reflected in the minutes, either, for us to take up as a cause, between events. Just the names of the speakers will show in minutes, like the names of the long-dead on tombstones, the rest of their story lost forever. No human interaction with the People even in crisis, beyond that required by a jaundiced interpretation of the Brown Act, with the common twisting of its brilliant, clear first two paragraphs, where two-way communication and clarity as to the officials' minds is spoken of as the hallmark of a democratic republic, with public comment time as the principle's chief diadem. No; instead, the hurried, impatient tones of a man beyond his depth, shuffling us along. 

It may go swimmingly from here; I just doubt it. It's hard to not feel nervous about the disorganization, the lack of useful handholds of information, and the willfully impatient, removed attitude of our representatives. I see a government poised to turn to counsel far from the citizenry, with the predictable waste, cruelty, and delay. 

Like the out-of-state homeless consultant, a hero beribboned while I was asleep, apparently, who has been around the block so many times that he knows everything (he's been to Houston!, he fixed Houston). This guy made his visual interpretation of our local homeless and mental health and drug/alcohol help, our Latino and indigenous and women’s services and shelters and city responses to poverty and inequality, which have many, many fine dimensions, look like a homeless management crisis only he can fix, while he cluck-clucked about marching to lousy drummers and urged a vague, miraculous "consolidation" (fully 3/4 of the listed "silos" will not, cannot, must not, be wiped away or smushed into other things– and why only list two city councils?, he could've made, like, 11 little city council silos, made us look hella more jangled and skittish– a missed opportunity on his hit job.)

For my money, that guy was a classically scary McNamara type, to be shrunk from. No details out of him, of course– not needed; we're being high level here, being strategic– just a clean, strong thrust about waste and mismanagement and efficiency, and a useless fucking diagram of jumbled mumbly-circles (without even an "after", streamlined and snazzy version of the diagram bothered with! Pfft.) TONS of money will be saved, you see, when we stop all this hurdy-gurdy homelessness money from leaking into the pockets of misguided hippies and tricksters, none of whom ever fixed Houston. There's no boss here in SoCo! It's madness! I've never seen it so badly organized in all my years (he actually said that, the numbskull.) There'll be one desk, presumably, finally, for any issue touching upon homelessness– ladies, crime, mental health, affordable housing, drugs, training, families, physical health, jobs, you name it– one guy, and one big, awkward, all-fitting sign: SOCOHOMELESSNESS ET AL-R-US-24-HRS-MORE IS LESS. You just go on in, talk to the guy, he does it all, a fucking GENIUS (and cheap), it's gonna be one stop, no waste, you come out wit h a home or your money back just like in Houston...listening to that manipulative fool and his eager disciple, one could sense the risk of a massive restructuring that can justify and twist "consolidation" into cost-cutting, "streamlining", giant dumbass inflexible shelter projects, or anything you can sell in 10 syllables or less. That schtick felt like about 3/4 bullshit, and it comes with a  free bonus of many opportunities to obfuscate the desperate need for massive, creative, aggressive, many-pronged, long-term investment. Hopefully, mostly through NGO's we have cross-cooperating readily now, so it doesn't implode on itself in an orgy of new and big and crazy. 

Our officials can turn to the usuals, as well. Our tourism interests, say, who are so good at eliminating homeless people from sight via police or politician. Or maybe our elected officials will listen to the developers, so eager to spit out their thin tithe of their developments as affordable housing that aren't at all affordable, who gladly pay the bribes of monstrous fees for the privilege, tacking them gaily onto the price of the “affordable units.”  Or bond peddlers may get their ear, with far-flung, slimy precedents, in their new or old clothes (hint: the new structure they were selling is essentially a specialized bond issuance, just a different security/backing type, with awesome fees for investment banks and crazy long amortization for delayed payback. Might work, but limited in potential size; mostly looks like a politically expedient way of immaturely avoiding the need to immediately mount the case for a very large bond issuance. Which will come soon enough. I doubt they'll be able to raise near enough with such a structure. Stay tuned.)

Why should these, our old moneyed masters, lose their place at the table merely over crisis? As Peter the evangelist might say right about now, we are being sent forth as sheep among wolves, so be as wise as serpents. Greg Fearon tried to say to them, in his 90 seconds, that this is the time to listen closely to us, to hew to the citizenry. Alas, our first tangible insight into their mind is that they seem to have timed the announcement of the 4th/5th/6th street purge so it couldn't conflict with the smooth jazz we heard all night about togetherness and courtesy and brevity– precisely to avoid hearing the mind of the People. 

It appears our world is still to be arranged for us in back rooms. One day on, I already deeply regret being so damn polite. What the heck was I doing sitting there like a backbencher, sotto voce with my frustrations? People ten seats away couldn't hear me at my loudest. Was I saving my political capital for when it might count, for when I can wrangle a first-name basis with them, speak softly, and be respected enough to be heard? What was I thinking?

Friday, October 20, 2017

S.R. City Council Agenda Oct 24th

Greetings!

An hour ago, the full agenda for next week's Santa Rosa City Council was posted.  I have been watching the City website since the City's self-imposed posting deadline passed at 5pm yesterday.  Each hour today, more items received their staff reports, and new items appeared.  With the legal devastation of the district elections lawsuit, and the physical devastation of the fires, our City has had quite a set of whirlwinds on its plate.

The first indication of change came last week when the preliminary agenda contained an item  recommending the Council delay further public hearings on the district elections "until the citizens of Santa Rosa are fully capable of participating in the process".  I wondered then if City staff would be prepared for the questions which would be asked about whether that delay would result in the lawsuit it feared when it decided to change to district elections.

The final agenda has eliminated that recommendation, and the list of future Council meetings includes additional public hearings at the original pace.

The last item to be added to the agenda today:

  1. Responds to the need for reconstruction of parcel properties damaged by the fire, by adopting an three-year ordinance overlaying a special zoning district in the impacted areas of the City which allows property owners to obtain all waived development fees, process their permits through an expedited review absent of any hearings, avoid the development of any environmental impact reports, and construct or place "trailers, recreational vehicles, manufactured homes, tiny homes, and similar configurations" on their properties prior to and during re-construction of their homes or commercial properties; 
  2. Encourages the inclusion of granny units and small independent units built within the existing house footprint by waiving fees; and 
  3. Blocks price gouging in rental units throughout the City "as long as the City remains under a federal, state, or local declaration of emergency, provided, however, that notwithstanding a state of emergency, this Ordinance shall not extend beyond April 18, 2018 unless otherwise authorized by law".
Of course, there are other interesting items on the agenda.  These include: 
  • Adopting and approving the City's Salary Schedule; 
  • Approving the costs of the Annexation of Roseland, the agreements transferring housing projects and multi-year funds from the County, and establishing a new City/County District to transition South Park into the City's utility financing rates;
  • Establishing the salary, job description, and title of a Communications and Intergovernmental Relations Officer;
  • Approving straight-time overtime for exempt employees, lifting the vacation accrual limits, and establishing a disaster leave while the City is in a state of emergency. 
It appears that City staff are responding quickly to their needs to assist residents to rebuild.

  

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Interactive Fire Map

Greetings!

This is a useful map, which should be shared with your family and friends trying to understand our situation.

http://sonomamap.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2089db8e15c04be886f6d4f8daf7b13f

Gregory

S.R. City Council Agenda, Oct 10th

Greetings!

Thanks again to our friend, Anne Seeley, of Concerned Citizens For Santa Rosa, and her report on this week's City Council Agenda. 

The meeting has been postponed until Wednesday, Oct 11th, and  the District Elections Public Hearing until next Tuesday, October 17th:

Friends:

  There is no Study Session before the 4PM meeting.

Consent
   There are 2 Consent agenda items asking the Council to approve payments made to contractors in the past which were made incorrectly, without the usual system, but in which the equipment has already been installed.  Essentially, retroactive approvals.

5PM Public Hearing
 15.1 District-based City Council Elections: Compositions of Districts (California Voting Rights Act).   
Why is this happening?   First, the City received a letter from an attorney who has been successful in suing other cities at their great cost, alleging violations of the California Voting Rights Act. When the cities lose the court cases, they have to pay millions in public money to cover attorney expenses, the litigant's and their own..
   Second, Santa Rosa has been ripe for District Elections (DE), as it has annexed a 700 plus acre area in the Southwest, wherein much of the City's Latino population lives.  Spreading the political power in the City, in addition to lowering to a large extent the cost of running for City Council, is the aim.   

   This is the 2nd hearing of 5 to be held. Last week citizens came forward with ideas of what guidelines should and should not be used in the new mapping of districts.
    At this hearing, the same will happen, but with the likely addition of suggestions from several groups for where the lines should be drawn for the districts.
    After this hearing, City staff and the demographic consultant they hired will draw some draft maps and they will be available for the public to comment on.
 Check on the City's website (https://srcity.org) for the maps to see what will be presented to the Council on November 1, at the next Public Hearing.
See you there!
Anne